That notice of this meeting has been provided to the public in accordance with the provisions of the public meetings act that notices published city website copies provided bergen record el special nostar ledger jurgy journal also
placed on a bulletin board in the lobby of city hall. Any objections if any shall be made to the city clerk. Let's rise for the salute of the flag of America to the republic for it standy. What's happening?
>> That was quite a >> We can't even say the pledge of allegiance. Dear city clerk fina, please be advised that a council as council president of the city of Hobok and I hereby call a special meeting of the governing body called for Monday,
January 5th, 2026 to begin promptly at 7 p.m. for the following purposes. Special meeting on January 5th, 2026, starting at 700 p.m. Council Chamber, City Hall, located 94 Washington Street, Hobok, New Jersey.
Uh, zoning appeal 2011 203 Adam Street, Monday, January 5th, 20 26 at 700 p.m. in the council's chambers of city vulcan. Resolution from the administration authorizing the execution
memorandum of an agreement with PSOA finance department resolution authorizing temporary appropriations for calendar [snorts] year 2026 transportation resolution awarding a contract to Epic Management in the
amount of $31,977,000 for the Midtown garage rehabilitation project funded by B621 claims 1,93,2027. There'll be a public portion and action will be taken on other matters that will
be discussed and acted upon at this meeting. Please ensure that the city council members are notified of the special meeting according with the applicable laws and rules and also please publicly notice the special meeting as required by the open piv
public meeting act and JSA 10 col 40-6 very truly yours Jim Doyle council president >> thank you Mr. Fina >> roll call Mr. cone here.
>> Miss Fischer. >> I'm here on the phone. >> Mrs. Imus >> here. >> Mrs. Yabbor >> here. >> President Xano >> here. >> Present. >> Mr. Ramos >> present.
>> Mr. Russo. President Doyle. >> Present. >> Mr. Russo is absent. and he had a death in his family and he couldn't be with us tonight. >> Thank you, Mr. Pina. Um, we're going to suspend the agenda and do the three
resolutions first and then we will do the special meeting with regard to the appeal of the zoning board. So, um I don't know if we have we are going to have a public portion on the resolution.
So, uh, if if we have any people signed up for the three, give Manny a moment. [snorts] [snorts] Thank you, Mr. Mr. Lure. Uh,
uh, so on on Mr. Vance on T1. >> Good evening, council members. I'm Jim Vance. Um, I have been talking about um
the parking problem and the traffic problem and the problems in general uh related to um the huge number of automobiles in this town.
Um in in late 18 or late 1700s, Thomas Jefferson sent Louiswis and Clark to the Pacific Ocean to find a
um passage through the Northwest. Well, there wasn't one, but the way they went there was on boat and foot and and on beast of burden because mankind had forever gotten around on foot and boat
and beast of burden. And shortly after that, the railroads came and the steamboat, steam engine powered all this. And then we in [clears throat] the 1950s threw a lot of that over and and
uh uh decided to get around in automobiles. Um when I was a kid, we came up at Jersey Turnpike from down at Fort Belvar, Virginia, where my father was stationed to Long Island and see friends in Long Island. And we were we
were basically on the New Jersey Turnpike and the concrete hadn't even set up yet for all practical purposes. That was 75 years ago. Um, here we are looking at what we're going to do with
regard to the automobile and it's overwhelmed us. We have congestion. We have pollution. We have a lot of problems. We have 40,000 people a year killed on our highway. And and I'm sitting here looking at we're going to
spend $32 million to rehab this garage and then we have a whole bunch of other garages falling down and we're probably going to spend a hundred plus million dollars on those and before it's over we'll probably be spending $150 million
to warehouse cars. Um I I would hope there would be some vision in this town uh that would start questioning whether for the next 75 years our children, our grandchildren
um with warehouses for cars and the pollution and the congestion and all that comes with it. Um, this project is well along uh to try to say, "Hold on a second. Let's stop this and maybe how much could you build in the way of housing for $32
million?" We have a housing crisis. I'm not so sure we have a car crisis that's more important than the housing crisis. At any rate, um I want to I dearly hope that we see some vision from the new
administration and from this city council with regard to how to to really approach the transportation problem, which is what we have in this in this city. Um there's lots of ways to approach it. Right now you can buy a
hunting license for $52 a year or a little more dollar a week to drive around in circles hunting for a parking space. Um maybe we ought to because we have a parking problem. Well, we have a parking problem at that price. We have
14,000 parking stickers and 7,000 places along the curve. Um that's really out of whack. um bicycles, pedestrians, um kids going to school. We [snorts] really
need and it's a small town. New York City has done congestion pricing. Other places have done an awful lot to make the place work for everybody. Maybe you raise the price of the parking sticker uh to I don't know whatever it is, say maybe $1,000 a year and take
that money and put it all in the hop and expand the hop exponentially. Run it all day, all night, run it up and down Main Street. We have a big problem there with regard to to double parking or abandoning
your car in the middle of travel lanes and running into stores. Maybe that's a solution. It's time we got creative about it. There's a study on curb use. That's a good start. Um, but do we really want to spend $150 million
building warehouses for cars in this town? I don't think so. And I'd appreciate some some exciting new ideas to move forward on it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Vance. Uh, Manuel Rivera Soler.
[snorts] >> Good evening, Council President. Uh, happy new year to you. Happy New Year to the council, members of the public. Uh, Council President, just a few points um on this agenda or this resolutions, pardon me. Um A1
I'm going to ask questions on F1 and FT meaning the whole agenda but I want to make my questions clear and concise. If you council president and the council can please give a better um or a a
clearer uh understanding in regards to A1. I see that um when I went to look at it um it's very scarce in details. Um the only questions that would be there is what what if any language that's
negotiated has been um defined or has been agreed upon this council or the administration. Um and what would be if any changes can you give any examples should should there be any? Um uh I'm going to skip F1.
Uh again I'm assuming that that's money that you're moving um for 2026. Uh, and I would like to move again to T1. T1 is interesting, Council President, because I would like to see if members of the public can get a clearer picture again on this. The amount is pretty pretty
steep and no details. Again, very scarce. Uh although the packet page is 1,8 pages on a agenda that barely has maybe four
possible uh issues on it. So can members of the public because it is a little bit daunting for some members of the public, I'm sure perhaps myself included, um to understand um what's here on the resolution plus even to look at it in
the packet uh uh agenda which has charts of different lines. Can members of the public get at least a little detail, a little flavor on it, maybe an example or two? Um it's not to be late uh the agenda or make the meeting long. It's just that um you know members of the
public, those that are home, those that can't uh read the whole thing could get some information or uh better understanding in regards to that. Council President and uh yeah and also in this T1 I would also like to see council
president um can the members of the public understand is there or would there be any conflict of interest again not accusing or pointing just asking the questions um have high respects for you council
president which in a couple of days maybe week. You will be acting mayor for 48 hours, which is is an accomplishment. Congratulations. Um and of course, uh mayor elect, uh Jabore. Um
again, would there be because you're voting on it, you're no longer going to be in the council, a fresh council wants to come in, will they be able to make changes or is this final? And [clears throat] that would be the question, Council President. And I see I have time, so I yield back. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Um, there are no other members of the public sign up to >> close public portion. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I just sign up though. >> Pardon? >> Pat may have signed up for the the public portion at the end. I Patricia,
did you want to sign up for a resol the resolution or for the public portion at the end? >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> [snorts] >> Um, so I'm going to ask director uh Stratton to give you a quick summary for
or a summary for any duration he cares to chair for A1. Um, I will say the for T1, we already had authorized a $33
million amount in the past and it was it was fully briefed out, but at the before we voted on second reading, that was carried because of the hospital redevelopment situation and the uncertainties related there. So, this is
picking back up where we left off on that minus $1.1 million. It's that much cheaper. Um, as far as the number of pages in the
packet for a three resolution hearing, um, I would say 700 plus pages of that are devoted to the special meeting because of transcripts from prior zoning board hearings and judicial
proceedings and etc. So, uh, I would agree that a thousand pages is an awful lot, but if you were looking for the backup on these three items, um, I think it is it is in line with, you know, the
number of pages per per option. So, Director Stratton, if you could help uh the public with the >> the memorandum of agreement with the PSOA brings 16 officers in that union to parody with the rest of the membership.
Um there's an approximately $38,000 cost to the city to do that. This is for medical insurance. Um and ratifying this contract by itself does not create issues with the budget. It just puts further pressure to the tune of $38,000
on next year's budget. >> Okay. Thank you. So, so it's just treating all the the the members of the union the same rather than having disparity. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, any members of the
public want to to pull any of the three resolutions >> or of the council? >> Council, >> I'm sorry. I meant I meant well you guys are all members of the public as well. >> Yes. >> Uh as far as on consent a vote on all three or does anyone want to
>> Could I just ask a question? Council president. >> Yes, you may ask a question. >> The uh the PSOA that's 38 for this year. Next year it'll be X. Next year it'll be X. Correct me if I'm wrong. >> I believe that there was no budget
impact for 2025. We're still being built. Sorry, I haven't changed my mental calendar over 2026. >> Okay, don't worry. >> There's a budget there's a budget impact for 2026 and it'll be the same for each year fall. >> So 38 it doesn't go up or it could go up. >> It will >> every year they have to come back to us
then? >> No. >> No, >> this is changing their benefits permanently. >> But it's 38k just for 2026 or is it going to go up every? >> It would not it would not go up every year. It's just this is a one time >> one time thing that's it. But then also
that 38,000 is baked into the budget for all subsequent years. >> Okay. >> It sets a new baseline. >> I just wanted that the one time thing is what I wanted to >> correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, director. Um
any Mr. Fina on all three? >> Uh also the claims. >> Uh excuse me. >> The claims too. >> Claims as well. Yep. Thank you for pointing that out, >> Mr. Con. >> Hi.
>> Miss Fischer, >> yes. >> Mrs. Imus, >> yes. >> Mrs. Javore, >> yes. >> President Xano, >> hi. >> Mr. Cano, >> I >> Mr. Ramos, >> hi.
>> President Doyle, >> I. >> Okay. So, on to >> You want [snorts] the public portion? >> Thank you. >> No. No, the public portion is after >> today. >> It's >> going to be the end of the meeting. >> Very end.
>> Okay. Um, we can't. All right. So, we're on to this uh to the appeal, but so yes, Terry is going to be the stenographer for this. Give her a moment
to I guess we have >> fire up the dual >> court. >> Ready? Thank you. All right. So, I'm just going to do a little explanation. I know members of the council received a memo today from Alyssa, but I hope this will help a
little bit. Um, you know, and Mr. Evers, I'm sure, will correct me if I misstate anything. Um, but I, uh, I would like to begin by asking us to not lose sight of the fact that this is a very limited scope of an appeal. And I say that
because we have a limited amount of time and you know if we focus on the the scope that will be beneficial for everyone involved and if something comes up if you focus on the scope which I will describe and something comes up you
know you'll be more than happy it's not one bite at the apple but it it may be helpful for the public and for the council to focus on a summation here rather than regurgitating you know hours of testimony. Um the the appellant is
not challenging the variances. Um the appellant seeks that the conditions in the resolution of appeal be expanded to clarify protections under the anti- eviction law related to potential the potential for displacement of tenants.
