WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=1UQLkeu4ayg

Part: 1

1
00:00:02.720 --> 00:00:35.280
Okay, gonna let the participants fill up and we go ahead and promote Jonathan before we call the meeting to order. All right, Jonathan, you good? Can you hear us? You didn't get to sit through my normal

2
00:00:35.280 --> 00:00:54.079
>> tests before. So, all right. All right. With that, I think we can uh safely call the meeting to order. Corey, if you'd like to >> call. >> Yep. Um, it's now 6:39 and call this

3
00:00:54.079 --> 00:01:08.799
meeting to order. >> Okay. Please be advised that in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, the notice of the time, date, and place of this regularly scheduled meeting of the Jersey City Historic Preservation Commission has been provided to the city clerk for posting

4
00:01:08.799 --> 00:01:25.520
on the public notice tab of the Jersey City website. On Thursday, June 11th, we'll do a roll call attendance for commissioners. Um, Commissioner Gucciardo, >> present. >> Commissioner Gunther

5
00:01:25.520 --> 00:01:57.640
>> here. >> Commissioner Gordon >> present. >> Commissioner Edgecom. Amanda, you have to unmute yourself. I can't quite hear you, but I can see you trying to talk. So, we'll count that as an attendance and you can

6
00:01:57.759 --> 00:02:18.319
>> Okay. Commissioner Edgecom is here. Commissioner call back. >> Hi. >> Perfect. Great. All right. Commissioner Sang Campamp is absent. Commissioner Sakong is absent. Commissioner Blazak is absent. Commissioner Kay is absent. Vice Chair Cronin is absent. Chair Gera

7
00:02:18.319 --> 00:02:33.120
>> here. >> Okay. There are six commissioners in attendance. Five affirmative votes are needed for a certificate of appropriateness. The next item is the approval of minutes from May from the May 11th meeting. Do any commissioners have any changes,

8
00:02:33.120 --> 00:02:49.280
corrections, anything like that? If not, staff recommends a motion to approve. Motion second. >> Okay, we'll do a roll call vote. Commissioner Gucciardo, >> I. >> Commissioner Gunther, >> I.

9
00:02:49.280 --> 00:03:13.120
>> Commissioner Gordon, >> I. >> Commissioner. >> Oh, Edo. Yes. >> Oh, good. Uh, Commissioner Callback. >> Hi. >> Okay. Commissioner Sankam's absent. Sakong is absent. Blazak is absent. Kay is absent. Cronin is absent. Chair Gita.

10
00:03:13.120 --> 00:03:27.920
>> Uh I >> Okay. There are six votes in favor, none against. The minutes from the May 11th uh historic preservation commission have been approved. Correspondence. All copies of correspondence and application items are linked on tonight's agenda

11
00:03:27.920 --> 00:03:43.040
through the hyperlink at each case number. Um for announcements, staff has no general announcements for preservation. However, um just while we are back on Zoom, I do want to go over just a couple very brief items. Um as

12
00:03:43.040 --> 00:03:58.879
again as we go back on Zoom, um we are going to uh the way this works, of course, it's normal as a typical HBC meeting. However, um when Chairman Griga is calling your case this evening, um if

13
00:03:58.879 --> 00:04:15.519
you are going to be presenting to the commission in any capacity as part of that case, um as a professional, we ask that you raise your hand. So, this would be for attorneys, the applicants themselves, um design professionals, things like that. We prefer to promote everyone at the beginning, swear everyone in at the beginning, and then

14
00:04:15.519 --> 00:04:30.880
you guys can structure your presentation how you wish from there. Um if you are presenting to the commission as a design professional or um a planner, architect attorney, any of that, um we will make you a co-host so that you can share your

15
00:04:30.880 --> 00:04:47.040
screen and then we will revoke that privilege once you guys are done sharing. Um when the when we call for a public portion, um we'll ask commissioner uh members of the public to use the raise hand function at the bottom of the screen. If you're calling in on the phone, you can press star 9.

16
00:04:47.040 --> 00:05:02.479
um we will move you up to a panelist. We will ask you to turn on your camera so that we can see you and swear you in for public comment. Public comment um is limited to 5 minutes. I will give you a one minute warning when that happen uh when your time is approaching the end and then we will move you back down to

17
00:05:02.479 --> 00:05:18.639
an attendee once your public comment has ended. Um it generally runs pretty smoothly but if there are any questions by anyone as we are working through being back on Zoom um you can use the raise hand function. and we'll do our best to get through it. Okay. Um that

18
00:05:18.639 --> 00:05:34.639
moves on to open public comment if there are any members of the public present who would like to speak regarding matters of historic preservation that are not on tonight's agenda. So these are this is for matters of historic preservation that do not have a public comment section as part of their application this evening. This is for

19
00:05:34.639 --> 00:05:50.800
general public comment. Okay. I do see one hand raised. So we can um make a motion to open public comment. Motion >> second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I.

20
00:05:50.800 --> 00:06:11.280
>> Okay. So, Charlene, I see you with your hand raised. I'm going to promote you. Um, just make sure your camera is on, please. >> And Maggie, will we be swearing? >> Yeah. >> In the public at this point. Okay. >> Um, yeah. When her screen populates. >> Yes.

21
00:06:11.280 --> 00:06:27.199
>> Okay. Hi Charlene. >> Hello everyone. >> Okay, so just to just to clarify, this is for preservation items that are not on tonight's agenda, right? >> Correct. >> Okay, awesome. So, we're going to go ahead and swear you in.