So, we're not here tonight being asked to review or reconsider variances themselves that the the zoning board may have granted. Um, they granted height variance, a lot coverage v variance, setbacks, uh, roof pertinances, and masonry
percentages with regard to the facade. And so those are are issues that are are while they could absorb a great deal of time to discuss the negative and positive criteria, devariances, blah blah blah. Um that the appellant uh
we're here to really the appeal is based on what the appellant believes are the deficiencies of the conditions that the zoning board resolution of approval contained. And um so if you all three of you could keep that in mind during your
presentations. Um as far as the process for this evening, this is the probably the second time in 12 years that we've done one of these. Um so it's worthy of of mentioning. This is a a quasi judicial
public meeting. So it's not a public hearing. And um I know that the the the litigants to call them uh the parties involved um understand this but this is the equivalent of going to court. So at
court we are here as a judicial decision-making body. It's not our usual role as a council which is a legislative body. And so one of the most important factors will be if someone decides to get up and go to the bathroom, we have
to stop the proceeding of any of us because we all have to be here to hear everything. So we all are voting appropriately. Um but we also are voting to apply the law which uh as council members we're often passing laws not
applying laws. And so it it is we are a little bit more constrained in that we're here to be applying if if we don't agree with something we have to evaluate what the law says uh not just what we think it should be. Um
the uh another thing is if you in courtrooms we we know that if a judge is listening to a proceeding the public doesn't get to jump up and say what they think. So there's no public comment on this appeal. There will be, as I just
indicated, a public portion after we conclude this uh as we have as a requirement in every public meeting, but and people are welcome to come up at that point. But it is likely that we will have already acted on this appeal
unless we decide to adjourn it for another night or do something to that effect, which is not anticipated. you know, we're the goal is to get it done tonight. Um, for so as we did uh 21 months ago, we
had we set a seven month, excuse me, a 7 minute time to sum up your positions. um if you go a little over or especially if you're interrupted by us asking questions you know obviously we can accommodate that but you know consider
that as the goal um for succinctly uh refreshing we we've all here have looked at and we have an obligation to have looked at the the record um so you can assume that we understand it what what you're talking about and the
summation will be sufficient Um I I think last time we proposed a the order and I I leave it to you Mr. Evers. Uh you were going to go last. You you were offered that and you accepted that. So I
think we will go with uh Jessica not just yet and um Jason in that order. Um and then as I said a moment ago, if issues come up with we may stop you and ask questions. we may let you finish and
then when we start deliberating we can ask you to come back up and so it'll be sort of a give and take in that regard as it occurred 21 months ago. Um the the record there's [snorts] two things about the
standard of review. Um one is we're limited to the record that was created for the at the zoning board hearing that occurred. So if someone wants to one of the three parties wants to start talking about things that did not occur or that
have occurred since then that's not part of the record that we are to be considering here. It's called record review. That's why they create a record and we have stenographers and everything else. The second po part about the
standard of review is that it's called denovo review and that means essentially a new um we can listen to the arguments here and assess
in a normal case challenging the zoning board of uh adjustment decision you you have to prove pro that the they were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. You have to essentially prove they made
a mistake in order to get it overturned here. A denovo review means we are sitting in the chairs of the zoning board members and if we don't have to prove Thank you. We don't have to prove that uh what they decided was legally
wrong. We could just say we disagree. Had I been sitting there that night, I would have voted a different way. So it's it gives it it doesn't give the same deference to the zoning board decision that usually is afforded when
you have the arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable standard that has to be proven by the the appellant, the challenger. Um the record was voluminous as Manny has already indicated. uh there
one of the submissions was only 436 pages long and and others were equally uh you know voluminous. Um uh okay. So I think I'm done with the introductory stuff. Um and I think we've
we're in agreement. We will um Jessica Almeida, thank you. Um is going to go first and for seven minutes and we can choose to interrupt her, ask her questions or uh let her sit down and we can hear all
three and go from there. Council President, can you just give her speaking to the microphone, please? So, Counciloman Fischer could >> Thank you. >> Council Presidents and members of the council, for the record, my name is Jessica Almeida from the law firm of McManaman, Scotland, and Bowman on I be
and I appear tonight on behalf of the Hoboken zoning board of adjustment in the matter of Michael Evers appeal of zoning board resolution HOZ2514 for 2011 and 203 Adam Street. By way of procedural history, and I'll
make it super quick, the applicant filed an application in June of 2025. The board held a noticed public hearing on September 30th, 2025. And after testimony from applicants, professionals, and public comment, the board voted to approve the resolution and then the board later memorialized
and approved that resolution on November 18th with notice published. Mr. Evers thereafter filed his appeal on November 26th. the application for itself. Just for everybody's quickly, uh it's a five-story mixeduse building with six residential units over approximately
1,135 square ft of groundf flooror commercial, retail or restaurant space, which is served by eight parking spaces and one handicap space. It has storm water and green roof improvements. The resolution reflects the board heard sworn testimony from the architect, engineers, and
planning witness and it included detailed findings and conclusions. As to land use relief, the use is permitted in the R2 zone and the application required a D6 height variance as where 40 ft above DFE is permitted and the
application called for 45 and as council president said that's not being appealed. The resolution later sets also sets out the board's findings supporting all of the approvals for the variances [clears throat] and the modest additional height neighborhood context and conclusion that
the relief does not substantially impair the zone plan or the master plan. As Mr. Doyle noted at the outset, Mr. Ever's appeal does not meaningfully challenge those core land use findings. Instead, the appeals focused entirely on tenant
displacement and the anti- eviction act. Mr. Evers argues that the board placed the applicant on a quote honor system by requiring compliance with state anti- eviction laws while not imposing verification conditions. And he requests a remand so the board will require
affidavit and tenant certifications and then tie those submissions somehow to zoning compliance. This is not a proper basis to reverse a land use approval for two central reasons. First, tenant eviction enforcement is outside of the zoning board's jurisdiction under the
municipal land use law. The board's powers are enumerated by statute. They include the authority to hear variances to and grant variances act on site plan and related use relief. They do not include adjudicating landlord tenant
disputes, administering notice regimes under the anti- eviction act, or determining whether Mr. Evers wanted a voluntary verse coerced departure. The appeal seeks to transform a typical land use proceeding into a
precisely that kind of judicial or quasi judicial um enforcement function which the board does not have statutory authority to undertake. The point was addressed on the record at the September 30th hearing and Mr. Evers appeared. He was sworn in and he urged the board to
add those verification conditions requiring the tenant certifications. In response, applicants council stated that while the tenant concerns may be well intended, rent control and anti- eviction compliance are not the form for zoning board and that tenants have
remedies under relevant statutory schemes if there is unlawful conduct. Second, the resolution already does what the land use resolution appropriately can do and no more. If you look at the resolution specifically special condition number nine, it's entitled
tenant protections. It requires the applicant comply with the state anti- eviction laws, but it also states that no additional verification or enforcement mechanisms are imposed by the board simply because the board can't enforce those. It's not permitted by the statute. The general condition similarly
required the applicant comply with eviction laws to the extent applicable. In other words, the board recognized that there are separate controlling statutory obligations, but it did not attempt to convert itself into an enforcement tribunal for those obligations. That line drawing is
legally appropriate and consistent with the limits of land use broad authority. Finally, the council is not writing on a blank slate as to the premise of this appeal. The opposition materials reflect that Mr. Evers has previously advanced
essentially the same tenant displacement must be enforced through land conditions land use conditions argument in the prior Hoboken proceedings. In the prior matter, the governing body affirmed the board and acknowledged that while tenant protections are valid and valued, it is
not gerine to land use process. Jessica, if I can ask um how was the prior proceeding in the record here today or >> how was it viewed today? >> How was it part of the record?
>> It was in the opposition papers it was discussed. >> Okay. >> In Thank you. In the subsequent superior court proceedings, the court stated on the record that tenants are protected whether or not they are mentioned in a resolution because those protections arise from a statutory and related
regulatory mechanisms, not conditions of the zoning board resolution. The history is persuasive for context as to why this appeal should be denied. For those reasons, on behalf of the zoning board, I respectfully request the council deny the appeal and
affirm resolution HOZ2514 in full. The council has any questions about the scope of the board's authority, the conditions imposed, or where tenant protection policies apply, um they can be addressed appropriately outside the land use appeal, um you can ask myself or Mr. Tuval, and we're happy
to address those. And I got it in under seven minutes. >> Uh any council members questions? Um I I would while you're thinking if you are uh the
is your position that no zoning resolutions of approval ever have anything that that diverts from a strict land use condition. So the conditions that were
in the resolution stated that the applicant would apply with applicable law, which is in a lot of planning board resolutions. You'll follow DCA rules. You'll follow these. But the difference here is what Mr. Evers wants is the the zoning board to enforce the law, which
is outside of the scope of what the zoning board can do. He wants us to enforce the anti-inviction act. He wants us to act as a judge if and make sure that all laws are followed which if it's not a land use law that's not in the lap of the zoning board.
>> Okay. Um and I think in your submission or uh Na Lima Nabi's submission there was talk about the arbitrary and comprecious and reasonable standard which which doesn't
really >> it doesn't apply here because he's not Mr. Evers isn't challenging the actual core land use findings. He's challenging an a condition which while it's related it's not the actual finding. It has nothing to do with the variances that were granted. >> Yeah. But I think regardless of whether
it was a challenge to a devariance or not, I believe the the case law ever there's the case law is that here we get a denovo review. We we're not limited, but anyway, it it doesn't matter. I'm just questioning
>> whether the point raised in your submission um whether you stick behind that. But all right, do we any any other questions >> president to address you or council? um in the past in Hoboken
what has happened for other examples of because this is not the first time something like this has occurred I'm guessing so my question would be is this has just arose the this time has this happened in the past and I guess maybe you you run the zoning board list so maybe you could councilman Cohen if you
could explain to me has this happened before where there has been a challenge of this nature or this question put forth. Well, as council president mentioned, this is the second time in 12 years that this has come before our council. So, the answer is yes, but not frequently. Typically, challenges are
made on legal papers. Uh people are entitled to appeal a decision of a zoning officer. People are entitled to file appeals. There are routinely appeals filed on the papers. I was a judicial judicial appeals. I've served on the zoning board for eight years and there were a number of appeals that we
would hear about that would go up in the courts and then we would learn whether our decision had been disturbed or affirmed. Typically they were affirmed but every now and then there was a one I can think of one case at least where there was a decision of the zoning board that was judicially uh reversed but that
too was very unusual circumstances. It's more common for there to be a judicial appeal than an appeal to the city council. Okay. Thank you. >> Y >> and thank you for reminding me, Councilman, back to the procedure just for a second.
We have three choices here tonight. We can affirm what the zoning board did. We can deny what the zoning board approval and just send them all back to do it again. Or we could in the middle remand
it back to the zoning board and say we think you made you know well with whatever instructions we choose to give. We you know we think you made a mistake with regard to X. Please reconsider this with our instruction. So it's it's approve deny or kind of tell them how to
fix it. >> That's another way of saying denovo. We we're we're get a new look at this and are able to make our recommendations based on what we think based on our hearing tonight. Yes, it's that's Y. >> Does that help you?
>> Yes. And because this is just a plan and approvals and there has to be permits and everything else done there nothing has been put forward where the anti- eviction laws have have started to already roll in uh have already taken place because my
understanding reading and this is where I'm asking for some help on this. Um, >> thanks. >> That the anti- eviction law would only essentially the clock starts running if there was something of demolition if I read as one of the points that
the tenant would then be impacted and then would have to go through the judicial process where a judge would have to make a decision if things were uh right or wrong or or what's I guess what's being asked for. So if if I can
answer your question, if the time starts ticking and the anti- eviction laws are now being applied, if somebody feels that the anti- eviction laws have been violated, their remedy is not with the zoning board, it's with the superior court. >> That's that [clears throat] was that's
what I just wanted to hear. Thank you. >> But you weren't asking. Well, and I was going to ask I don't know which of you to ask. Um, there was some testimony in the transcript of the September 30th hearing, I think, by my by Mr. Evers
regarding how or maybe it I there was a lot of thousand pages but it was somewhere in the record where there [clears throat] was after the last
uh appeal and this the suit was filed that and maybe it's Mr. forever. You can explain this. Someone I would like somebody to explain to me. There was some discussion about how there have been some discussions back and forth in an effort to settle the case and move
forward and whether there was a settlement. It's I thought it said there was a settlement prior to the oral argument with the superior court. But then why would they move forward with argument in the decision? >> It was in I cannot let Mr. Well, yeah,
you can always talk to it, but he's going next. And I mean, yeah, >> my understanding is it um after the decision was made by the council, Mr. Evers appealed that to the superior court. The superior court upheld that decision >> and then Mr. Evers appealed it to the
appellet >> courts. Okay. Yeah, that's not what I heard. But anyway, someone else can there were that means there were two proceedings, two judicial proceedings, >> multiple Yeah, that would be I think it would help.
>> Still gonna give me my seven minutes though. >> Go up a little bit there. >> Um Jason Tel touching that microphone. Jason, sorry. Um Jason Tubal, I'm the attorney for the developer just on that specific issue and then I'll let Miss Alita come back if you have any further questions for her. >> Okay. >> Um in the prior case that's being
referenced which is was for 325 327 grand. >> Yep. >> In in that specific instance, this is how the procedural history went. the the application before the board of adjustment was approved. There was a devariance issued there. Mr. Evers appealed that to the city council under
section 17 of the municipal land use law because the city of Hoboken has an ordinance that permits that which is why we're here as well. >> As yeah, >> the city council upheld the board's um approval, affirmed it, and I was going to get into that more and I'll I'll get
into that more later, but just to answer your specific question, >> that was upheld. Then Mr. Evers, as is his right to do, appealed the council's decision affirming the zoning board decision, >> okay, >> to the superior court Hudson County Law Division.
In that case, there was oral argument held in connection with with with the matter. The judge upheld the the city council and the zoning board's decision, >> the motion to dismiss. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Mr. Evers then appealed that to the
appellet division and filed a notice of appeal okay on that case. >> Again, each case is different in terms of procedurally how it goes. That developer chose to settle with Mr. Evers as opposed to litigating the appellet
case. That is what Mr. Evers brought up at the zoning board for this matter and said, "Hey, why don't you handle it the way it happened here?" That that's the procedural history. I'll let Miss Miss Ala finish. If >> I don't want >> I think.
>> Yeah, it'll come down. >> You can turn it. >> Bring it up towards you. Yeah, >> you can turn it. Okay, >> perfect. >> Yeah, that'll actually work better. >> I'm joking. >> Do you have any further questions? >> Um um maybe just one of clarification. I think I know the answer because I read
the materials. Um >> where they >> so if there was if if the the building owners just raised the building on their own and built as of right uh there is no additional protections conditions besides the
>> that is correct. If there were no variances required and it would and the building conformed to the code there would be no need for a resolution and there would be no other conditions imposed and the developer would still have to follow the anti- eviction laws. under the anti- eviction law, not under
a zoning board resolution. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I think Jason or anybody else before Jason comes up. >> Does he get seven minutes? >> Um, >> yes, seven minutes. >> Uh, good evening, council president, members of the council. >> We're going to reset the clock because
you were the biggest violator last time. >> That's always the case, right? >> Oh, here you go. >> You're good. >> Okay. All right. Uh happy new year. Happy new year year everybody. Uh thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this. So um this appeal deals
with an approval of a six-unit building at 2011 Adams. Um the project was unanimously approved by the board of adjustment. It's going to have storm water management that exceeds the North Hudson sewer requirement by 1.25 um times. It'll have green roofs, new
curbing, new sidewalk, EV chargers, street trees. it'll bring the property into ADA um compliance. None of these things are present at the property today. So, those were the benefits that the that the zoning board saw in connection with the application. Again, we're here on a more of a specific
issue, which is what council talked about earlier in terms of the anti- eviction laws. Now, as I said at the zoning board when I represented the applicant there, I applaud Mr. Ever's advocacy in connection with tenant protections. It's very altruistic and
it's very important. is just misplaced in connection with a zoning board application. So, let me just talk a little bit about that and let me talk a little bit about the process. So, a developer when they file an application for a building that has tenants already
in it, if they cannot remove those tenants or come to an amicable agreement with those tenants pursuant to the anti- eviction laws, they basically spent money at their own risk because if those tenants have leases, they have the right to stay there. And if the developer
cannot relocate them amicably pursuant to law, then the developer just spent money at their own risk. And as Councilman Cano said earlier, and I was going to actually bring that up in my argument as well, an applicant could simply file for a demo permit, come to
an agreement with its tenants to relocate them or buy them out or come to some mutually acceptable agreement between the parties, and wouldn't have to go to a planning board or board of adjustment. The the whole point of the anti- eviction laws is for the superior
court to determine whether a tenant or a landlord violated those provisions, but it's for the superior court to decide that, not for a zoning board of adjustment. And what Mr. Evers puts in his papers are
items or conditions that he personally feels should be imposed on the applicant. They're not vetted in any law. there's no ordinance in the city of Hoboken that requires this. They're just his personal preferences. And again, I I
understand the importance of it and I applaud his willingness to advocate for tenants, but it's just the wrong forum. If Mr. Evers feels that there should be additional protections, that should be taken up with the state legislature. It's not a it's not a zoning board or
planning board issue. So, I want to talk also about the prior action. And I raised an issue of race judicata collateral stoppppel in my in my brief. So as I indicated earlier when the question came up >> Jason if you could just
>> uh Councilwoman Fischer do you want to ask Jason now or do you want to wait until he finishes his his time which should be paused if we can. Can Can you hear >> I asking? Yeah, I can hear you. Um no,
he can finish and I'll ask at the end. >> Okay. I'm sorry interrupt. That's okay. So, we came before this council on a very similar issue that Mr. Evers raised as I said in that on that 325 grand uh property. The council found, and I'll go
through more of what Miss Alita went through in her um statements, that the zoning board that the the zoning board did not have jurisdiction to implement these types of conditions. That's what this city council found and the superior court agreed with the council on that
[snorts] issue. So that's why I raised it as a race judicat or collateral stoppple issue. If you don't agree with me that it's race judicat or collateral stoppppel then I brought it up also for instructive and presidential value as a case that's been decided not only by as
council president said in your quasi judicial role. you've made this determination, but also that the superior court also made that determination and it was a determination on the merits as you could see because Mr. Evers appealed that to the appellet
division. Um it was resolved but that that issue was appealed um to the to the appellet division. So, as Miss Almita said, the zoning board of adjustment has powers that are enumer enumerated at section 70A through D of the municipal
land use law and in section 76. And not to go through them all in excruciating detail, but they're pretty straightforward as Councilman Cohen indicated. They're to hear appeals of the zoning officer or administrative officer. they're to uh issue uh interpretations, grant variances,
whether they be C or D, or do site plan or subdivision in the event that there's a Dvariance associated with the application. Those are its only only powers. Uh council president asked the question that I was also going to bring up, which
are conditions of approval. What are proper conditions of approval? conditions of approval as I enumerate as I set forth in my brief have to deal with a land use objective. So if you actually look at the resolution of approval that the board issued or or
approved it deals with specific conditions as they relate to storm order management, lighting, green roof, all land use issues that fall within the purview of a zoning board of adjustment or a planning board. If we expand that,
if if if there's a slippery slope if we start expanding the role of a zoning board of adjustment to go through things that are not within their purview such as this. Um, an applicant has to comply with health department issues. An applicant has to comply with construction law issues. An applicant
has to comply with environmental issues. That's all true in addition to the anti- eviction laws, but they're not within the purview of the zoning board of adjustment to deal with. Now, I also wanted to bring up and I know my time is running out. One issue that Mr. Evers
raised in his in his papers, which was that the board did have a condition, condition number nine, as Miss Almeida indicated, that does say that the applicant will has to comply with the anti- eviction laws. And during the hearings, Miss Nabi or the chairperson asked me, "Does the applicant
acknowledge that you have to comply with the anti- eviction laws?" And I said, "Of course." But so that condition put the applicant on notice that they have to. But that condition there was clarified to note that the zoning board of adjustment does not have the power to verify that. Why? Why was that condition
put in? Because this council and the superior court confirm that in their findings and the case law supports it. So I would just say as to this very narrow issue, it doesn't fall within the zoning board of adjustments purview and
although it's a very again admirable um issue that Mr. Evers is bringing up. It it's not within the jurisdiction of the zoning board of adjustment and the resolution and the approval should be affirmed in the way that it is today. So thank you very much. >> Can can I ask you a question? Um I as I
know you're very a frequent offender here in these the zoning and planning uh board meetings in Hoboken. Um and I'm kidding about the offending part. Um I I I asked um Jessica if
she'd ever seen a condition in a resolution of approval that hued did not hue to the lines of land use obligations and I I'm wondering if you
>> have a view on that. >> Yeah. The specific conditions that are enumerated in the in the resolutions that that the city's planning board and zoning board typically grant relate to the issues I just talked about that are in this one. Storm water management is a typical one. The green roof is a typical
one. Um parking if there is parking proposed is a typical one. circulation, um, lighting, dark sky compliant is, you know, issues are all those are the things that are typically and then there are ones that are specific to certain properties. You know, you know, the planter should be set back in further to
create more separation. They're all typical land use type of of objectives that deal with what the case law says, mitigating a variance, mitigating a site plan issue. So, that's what they're typically for. And then sometimes there's administrative ones like, you know, the escro fee should be paid and
and things that like of that nature, >> but those do fall under the land use requirements. >> And there's also an ordinance in the city that requires you to pay those. >> Yeah. >> Those those things as well. So, >> okay. So, don't go anywhere because Councilwoman Fischer would like to ask
you a question. Councilwoman Fischer. >> Sure. Thanks. Hi, Jason. >> Hi, Counciloman. You started off this uh the presentation talking about um the benefits of the project, but you didn't mention the um the negative criteria.
And one of the things that um has been pointed out is that neither the planning board or the planners report that was given to the planning board. Um, >> it's the zoning >> include any reference to displacement or
to um removal of >> or or uh yeah, I guess removal of and reducing rent controlled units in the neighborhood. And um and so you know one of the things as we think about the
alternatives here is whether or not you know we consider remanding it back to the zoning board so that they actually have a more wholesome conversation on the negative criteria so that that is factored into the overall decision here and I just I'm curious your thoughts on
that. >> Sure. So the negative criteria has two prongs. The first prong is substantial detriment to the public good which has been >> um clarified by case law as a detriment to the surrounding properties as it
relates to land use issues. So again storm water management, lighting, traffic, parking, sidewalks, street trees, all land use related issues. The rent control aspect of it is not something within the
purview of the negative criteria under the municipal land use law. The other is substantial impairment to the zone plan and the zone ordinance. And the resolution specifically goes through that issue and our planner addressed that criteria both in its report um and
on the record and the board's planner in uh uh concurred with the testimony that was provided. And again, although an important policy issue as it relates to, you know, cities, rent control is not a land use issue within
the purview of a board of adjustment or a planning board as it relates to the negative criteria. And if you read all the cases um in the Cox book that refer to the negative criteria and there's a whole section on them, it deals with the items that I mentioned, height, traffic,
parking, storm water, you know, all the things that are actually in your ordinance that have to be dealt with in a site plan review. Rank control is not one of them. things. >> Tiffany is that uh I we heard another
voice. >> Yeah. No, I I think it's helpful, but what I would say is, you know, on this on this topic, I mean, this has always been an issue when I was on the zoning board when I was briefly on the planning board. I think we've talked about it um
in the past, Jim, is is when you are displacing residents and you're effectively upgrading making changes to the types of residential in a place like Hobok and that in fact um it can be included as a negative criteria. It just
often isn't because if you look at the key across the state, you just don't have a lot of examples um like we have in Hoboken. And I'm not suggesting that the outcome would necessarily be any different, but you know, as we think about what is one of Hoboken's biggest
um challenges, which is is just sitting within land use, right? Is making a change to a residential use from an existing use to a new use, but asking for a devarian. So effectively asking for more space allowed to accommodate a
new development. um embedded in that I think actually is a negative criteria relating to eliminating um existing housing that has affordability features to it that the new housing wouldn't necessarily have.
So it's you know I I although and I'd love to we don't have to litigate this tonight Jason but I'd love to have a more robust conversation on this because I think that this is something that has been missing in every zoning board application. um in many planning board
applications, a discussion on the impact to the surrounding properties, to the surrounding neighborhood, and not just the criteria that you're mentioning, but but literally removing affordable housing stock from a neighborhood and its impact on the neighborhoods. Absolutely. Feels like it should sit
within the negative criteria and should have a full conversation and be part of a record um around a devariance um analysis and and decision. Can I can I just address that, please? >> Yep. >> So, Tiffany, don't get mad at me with
the way I respond to this. I I I respect your opinion on rent control and affordability, but what the argument that you just made would turn zoning upside down because
the use is permitted in the zone. We have uses that are permitted throughout the city. There's R1, R2, R3 zones. There's redevelopment areas. There's C1 through C3 districts. They all have use and bulk standards. And the point of
having those is so you have objective criteria as to what you can build. And if you throw into the mix, well, yes, you submitted an application that complies with all the laws of the city,
but we're not sure we want to displace tenants. there there would it would there would be a completely subjective role of the governing body of the sorry of the zoning board of the planning board. So that's why and again I'm not saying that
this issue is not important. It's just it's just for another it's just for another type of forum is that it would just turn zoning upside down because there's an expectation when you file a site plan application or a variance application that you're guided by
certain rules and expectations and laws and that's why the negative criteria is dealt with the specific variance. it like for example here I know it's not being challenged but the height of the building the negative criteria focuses on that on that variance on that height
the negative criteria doesn't focus on some on a policy issue it focuses on the specific variance that you're seeking so to take it a step further if I filed an application with the with the planning board on anything forget about this project let's say you file a completely conforming application with
the planning board and file and follow all the ordinances that has the case law is clear that has to be approved no matter what. There can be reasonable conditions imposed on it. Sure. But that has to be approved. So again, I just think as important as this
issue may be for the city, it just has to be dealt with in a different forum and not before a zoning board or a planning board. >> So you're not saying there's no place for it, you're saying there's another place for it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Could could we have Mr. Evers come
up? Thank you. >> Thank you. I'm sure you'll be back. >> You just gave the last guy 15 minutes to talk. >> Well, you can filibuster if you'd like. >> No, then I'm going to lose all my time. Okay. So, >> we're not leaving here until you're
>> Okay, quick one. Um, I don't know if there's been a 100% success record with the zoning board on prerogative rits, but one of mine got remanded back to the zoning board. So, >> come close to the microphone. >> They're not that rare, but but just to go to the central point here,
>> what are not that rare? Success or >> successful appeals. >> Okay. >> Now, that one matters because what we're really looking for is a remand to the zoning board here, not an overturning of all the uh variances. Now, I I kind of feel like I was attending a different
appeal because if you had a chance to read the documents I submitted, my appeal isn't about any of the things they're talking about. >> But we have a denovo review. So, we could say, you know, >> you know, you I'm talking about what they were saying, not you. My adversary. >> Okay. I apologize.
>> Okay. No problem. Okay. The real issues here are are at a human level undue burden. It's true. tenants could hire lawyers to defend themselves against unethical landlords for the crime of being a a
lawful tenant. And why would the landlord do things to them? Because the Hoboken zoning board in this case gave the landlord the opportunity to make a ton of money if they managed to force these people out. Now the state of New Jersey um has very important views on
that and that raises the real legal principle here which I would suggest you evaluate this thing on which is that of preeemption. Municipalities and subdivisions of municipalities cannot override state laws and not simply state laws but the
policies expressed by those state laws and the objectives of those state laws. To give you a simple example, here's a the mo one of the most cited case laws on this is called overlooked terrorist management versus the rent control board of West New York. Okay, there are five
questions. I won't read them all, just the most pertinent that relate to this issue. One of the first questions is, does the ordinance conflict with state law either because of conflicting policies or operational effect? And I'd emphasize that phrase, operational
effect. I'm arguing that by giving a landlord the or a building owner the opportunity to make a ton of money if only he can get the tenants out, uh, that interferes with the operational effect of the state law whose stated
purpose is to prevent landlords from displacing tenants uh, for in order to get excessive profits. Okay, that's in your documents. It seemed but you just cited does the ordinance
conflict with >> No other it is the decision of the zoning board which is in conflict with the policies and operational objectives of DCA calls it the New Jersey Eviction Act. So that's I think we're referring
to the same act. Okay. Uh, and it does. It has an operational. >> It says ordinance. It says does the ordinance conflict. The local ordinances cannot conflict with state law. >> Nor can >> a zoning condition. I'm I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm just pointing.
Help me under help me be persuaded. But this is not an ordinance. Zoning board doesn't pass ordinance. This particular case law is cited in multiple instances of an attempt to override state the preeemption to override higher
powers. Okay, that's the legal issue here. And and of the five tests, the two that stand out the most are the ones that do they stand as the obstacle to the accomplishment. A zoning resolution is a form of municipal law. Okay. Um,
and I would strongly it it it passes the duck test. It's a specific one for a specific building. We pass a specific law, but the fact of the matter is it walks and sounds like a duck. It changes the law of the municipality in order to accommodate a specific need. I would
argue it is a form of ordinance. We can test it in court, but why do we want to do that? Okay. The other issue with this thing that makes it illegal is that the well, first of all, just to correct certain factual errors here. Okay, the race judicata
provision does not apply because that argument fails a well-known three-prong test for race judicata. The most important one, the first one being it fails all three, but the easiest one is that a final judgment was made. The
lawsuit that Jason and um I'm sorry I forget your name, but you did a great job. um referred to uh was dismissed without prejudice. There was no final decision. In fact, if you read the transcript, Judge Terula in is on the
record of saying you can come back here or if you want to appeal it, I won't be offended. There was no final judgment. Race Judicata does not apply. >> That that is not true. >> Well, then we'll have to decide that. >> You you would have to you would have to file an appeal, which is initiating a
new action. File an appeal. >> That's correct. So you started another lawsuit. >> So the he the motion to dismiss ended that case. No, >> you lost. >> No, correction. Excuse me, sir. A motion
without prejudice is different than a motion with prejudice. >> All right. >> I am aware of that, but I think >> won't fly. >> I don't think you understand. You were a motion to dismiss with prejudice means you could not appeal it. >> That's a final judgment. Well, no. You
can appeal it but it's very difficult without prejudice. >> It it causes there are other the other three two problems. >> Frankly, I 100% agree with you that this is not resticata or collateral. >> So we don't have to fight. >> So we don't have to fight about what
motion. >> The two points are it's it's the ordinance is illegal because it violates in its current form because it violates the the intent and purpose of the New Jersey eviction act. Okay. The other problem with it is is that um is it it's
an issue called delegation which is the conditions imposed. >> Sorry to sorry to interrupt. Um how does it violate the New Jersey Eviction Act? >> Okay. Let me let me find the the nifty quote that I pulled out here >> and I did read all your >> Okay.
freed from purgatory. Um, >> simply put, the purpose and policy of the New Jersey Eviction Act is to prevent displacement of blameless tenants, people who are abiding by their leases, in particular, referencing developers and landlords seeking to
increase their profits by pressuring them by a variety of means. Okay. Sure. Right. And and in this instance, if the landlord or the owner takes those means, nefarious means to displace these tenants, they still have a right to sue and to prevent
>> which involves undue burden. If you are somebody just getting by on social security, where are you going to come up with the money to hire a lawyer? All right. So, that that's an undue burden issue. Um but but there's also a delegation issue. the the the resolution
says you can you got to comply with this law, but it doesn't define what compliance is. And it delegates it to the secretary of the zoning board, who is a really nice person, but she's not a lawyer. So, how should how would she figure this out? Okay,
that that that that runs counter to this law and the zoning board, the city council doesn't have the authority to it's preemptive. So, so you would like a condition that would require Pat Carone to enforce it even though you just
acknowledge he doesn't have the wherewithal or the expertise or the resourc No, I I'm saying that's a defect of the the ordinance why it should be remanded and fixed. Okay. My proposed solution is a simple practical one. It's based on experience because I did this
with the previous developer. Okay. I got all these thank you letters from tenants. Okay. It doesn't necessarily prevent them from being from leaving the building. It gives them an opportunity to stay or to get a deal that's so attractive that they can move on. My
suggestion is, and by the way, one other thing to correct this, zoning resolutions for buildings where the affordable housing ordinance applies have conditions that require them to observe the affordable housing ordinance. Okay? which if you're going
to argue that >> which this conduction condition does too. >> Well, that's right. But that's not a land use condition. That's a rent control condition. >> Okay. >> Okay. Fine. >> Anyway, >> the point is that it now to address the
land use issue. Okay. Well, let me finish the solution. My suggestion is that you put put in basically a simple way that developers can demonstrate that they have complied with the with the uh New Jersey eviction
law. Okay. All they're being suggested is they provide notice and I'm a landlord. You have to provide tenants with lots of notice. Lead paint, the fair rental laws. They provide the tenants with with notice of their rights
and they get them to sign an affidavit saying that they voluntarily are leaving their apartment. Okay? Which basically means you're asking them to comply with the law. Okay? And you will get much better outcomes for tenants. Maybe some of them will stay. Maybe some of them
will get a great deal from a landlord and move on. Okay? But they will be in compliance in the law. And there can be no question that the zoning ordinance is in compliance with the law. And you don't have to be a rocket scientist to be able to read an affidavit and say,
"Yeah, that works." Okay. Now, this whole land use issue though raises an important matter. Okay. Um, you know, I I read a lot of case law for whatever reason, massochism, and I never cease to be amazed at at the laws that are cited
and then they make reference to Oh, there it is. They make reference to this case law that says this in this case we're talking about land use which can only be used for land use which is inconveniently and narrowly defined.
Okay. Now the um case that um Jason cites in his paper is Meridian Hospital. Um that case is about the fact that the zoning board wanted to require the um hospital to make certain agreements of
the programs it would run in building. Okay. Other examples in the case law cited in the Meridian hospital case refer to such things as conditions such as u u personal approval of a friend. Uh conditions that say you couldn't have
black people or Jews in the building. Okay, here's another one here. The condition, this is in one called Soho Park in Belleville, another widely cited case. Here the condition did not relate to how the second home would be used, but who used it? That's what they're talking
>> You're saying these are examples of of conditions that were invalidated >> because they were not land use conditions. That's correct. The condition we're talking about here is the conditions under which this developer can tear this building down
and then build it back up for residential use. >> So you're but you're saying it is the anti- eviction law is a land use law then >> those portions of it. Yes. Yes. Okay. uh that that law to get around the preeemption issue also authorizes
municipalities to pass additional laws as long as it's kind of bad construction that they're not less restrictive >> if it's more more restrictive and we do this all the time. >> So if you were to pass a law an ordinance that said you have to get
these these affidavit to prove that you comply with the law you would not be preempted by the eviction law. Okay. Um there are some other items that they've raised there. Um but the land use one is
is a critical one that how you use the land. The key thing to understand and and Mr. um Quantero in particular might want to hear this. Mr. Quintterero. [clears throat] >> Yeah. Um the way the New Jersey eviction law is written is there's only two legal ways that you can get a building of this
size, you know, one that's uh more than three units, get tenants out of those buildings. Okay. With without them having violated a lease, you can either evict them because you are permanently retiring the building from residential use or you have to certify that the
building is structurally dangerous and too expensive to repair. Those are the only things you can do for a building of more than three units unless the tenant does something wrong. Okay. the question here. So the question here with this particular application is the developer
has made a stated intent to tear this building down and he's not retiring it from residential use. So he doesn't have any choice but to follow the um uh New Jersey Eviction Act. Now the problem with I have no choice. He should etc.
I've hired a lot of lawyers in my time. When an attorney tells me it shouldn't be a problem, I assume it's going to be a problem 50% of the time. The reason I'm raising this appeal is not because oh my god, what if a a developer of
magnificent rectitude goes on the honor system and does the right thing and takes care of all the tenants and does right by them? Well, then why would I even be here? The fact is, and the state findings of the New Jersey Eviction Act say that a lot of times that's not what
happened. the person I settled with uh 325 grand was prior to that lawsuit and settlement brought up for the rent leveling board because he suddenly started to deny services to tenants after >> the rent leveling board is an
appropriate forum for eviction issues. >> No, that this is about was was involving harassing tenants out. Okay. The fact is that >> I mean, okay, I may I may be wrong whether the maybe they the rent leveling board threw them out as well, saying you
have to file an action. >> No, no, they made them reduce the rent. But the point is this. The the issue I'm making is that it it there's two sides to it. >> You're at 15 minutes. >> I understand. So, I feel validated and I'll thank you for this. Okay. If the
zoning board is going to give the developer an opportunity to make a ton of money by giving them all those variances, I think that to balance that, they need to strengthen the protections, make sure they are in compliance with
the New Jersey Eviction Act because giving a developer a lot of money and encouraging them to displace tenants is clearly not the stated policy of the New Jersey state legislature. [snorts] Thank you. >> Okay. Can can I ask you a hypothetical
if you would I want to make sure I sort of get it the way so bear with me. Um and if you just think it's out of left field and then just say I don't want to answer. >> I'll probably say it's the most intelligent question I've ever been asked in my life. Well, kissing up is
always good for um so if there if if there's an applicant that is seeking to uh for a variance to put a bar in a residential neighborhood, you know, some place where the use is not allowed, you need a variance for the use. And if the
uh if if the board says, "Well, do you have a a liquor license for this proposed bar?" and the the applicant says no I don't have one you know and then they said well because you don't have one we are going to deny your
application would you think that's an appropriate dis denial >> I I [snorts] have no idea quite I'm not trying to be cute but I have no idea I'm coming at this from the a body of statements >> no I I I understand that well I mean the
the analogy and then if I could just the the point is the liquor law the law of liquor licenses which the zoning board I think we all would agree the zoning board can't issue liquor licenses >> so if they were to deny an application
saying well you don't even have a liquor license you can't open like why then they would be challenged and lose because that liquor license law is outside the scope of the land use so if
if you said uh in the same hypothetical but changing it a little bit. They someone's there saying I want an applica I want a a variance and an approval to open a bar in a residential neighborhood and the nobody during the hearing says
anything about liquor licenses and the the application is approved. Can they go out and just open a bar the next day or would you agree that they would still
have to get a liquor license? They still have to comply with the other law that has nothing to do with land use. >> There's a big difference here. Okay. The New Jersey Eviction Act was passed because there was a perception that individuals were being harmed in a very
significant way. some of the most disruptive ways that can happen in your life being driven out of your home. We went through this in Hobok and you set fire to people's houses to make money. Okay. So, I I hear what you're saying and I the easy answer is is there a body
of state legislation that specifically says we don't want this kind of thing to happen. Then >> well, there is they they there's law about where you can put a a licensed bar. You can't put it in your church. You can't you know that's for public policy and protection. doubt. It has a half page of findings all directed at
the dangers of developers pursuing and driving tenants out of their apartments to make money. >> And so now >> the New Jersey eviction law is all about that. That's what its major findings are. It's really unequivocable there. >> And that and there was a forum for
relief. I believe the judge in the district in the district court and the superior court action specifically said the reason I'm dismissing this is because they have other avenues of redress for what you're talking about >> and that is an oversimplification of
that but the point is >> I can quote it to you >> the point is that this is that you're it's an apples to oranges comparison the issue here is that the zoning board has provided the developer this is critical if you Don't hear this part. It doesn't
make any sense. They said you can we're going to give you valuable var they didn't have to give them the variances. Okay, that was a decision they made really valuable financial incentives to clear out that apartment building so they can tear it down. >> Just question because I'm a little
confused on something. The variant the this appeals based on the Dvariance only, correct? >> No. >> No, it's it's >> not even on the variance. >> Okay. >> By the way, that's a state law, not just a local ordinance. >> Yeah. D is clearly >> uh the point is because the zoning board
has given them this very very significant financial they wouldn't be doing this project without this incentive. Okay. I think it's incumbent upon the zoning board to stay within you know not run a foul of the New Jersey Eviction Act to create checks and
balances and and the ones they have in there don't even pass legal muster. They're not exist. >> But I mean I you were there at the hearing and you heard the testimony [snorts] where the response to this argument was as of right they could have built a 40ft
you know fourstory building. >> They couldn't have >> and they couldn't get the extra 5T. So when you say if they said fine we'll take a story off the building you know where is the where's this massive financial incentive? Is it just that 5 ft or is it the whole project much of
which could have been as of right? >> Well, the the the pro people are asking for variances to increase the finan to make it worthwhile to tear buy the building, tear down the building, rebuild the building and then rent it out to the people. Okay. So, can we pick
which exact variance caused that? >> No. But we can say that the project as a whole, you know, for that example, we'll give you, we'll make it impossible for you to build the building because we won't give you the height bearing. The entire project was approved. It's profitable. They want to pursue it.
Nothing wrong with that. It seems incumbent upon the zoning board so that it does not find itself preempted by the New Jersey Eviction Act to impose simple, easy checks and balances to make sure the tenants are not victimized.
They have to be informed of their rights and you have to demonstrate that you got to have voluntarily. That's not a big >> Okay. And so your view of the preeemption doctrine is if there's a a condition that doesn't go far enough for
you, but you know that you would like it to go further so that it is essentially it stops short of what it should be. That's preempting something. No, the preeemption is the fact that the New Jersey Eviction Act quite clearly has as its goals and policies preventing the
displacement of tenants by landlords seeking greater profits, which is why they're displacing. >> So, every zoning approval that doesn't have something akin to your suggested language is deficient and illegal
>> going well, I mean, they're only in danger if they're within 45 days. Okay. But the point is that um yeah, I would argue that that is a significant defect of of the zoning application the resolutions that are being passed here.
I would agree. The other the other defect which I pointed out is that um uh and this kind of an eitheror and argues for remand one way or the other. Um Jason is arguing that in effect those
conditions are inappropriate and shouldn't be in there because they're not purely land use issues. I disagree. I think these are land use issues. But the fact is that if they are not land use issues, that means the resolution is illegal. There is no severability clause
in that resolution, which means the whole thing falls apart, which means it's not a bad idea to remand it back to the zoning board for repair just to fix that part as well. >> Okay. Thank you. And and thank you for taking the grilling. Questions?
Um, anybody else questions for >> I have some questions. >> Yep. M so the judge said agreed with the council and the zoning board from the previous case that we were discussing before. There was then an appeal made and then
there was a settlement made. >> It it went from the zoning board to the council to the superior court to the appellet division. But before it was briefed and argued in the appellet division there was a settlement. >> And is that settlement public or is it
private? If you're going to talk about it then >> I would love I'd love to hear that. >> Oh the settlement agreement was basically what I'm suggesting a little bit simplified what I'm suggesting that you
ask the zoning board to do with this case and quite frankly other cases going forward. the the developer and he agreed to do this uh advised the tenants of their rights and entered into voluntary agreements with each of them.
>> So that's okay. So evidently in our laws we you have to do that before a demolition permit anyway. You have to file and in fact it says in part C after you go through all the numbers let me read it to you. None of the aforementioned permits will be issued unless the owner
landlord provides the construction official. Could >> you just be a little slower? >> He's typing. >> Sorry, I'm from Jersey. >> Um, none of the form mentioned permits. >> What are you reading from, sir? >> From our code. >> From the or which >> demolition code?
>> Demolition code 866 ten of regulations. It was added in 66 2018 by ordinance number B34. >> Slow down. >> Oh, I'm sorry. A lot of words. >> Sorry. Sorry. >> I've been known to speak fast. [snorts] Uh, ready? All right. None of the aforementioned permits will be issued
unless the owner landlord provides a construction official or his designate with an executed certification that fully details the matter in which the tenant was advised of his or her rights and shall include but is not limited to attaching proof of service in accordance
with one of the approved delivery methods delineated above. A copy of the notice, the date of the notice was provided, and a statement describing each right that was conveyed to the tenant. So technically the builder just agreed to what our codes are.
>> What you're telling me >> you're missing the most important part. >> I send you a letter advising you of your rights. Terrific. That's good. Uh who's verifying that that's being sent is a good question. U but the real issue is
did the tenant agree to leave voluntarily or were they pressured out? Okay. And the only person that can tell you that is the tenant. The reason it's good, and this may sound contradictory, but I think for practical reasons, it's good to have the the landlord, the
owner, the person negotiating with the tenant rather than some sort of one-sizefits-all solution. Is that some tenants may wish to stay, other people would be delighted to be moved to a better situation. the developer that they the you know
what's good for one person is different than what's good for another person. So that's why it should be an agreement between the developer and the individual tenants. But just mailing somebody their rights. You're saying here here's here's a mailing certificate. I mail it to
everybody. Uh that that that doesn't mean they got it. Okay. I I have tenants. I mail them stuff all the time. And even though they're probably lying some of the times, a lot of times they just didn't get it that that you're going to rely on the mail and they're going to be thrown out. I think that if
you get countersigned uh uh affidavit as as uh that particular developer did, either that or he proved that the tenants had already moved out before we came into the settlement. It seemed unreasonable to me to ask a developer to come up with affidavit from people that don't even live there anymore. Test, you
know, say postf facto I wasn't pressured out. But that's what I think would happen if you did that. You would be in accordance with the intents and purposes and operations of the New Jersey Eviction Act. Okay. You would not be imposing any undue. >> It would be beyond the eviction act.
Correct. You're saying it's not preeemption because it's more stringent the eviction act. >> Well, that's why I think they use the terms not less. No, I less than or equal to. >> Okay. That would give you the opportunity to do that. the developer is
basically being asked to comply with the law and prove that they complied with the law in a fairly simple way. And I think that offsets and protects you from the the argument that some people might make. I won't mention names that um you you are in violation of the preeemption
act and you're also there's a delegation issue that the conditions are so vague you can't tell whether they met them or not. I think that's a very simple and practical solution for this particular case and other cases going forward. It's just a reasonable thing that people
should be willing to do. And again, if everybody in the world were really rich, like city council people, no, I'm just kidding, were really wealthy and think nothing of spending 10, 15, $20,000 on a lawyer to defend their rights because a zoning board gave a developer an
incentive to try to intrude on their rights. Well, maybe this wouldn't be necessary, but many of the people living in rental units are not wealthy, and having to hire a lawyer is a really big issue, which raises that other illegal issue of undue burden. I think it places
an undue burden on the tenants that can be simply solved by by just getting a little paperwork included in your zoning. >> Councilman, are you you have you can >> Yeah, Michael. Michael, I have a couple more question. I don't know how this
goes back and forth. you can just ask the questions quickly. I mean >> um >> get get them out is what I'm saying. >> So your ideas or your >> thoughts on this matter on what zoning board should do or how we should take apart is anywhere else in the state has
this been asked of any other municipalities uh the request that you've had. Have you asked this in any other municipalities? I >> I I only operate in Hobok and now I have not done this elsewhere. Um, we could that that's a question that you would need to adjourn this thing to get answered and I don't think you want to
do that. Okay. Um, that's an interesting question. Is there precedent statewide for this? Uh, on the other hand, you have the opportunity, as we did with the affordable housing ordinance, to break new ground. Uh, the affordable housing ordinance here is a big deal. It spread
to Jersey City. It it it received national attention. Other municipalities in in New Jersey are trying it. I don't think whether it's been done before is a reason not to do it. If it's a good idea, you should give it a try. And if it's a bad idea, then you throw it out.
>> And how many turns tenants currently are in this building? >> This one only has three. >> So this has three. And >> the last one had 18. So the builder or the person doing this who owns it now has and again since you're
asking us for this I'm guessing that this hasn't present been presented to tenants. I don't know. I'm asking >> I have no idea. I was the the the ever useful John Nastasi reached out to me on this one as he did on the previous one and I said sure let's talk but I never heard back. So, so there could be
something that we don't know about here that the the builder could be speaking with the tenants, finding them relocation, ask telling and letting them come back in. >> The appeal has been filed and it's something before us and there's a clock. So, >> all right. I mean, >> yeah, to to answer one question at the
hearing, I asked that question and I asked whether the apartments were occupied and the answer, it's in the transcript was we don't know or or the people at the hearing didn't know it. I think if they were empty they wish >> and >> I think they said it was not relevant to
the application too if I recall. No, we don't know and it's not a relevant consideration >> whether there are there's a body of law out there on how you appropriately are what you're supposed to do or not do if you if you are unable to evict someone.
But whether they're empty or or not empty now shouldn't make a difference with regard to the decision. Well, I mean I'm telling you my opinion. So >> So council um Thank you, Michael. So council president. So essentially we're back to the same thing that we were at
the last one essentially is that what the zoning board is allowed to do and not allowed to do. >> Correct. >> That pretty much. >> Yeah. Yep. >> Okay. I mean >> can I clarify a misstatement that Mr. Evers made? Okay. So, when we were
discussing the MLUL and the Anti- Eviction Act, I was making sure I had all my sites correct, but the municipal land use law that refers to, as we know it, zoning, planning, um, development regulations, and that comes from the New
Jersey state constitution under the land use enabling act >> 1948. >> There you go. and that governs things like zoning districts, variances, site plans, subdivision approvals, conditional uses, related planning and zoning procedures. The anti- evviction act is not under the MLU. While the
anti- eviction act comes from the state's police power, and they're completely different. They are not related. And the only time that they might overlap is when you have this situation where you have a developer who then is subject to the anti- eviction
act. um they are not the zoning board has nothing to do with the anti- eviction act. I also wanted to just clarify another misstatement. Um in order for somebody to appeal to the appellet division, the order from the superior court must be marked final
where you have to apply for something called an interlocatory appeal. So that had to be a final order of the trial court for Mr. Evers to appeal. didn't matter if it was without prejudice or with prejudice. That just means without prejudice means you can go
back and refile the same lawsuit >> without prej or with prejudice. >> Changing the cause of action. >> Changing the cause of action. You'd have to amend your complaint. With prejudice means you cannot come back. So it doesn't mean that it wasn't final. It was definitely final or he would >> other prongs for the the collateral stop
will arrest Judicata that may not have been satisfied. But I I I'm glad that you clarified that. >> And and the last thing, Mr. Evers has great valiant points, but what he's asking you to do is rewrite the anti- eviction act. And he's asking you to do things that are above and beyond what
the zoning board of appeals is enabled to do under the statute. They cannot enforce the anti- eviction act. >> [clears throat] >> Well, it is interesting that his settlement is not the settlement did not take the form of amending the resolution
of approval. It just was a separate sidebar agreement. >> And you have to also when you're settling a case, and I I know that there are lawyers and non- lawyers in here and people who've been involved in lawsuits and not involved in lawsuits, sometimes it's a benefit. It's a pro and con for them for that developer. Maybe it was
easier just to get affidavit and certifications than go through the entire appellet division process which could take 2 years or more. So maybe for that developer that specifically was something that they wanted to do. That doesn't mean that's the law. That doesn't mean it becomes president. >> Which is why I didn't ask how that was
settled because frankly >> it's not relevant. >> Okay, come on back up. We're going to >> the cont the contention is that the the the proposal here is to cause the zoning board be involved in enforcing the New
Jersey Eviction Act. That's not correct. It's a mischaracterization. What's being proposed is to put a condition in the zoning resolution that requires them to demonstrate that they have complied with the law. No, but the different someone has to
look at the demonstration and say, "Yes, it's been satisfied." >> Police officers enforce the law. Court officers enforce the law. The the the construction code official when you go there to get your building permit says, "Where is the certificate of zoning compliance?" And you show him a
certificate of zoning compliance. And if you have one, you get a permit, and if you don't have one, you don't. He's not in doing enforcing the zoning law. He's just seeing that you've complied with it. An important >> All right. Thank you.
Okay. Are we uh we good? >> Good. >> Um do we want to discuss anything? >> Yeah. I'd like to say a couple things. >> Okay. >> Um I mean I largely agree with Mr. Evers on undue burden. um we kind of end up in
a situation where uh we're kind of reaching a a weird outcome that we want to do the right thing but the mechanisms for doing that right thing aren't there. Um [clears throat] the uh
we've been saying all along that there's a mechanism for the tenants to um [snorts] you know keep their rights and and their protections via the eviction law. But that puts the burden on the tenants. And time and time again we put uh pressure on those with uh the least amount of
power and in the least position to know all the rules to take the initiative to take the expense to protect themselves. And that's frankly unfair in many instances. Um however the facts are that I agree that this is not a land use law um situation. We are going to the wrong
forum. Um and so I think that we should you know affirm the uh zoning board's decision because if we allow this now the slipper slope will happen. Every single time we do not have one of these conditions coming out of the zoning board. There will be an appeal to this body uh and we will have the same uh
conversation where we will be exceeding the scope of of that which is mandated uh for us. Um what I think we should do after that uh is move forward quickly and I've already reached out to corporation council to take the first steps on this and enhance the portions
that councilman Pzano had read to include a lot of the pred uh uh conditions that Mr. Evers uh had had included for example we should include before you get a permit uh you know an affidavit or evidence that that there's been sign off. I would even go so f further that if the the uh if the
apartments are currently empty, you know, if they were if they were occupied within a year or some period before, we should go back and and get evidence that those person weren't coerced to leaving. But that's separate process, right? That is not does not put the burden on the zoning board. That puts the burden in the right area, whether it's the rent
office, rent leveling board, uh city council, separate process from the zoning board. So, I think we should move forward in that direction. We should affirm the zoning board's decision. uh from a couple of months ago, move forward and then you know the right forum for this uh should have been um you know lobby the city council to
update the portions of of our municipal code uh which can make a difference here and I think we have that opportunity to do so uh and again I'll you know be once we have uh good language I'll be seeking uh co-sponsors for that uh in the next couple weeks. >> Thank you Councilman.
Anybody else? >> Councilman Cohen. So, um I have uh served on the zoning board and had Mr. Evers appear before me numerous times on applications and I have a great deal of respect for him and his advocacy and uh
and I just want to compliment him for the work that he puts in on these issues because it's important to him and it's not like he has a personal financial interest in this. I think it's because he genuinely cares about affordability and tenants in the city and uh he's committed to those issues. So I want to acknowledge that and recognize it. Uh I
also want to recognize the work of the members of the Hoboken zoning board. Uh they are unpaid hardworking folks who give many hours of their time to meetings like this. Uh they are meetings that are not seen on YouTube. They are
not meetings that are clipped and put on Twitter or X or you or Tik Tok or wherever. People like to put things to show that they have done something significant because a lot of times people who serve in public capacities
like to do that and and there's nothing wrong with that. I mean, you're you're showing the community how you're serving. But those folks don't do that because they're not recorded. They're just doing it because they are committed public servants who give their time, give their energy, uh, and time away
from their families, time away from, uh, their kids, uh, parents and, and they, and they work super hard. Uh, and it's it is not a appreciated or thanked task, but it's extremely important one. And I want to note that at the end, Bald
proved in this case that it was a unanimous decision. uh uh John Branchfort who's someone who I served with who is someone who I know is someone who can be very skeptical with respect to development applications was one of the people who voted in support. I think he actually was the movement on
this [snorts] on this one. Uh and I think it reflects a great deal of thought and I reviewed the record. I I read the deliberations. I read the expert reports and like many of the applications that I heard as a commissioner on the zoning board, it reflected a thoughtful, careful assessment of the merits and the
objections, including those of Mr. Evers, uh, that were also very clearly presented to the commissioners. So, uh, you know, I haven't seen or heard anything this evening that would make me want to not affirm the application. I believe that Councilman Cano, I I
respect his suggestion that there may be things that we can do in the code uh to make not just a one-off situation here, but actually a long-term solution that could have the the legitimate concerns that you've raised addressed in a way that can be addressed citywide and not
just for this one application. So, I I intend to vote in affirmance of the decision. Thank you, Council President. >> Thank you. Uh, Councilwoman Fischer, not to put you on the spot, but are you I don't want to leave you out there. Do you have any desire? >> Sure. Not to put you on the spot, but
are you >> There's a time. >> No, I'm good. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Council President, can you just please Oh, just explain to council an affirmative or negative uh what what >> Well, we someone will will make a motion and you know which will happen.
>> Okay. So, there's a motion to affirm, which means a yes vote means we are affirming what has already happened. So, um I mean I I think I I I thank Councilman Cano. He's uh he scared me a
little bit, [snorts] but uh I think the the you know, the notion that I mean, and I'll start with Councilman Cohen's point. While we don't have to give deference to the zoning board's decision, we could decide we disagree with it. I do believe firmly that we do
owe them a degree, not a state, a legally required difference, but I think people who serve on these boards and were there and who can look into the eyes of the witnesses and can perceive things that the record doesn't always convey. You know, there there should be
some element of of difference for their service. Um, you know, for me this just comes down to one word and that's jurisdiction. Um, you know, it I think Mr. Evers has has in one of the 10,00
pages had said something about how it was sort of a technical nitpicky thing, but frankly, you know, subject matter jurisdiction is pretty important legal stuff. And I think I have I don't I I think I have uh you know rent control
ordinance a little bit of credibility to say that I'm not just blightly throwing tenants under the bus. Um but I still think we have a legal obligation that if the board doesn't have authority to adjudicate a matter which is what
subject matter jurisdiction is all about. You know, there's there's geographic jurisdiction like the laws of New Jersey don't apply in Pennsylvania or vice versa. But subject matter jurisdiction is like a bankruptcy court only deals with bankruptcy and you can't
go there as a obviously if if you were harassed out of your apartment, you wouldn't go to the zoning to the uh zoning board for for relief because they don't have authority to do that. And so,
you know, we at the planning board, we recently had an interesting fire code issue and we were we had at two experts arguing over what the fire code was and how you would qualify and someone and we said, you know, the it's like that's not
our expertise. That's not our professional expertise. All we're going to say is you have to satisfy the appropriate fire code regulations. And if that ended up in a different lawsuit be in a different court with fire code officials then so be it. But it was not
for the planning board by analogy to figure that out at that uh in that instance. So um we talked about the rest uticata and I I don't I don't want to offend um Mr. Tuval as far as my view on the the
applicability of that. But um bottom line uh I'm just trying to get you I think you know Joe when you when you talked about the fear of these things continuing to come back. If if the same
issue comes back over and over we can just not have a hearing and it's automatically affirmed. So it, you know, we don't have to worry about, I should say you, not me, um, don't have to worry about that kind of stuff. But I think between the condition, which says you
got to comply, and the judge that said, I looked at it and, you know, that's the way it should go. I I think that we should not be sitting in a position to compel the zoning board to decide what extraordinary conditions that they
should or shouldn't be imposing. They they were asked to do it at the hearing. They clearly knew what Mr. Evers wanted and they chose to explicitly say there will be no more criteria or obligations with regard to certifications, whatever
the language is. Um, and so I think there's the there's another forum for this and the zoning board is and us here in this instance are not the appropriate one. So um,
Mr. Anyone else? Mr. Fina, call the Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, D. Um I just want to say that uh my you've actually heard it here so you should you know hold everyone to what's been said and I kind of appreciate uh the idea that Mr.
Quintterero put forward um because there are definitely uh many different ways to get to the same destination. Right. So, um, anyway, I I, [snorts] uh, I appreciate, you know, everything you've said and and I I hear it and, uh, you know, thank
you. >> Okay. Just give me the title of the, uh, resolution, >> the motion to affirm the zoning board adjustment. I don't have the HOB number for it. Uh
25-14. Um the >> Okay, there you go. Is that enough? Mr. Con? >> Hi, M. Fisher.
>> No. >> Mrs. Imus. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Jabbor. >> Yes. President Zano. Hi. Cano. >> Hi, >> Mr. Ramos. >> Hi, >> President Doyle.
>> Hi. >> Okay, >> thank you. So, we now have >> public >> public portion and we're going to go with the list and the public portion and I will add uh
>> Yes, you're done. >> Thank you very much. Very impressed. every God bless you. [snorts] >> Um >> Jim Vance, is Mr. Vance still here? >> He left. We scared him away. [snorts] Uh
Hillary Stock, think you're going to have to raise that a little bit, Joe. [snorts] Hi everyone. Happy New Year. Hope everyone had a great holiday. My name is Hillilary Stock and I wanted to speak to this group today as I was physically
assaulted on December 20th while walking in front of Hopes around the corner from the Hoboken shelter while I was with my 2-year-old daughter. As I leaned down to pick up my daughter, I was violently struck from behind. My daughter was reduced to tears over the terror and
fear that she felt. Turns out the assaulter is a repeat offender as evidenced by the numerous reports from other Hoboken mothers when his picture was published. To this day, he is still walking the streets of Hoboken inciting violence
against women as evidenced by a recent December 31st report from a fellow mom. I do appreciate and want to thank all of you as our city council members for working with us in the immediate aftermath to understand the situation and provide your support. We have had
conversations with Mayor Emily and council members President Xano Russo and Imus along with Kenny as the head of public safety and Chief Aguar. I'm sure that other members of Hoboken leadership were working behind the scenes too and
we are grateful for that. Yet there remains much to be done. We should not have to worry about being insult assaulted in front of our own homes, kicked to the ground from behind in broad daylight while walking with our children on the sidewalk. More needs to
be done to protect Hoboken residents from this type of behavior in order for our city to maintain its reputation as a mecca for young families who wish to move here and raise their children so that Hoboken residents can enjoy all the positive aspects we have to offer.
Now to the solutions. The following two points I will speak on should be implemented as the path forward. We need a new location for the shelter. Frankly, the shelter is misplaced next to the three schools. It is completely over capacity and over sererving the
population without proper resources in place. The overnight situation, from what I understand, is simply CS on the floor, which is completely below what a standard of living should be for absolutely anyone, homeless or not. This facility is a church. It's too small and
has not been built out with the proper dormitories and facilities to ser serve its muchneeded guests. Is it really achieving its goal and purpose to serve the homeless in a facility that doesn't physically and structurally support the needs? The city and the shelter should
be working together to find a new location with proper infrastructure with shelter services, job searching resources, and mental health services. I'm frankly surprised that the shelter leadership has not approached the city to work on a plan for a proper facility.
But I think the time has come now for you all as Hoboken leadership to proactively start that conversation with the shelter and find them a better spot. Everyone would benefit the hope and residents, the shelter guests, and all of you as leadership. And this would be the right use of tax dollars. Second
order of business, the vetting process for the shelter needs to be completely redone. The judgment-free all are welcome mantra unfortunately is no longer working. We understand the process for overnight guests is more strict, but the same needs to be done
for the Okay, I think it's back. Nope, we're good. >> Can you help me? Could you touch the microphone so we can >> We understand the We understand the process for overnight guests is more strict, but the same needs to be done for guests stopping by for meals because
that is what is attracting the vast majority of guests day in and day out, and that is where the crime is stemming from. Every single guest who comes to the shelter should be fingerprinted, run through a metal detector, and background checked against police records. The stakes are too high to have individuals going there with police records. This in
includes individuals intending to commit violence and violence itself. We understand that the shelter is not owned and operated by the city, but truthfully that needs to change. The shelter cannot be operating if their guests cannot um obey the law. The 50K that the city
gives the shelter every year should be spent on these fingerprinting tools, metal detectors, and background checking software. When I spoke with Councilman Ramos during his campaign, he actually told me that he would make sure the shelter is held accountable for the 50K they are given to make for make sure
they have better security. Please implement stronger measures to prevent this type of incident from occurring again. It damages Hoboken's reputation for safety and desiraability. Thank you for your time this evening and I'd like to open up to Mayor Emily and all of the council members to respond to
this on how you will improve the situation immediately at the shelter and in the long term. Thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you very much, Ms. Duck. Elizabeth Adams. Good evening. Tonight, I would like to
clarify a few things regarding the comments that I made during the last council meeting of December 17th, 2025 concerning the former mayor's decision to raise a particular flag in front of city Hoboken City Hall other than the
American flag that is not even representative of any legitimate country. Firstly, I would like to thank you kindly, Mr. Cohen, not to take my words and twist their meaning to suit your agenda. I was making the point that
the American flag is supposed to represent all of the people of the United States. If one were to follow the line of reasoning that other flags should be flown to demonstrate support for the particular countries that they
represent, then it would get quite crowded out in front of city hall. fairly quickly. There is only one location that I know of that does this and that is the United Nations. While Hoboken may
have become fairly divisive or diverse in the last several years, it is not the United Nations and neither is Hoboken City Hall. It is not the duty of city hall to express what should be considered as partisan politics by
flying flags of people's various countries of origin. In any event, while anti-semitism and Islamophobia are certainly to be condemned, what must never be tolerated under any
circumstances are the ideologies of terrorism and oppression for any reasons whatsoever. As well as those who enact these gross concepts and those who promote,
advocate, support attempt to justify or excuse and endorse them. Especially egregious are those who utilize their flags to hide behind in order to advance their particular
agendas in the name of so-called patriotism and/or supposed loyalty to a country, a person or group of people, a government or ideals that are are in reality false.
It is a sad fact. for example, that more wars have been fought in the name of religion than any other reason. This is certainly not what our creator had in mind for us.
While I realize that there exist people who feel that the American flag does not represent them andor their particular values, unless andor until a possible alternative emerges, it remains the best
symbol to represent our country. In our desire to be politically correct, let us not become so zealous as to overlook or deny the fact that other people may for any one of a number of
reasons happen to hold differing views and those views should be if not necessarily agreed with respected. Having said this, at this time I would like to wish those who celebrate a very
happy 12th night, that's tonight. Blessed Epiphany, that's tomorrow. Belis Navididad and also above all a better and more peaceful new year for everyone. Thank
you for your time. >> Thank you, Elizabeth. Patricia Waiters. I'll let Manny sign. >> Manny did not sign this one, but I will put your name on it. But >> but no, but it's Patricia Waiters.
>> We we we we can't wait to hear from you, Patricia. >> Patricia Waiters. Thank you, Council President. I'mma miss you, too. I'm serious. I just got a few things real quick. The young I forgot her name
already. Well, I went to speak to the young lady. I want to know on a Saturday, I don't know if they got to get permission or not. I was riding down by the shelter and I happened to see two buses like minivan buses. The license plate was Ecu uh Ecuador, not Ecuador,
Quebec, something like that. Anyway, they counted the license plates. I took pictures of both vans. Do they have to get authorization from our city to bring that many people here? This was just this Saturday. They dropped, they had suitcases,
everything. It was crazy. I am so mad that I left my phone in CVS when I went to pick up my medicine. I had to show you the picture. I want to know who's in charge of the shelter because I'm going there myself. She just gave me the chills when she stood up here and said that because I pass the shelter every
day. I work at the middle school. They see me and I and I truly believe in citizens arrest. I go every single day. the moms know with the school right there with Miles Square and I and I observed this even before the election and we they kept asking us the questions
about the shelter. Everybody was protecting their feelings so we won't feel bad. We have to do something about that shelter. Y'all please don't wait till somebody gets seriously hurt for us to do something. I don't care who looking their face down on us or looking
down on us. We made some campaign promises. The election was crazy. We fought real hard. We don't have no other choice but to stick together. Okay. Everywhere in the world, you get a 100 days to prove who you are and respect the residents and the citizens or we
could vote you out with a no confidence. That scared the mess out of me. I said, "Do they know this many people?" I'm serious. Lots like at least a 30seater. Two of them. Then I seen one coming down Washington Street like it's nothing. suitcases, boxes, bags, and put them off
right at the shelter. Is anybody communicating? Are we all being respected? Six people running for mayor that wanted it changed so bad. I hope that's y'all saying the same way y'all ran and now y'all
bitter. I wish you could refrain from that type of mindset. Our city is in danger. And I don't care who like who. Who like who. I want to put this in the record because I came in this cold because I thought it was the swearing in.
And this is for everybody that ran. Integrity shapes every decision you make. And no, I don't do I AI. So the next person tell you this, this is Pat is uncut. You don't cut any corners. You don't lie
to save faces and friends. You do the right thing. Don't let your vote be a rubber stamp for somebody's wrongdoing because that's the only way to good government is in your opinion.
Calm under pressure. This city is in chaos. We all know that. Please try to stay and compose in tough scenarios. Creating calm and chaos is the only way to move Hoboken forward for the betterment of the residents and the people. I'm not going to be saying
congratulations. I'm going to say this cuz I'm expecting integrity, respect, and accountability by everybody that's going to serve this city. And I'm serious cuz it's about a movement now. We need to stick together. I don't care
what your nationality is or whatever cuz we all struggle through this election and know we need change. It's a dying need for change. So, please don't get cocky with Pat Waiters because I have nothing but energy left because ain't nobody that spectacular or we all
wouldn't have got a I'm I'm wrapping it up. Council President, we all got rent increases that we fought a big ugly yes no fight. I got so many people blowing my phone up, calling me. I'm the loser. I was the spoiler. You need to read my
phone. Pat, guess what? You was right. I know I was right. And I'mma run and run and run again. We got increases in our rent even in church towers. The people in the house of the story still going to do the same thing and
sold us out illegally sold they votes again. We not going to overlook it like this don't exist. I'm asking y'all again in closing saying this and I'm serious. All of y'all have my information. I'm not doing no lengthy resume cuz my actions speak volumes. So I'm not
intimidated by do I have the right words to say. I'm here to work with you guys as a team. That goes for everybody. Please. And I'mma miss you, Mr. Do, but you're still on his owning board, right? >> Uh, yes. >> For now, >> you will. >> All right. So, I'll come there and
bother you. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, Cheryl Fall. Good evening, council. Um, I wasn't going to talk, but I just listened to that hearing and I have a few things to say. Um,
>> I I do know that some of the council does have some, in quotes, credibility when it comes to rent control because of the referendum. But I always say, and I'm particularly jaded. I understand that that there are degrees of
supporting rent control and I can say honestly not a single one of you supported as much as I do. Um actually I really don't I heard but it seems to me that if a resolution at the zoning board
says the owner is going to follow all laws, the anti- eviction laws, whatever, that it's really no big deal to say and the they'll have the tenants sign an affidavit that they did. I I guess I just don't understand what the problem
is with the rest of that sentence. It all it blows my mind the pretzels that the lawyers twist themselves into about how no, we can't do this. We can't do this. It's not necessary. It's a different jurisdiction. And there's
another forum which is the courts which I think my friend Mike Evers made it very clear that tenants don't have the money to defend themselves there against this. And in all that pretzel twisting about how it's not the right for him and
you can't do it and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Not once did you hear either one of them say and we know all of the landlords follow those laws. And you know why they don't say it? Cuz they don't. If I had more than five minutes,
I could give you a litany of the number of people who don't live here anymore who were pushed out, harassed out, and duped out of their homes because they got an approval to tear down the building that they the owner got an
approval to tear down the building that they live in and put up something grotesque, hideous, and expensive. There is no other forum here for these tenants. No other forum. Now, as far as that law that um Councilman President
pointed out and I worked with Councilman DeFusco on that and it doesn't work. I have filed Opras in the past asking for the certifications from the landlords that they did explain to the tenants
what their rights were. And there's never once been a responsive record, not one. And you know why? Because they already duped, harassed, or pushed out the tenants before they go for the demolition permit. So by the time they go for the demolition permit, there are
no tenants to notify because they already duped them out. Now, I also want to point out something, all of you who were here when the uh referendum happened, so many of you were crying over Councilwoman Gotito. Well, I want to remind all of
you that the last time Mike Evers came here, I know you weren't [snorts] here. It's okay. Councilwoman Gillino, who was the president, who sat there in the middle, promised us promised us that she would do something to fix this ongoing
problem. Now, unfortunately, as we all know, she is no longer with us, so she can't. So I wonder which one of you all of you were like whining over your friend and Councilwoman Gillino and she was so wonderful and she was my friend too. But which one of you in her memory
is going to do something about this because it's ongoing. Um here's something else that can happen with the ordinance that's already on our books that the owner must certify. Take that ordinance and make it work. forced
the zoning officer, and believe you me, I have no belief or trust in her, that the minute somebody comes to her to have her look at their plans for their building, if there is a tear down in there or something that's going to necessitate getting the tenant out to
make all that money, that she must notify the housing department immediately. And then they must immediately get in touch with those tenants. somebody's got to help them. And like I said, several of you have
credibility when it comes to protecting tenants. But I if you support rent control, I'm also going to point out that that tearing these buildings down and tearing these buildings down and not protecting the tenants is a way to end
rent control in Hoboken one building at a time. So there are things that you can do. Um I think that's pretty much Yeah. No other forum. I just was taking notes during the whole thing. Um
yeah, in general that's it. Take the law. I think you were reading it, Councilman President Zano. And make that work. If we can't just simply have the zoning board say follow the law and prove you did it's they're not the
enforcement agent. >> But somebody has to make them. Now I think I don't even see a clock. Is my time up? >> Yeah. >> 30 seconds over. >> Okay. So around the corner for me next to the there's a laundry mat on Third
and Garden. And then there's a new hideous building that was a push out. Two in from on park on the west side of the street. One building in from the corner. It's like a mathnasium now. I was a census worker in August of that
year. A tenant in that building moved in in April. So on a lease, brand new tenant, that tenant was pushed out because that building was down before the following April. That's just two.
But if I had, like I said, if I had an hour and some time, I could sit here and name every single building that I know of. And that's only the build, that's only the people who found me that this has happened. Um, I also want to thank Councilwoman Fischer for voting
no because I don't know what her reasoning was, but perhaps she agrees with me that it would be so simple, so simple to just take it one step further. Um, I think that's everything. With that said, Councilman Doyle, thank you for
your service. We will miss you. and you know whatever else people usually say when people are done I'm sure you're probably going to still be with us on some level maybe the planning board maybe the zen thank you good night >> Manuel Rivera Soler and you want to move
that chair so the clock >> that's Jerry's clair or no it was >> well >> he took Jimmy's >> it >> [clears throat] >> Thank you, Council President.
Uh, can the microphone be a little higher if possible? Uh, Council President, uh, I'm going to change it up. Uh, I'm not Thank you very much. I'm going I'm going to change it up. I appreciate the humor. It's the time. I know. Uh again, as the unofficial
official or unofficial consoler of the council, I would like to take an opportunity on my behalf and hopefully on behalf of members of the public and yourself to take [snorts] a moment to to send our condolences to um Councilman Michael Russo and his family on the loss
of his um uncle Anthony Dfano, another great Hoboken Knight who has left us too soon. Um just want to take a moment to me mention that again. Um it it's it's hard to put in words how he will be
missed, but he was loved by not only his family, but the people who knew him and worked with him. Anyway, Council President, um I'm again, like I said, I'm going to switch it up. So, I will do my best uh to translate again anyone who who may want to tune out or may not uh
want to listen. Uh I hope they do listen, but um I won't be offended if they don't. So, here we go. Bona Epania. Bona Biffana Atuti. Bon Epiphania Atus.
Mñana. Thank you, Council President. That that briefly I said I just wanted to wish a happy epiphany to everyone in three different languages um as well as the children of Hoboken. And with this council president, I will again continue
to switch it up. Uh this is a gift for again as I mentioned the children uh of Puerto Rico and the children of the world. >> Three kings. >> That's correct, sir. >> So it goes like this. I'm glad that you're able to see it. I was going to
hold it up like this, but I thought it would be awkward. Ro pom pom. Ro pom pom. Pom roamino. Asento roa pom pom roa pom pomando meioto carel. Mess rio
meio council president that was uh I guess you you saw by or you heard by the romp that is a Spanish translation of the little drummer boy I um um made a a it
wasn't a promise but a at least a a effort that I would do this this year because I've been planning to do it for for many other years. Um, so I appreciate your time. I appreciate you all. Again, it's it's it's still as a Catholic, it's still Christmas in my
heart. Uh, till tomorrow and, uh, tomorrow evening. So again, I thank you for your time. Thank everyone uh, for their attendance here tonight. God bless you. God bless you all and God bless Hobok and Felia Reyes. Good night.
>> Thank you, Manny. Thank you very much. Motion to close public comment. >> Motion to close public comment. >> Second public portion. All those in favor? >> I. >> Motion to close. >> Motion to close. >> I >> I
>> Thank you, Jim Doyle. Thank you. >> Thank you, Emily Jabore. >> See you upstairs. >> Oh, I get to take it home. >> I tried now. >> Just this part. This cost money. Take both. >> I'm taking both.
>> Why is he >> taking both? >> My wife will know who's across the table from her at lunch. Now >> 15, >> January 15th at 1:00. Save the date at
Steven Deborah Auditorium. I can play it out. >> It's going to have to be a long inauguration. >> I I'm sorry. He wants to come >> back here to the >> Well, no. It'll It's a 7:00 meeting later in the night. I don't think it's going to be a six-hour inauguration.
>> It takes six hours. >> Emily has a very long speech. Are we not? >> No, they're going to do seven. >> Yeah, I guess so. Yeah, your meeting is at 7. >> The meeting's at 7. >> So, you only going to have cookies and cupcakes and coffee?
>> Not, [laughter] >> man. You can have as many cookies. >> You can bring one for each of the cakes, too. Don't think you're leaving You're