22
00:06:27.199 --> 00:06:41.520
>> Okay, Miss Burke, please raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you will give this evening will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you. Please state your name for me and your address, please.

23
00:06:41.520 --> 00:07:00.639
Charlene Burke. C H A R L E N E B U R K E 56 Duncan Avenue. >> Thank you. Please proceed. >> Right, Charlene, I Your timer starts now. >> Okay. So, Maggie, I just would like clarity for um asking in terms of

24
00:07:00.639 --> 00:07:15.520
submission for things. Say if I were to have um in a um um presentation or say I wanted as a member of the public to bring photographs or documents or maps

25
00:07:15.520 --> 00:07:32.800
or something that might be relative to a presentation or a case. How is there a deadline to get it to you so that it could be introduced? Is it something you introduce? Is it something I could you go over some of those rules? um as they

26
00:07:32.800 --> 00:07:49.680
would apply to this virtual um uh capacity now. And could you also tell me how long is the expectation for us to be virtual before we return to in person? >> Sure. Um second question is easier to

27
00:07:49.680 --> 00:08:05.759
answer. So I will start with that. Um the first is that we anticipate being virtual for the length of the summer. That's the guidance we've been given. um anything week we however we've not been given a firm return to inerson date by the way your time is paused if you

28
00:08:05.759 --> 00:08:23.360
weren't aware of that um and the second is that we generally ask if you are virtually of course if you um are going to give the board something as part of your public comment to get it to us ahead of time so that we can um best share it because when you join as a

29
00:08:23.360 --> 00:08:40.640
member of the public you do not have the capacity to share your screen Um it is admittedly a flaw of Zoom but we do ask for it in advance. >> In advance meaning a day in advance or like say your meetings are always on Monday. So would Friday deadline be good

30
00:08:40.640 --> 00:08:57.279
or Monday at noon or give me some guidance here? >> Let's go with Monday at noon. >> Okay, good. So that way I know if there's something I want to submit. Thank you for that. >> Okay, great. Does that conclude your public comment? Yes.

31
00:08:57.279 --> 00:09:25.519
>> Great. Thank you. Okay. And I also see Sharon's hand raised. So Sharon, I'm going to promote you as a panelist and we'll swear you in. >> Sharon, if you could uh just turn on your camera so that we can >> Hi. I actually didn't mean to have my

32
00:09:25.519 --> 00:09:41.279
hand raised. I'm sorry about that. >> Okay, no problem. I'll put you I'll promote you back down. >> Thank you. >> All right. If there are any additional members of the public who would like uh to make a public comment relate not related to matters on tonight's agenda, please use the raise hand function or

33
00:09:41.279 --> 00:09:58.640
star 9 at the bottom of your screen. Staff sees no hands raised and recommends a motion to close public comment. >> Motion second. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? Hi. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> Okay, great. So, that brings us to old

34
00:09:58.640 --> 00:10:18.800
business. Corey, if you'd like to call the first case, and again, if you are a member of this uh presentation team, if you could raise your hand so that I can promote you to SW. >> Uh, calling case H-25-000036. applicant Eugene O' Connell Esquire on

35
00:10:18.800 --> 00:10:35.120
behalf of Raika Patel owner at 84 Cole Street that's block 11213 and lot 2.01 01 zone Hammus Cove Historic District for the certificate of

36
00:10:35.120 --> 00:10:52.240
appropriateness for the proposed construction of a new fourstory twounit residential building and associated site work in the Harsmus Cove Historic District. recommendation to the Jury City Zoning Board of Adjustment carried

37
00:10:52.240 --> 00:11:08.560
from the regular HPC meeting of May 11th, 2026 at the request of the applicant. >> Thanks. Um Caroline, I'm having a hard time promoting you. I do not know if you have to accept it

38
00:11:08.560 --> 00:11:22.959
on your end. >> There we go. Got it. >> Hi, Jean. Um, I have Carolyn and I have Jensen who promoted. Is that Is there anyone else you need?

39
00:11:22.959 --> 00:11:43.839
>> But we presented this back. Um, >> hold Jean. Jean, I'm sorry. Hold on. We're going to swear in Carolyn and Jensen before we begin the presentation. >> Okay. Carolyn and Jensen, do you swear that the testimony you will provide this evening will be the truth, the whole

40
00:11:43.839 --> 00:11:58.640
truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you, God. >> I do. >> I do. >> Thank you. Please state your names. Uh, Miss Worst, we'll start with you, please. >> Okay. It's Carolyn Worstelle. Welcome. >> Thank you. Jensen

41
00:11:58.640 --> 00:12:16.320
>> Jensen Vasil Vistor as I >> Okay, thank you. Witnesses are sworn. Staff notes that Jensen and Carolyn um have been previously qualified in front of this board. Jensen as an expert in the field of architecture. Caroline is an expert in the field of planning. Jean, you are welcome to begin.

42
00:12:16.320 --> 00:12:32.720
>> Oh, sorry, one moment. Uh Stephen, if you could just confirm on the record also that you reviewed the transcripts from the last meeting regarding this application. >> Yes, I have. >> Okay. Gan, uh if there's a vote tonight, are you comfortable with Stephen voting on the application? >> It would be comfortable. Yes. As long as

43
00:12:32.720 --> 00:12:48.800
he read the transcript and he said he had, so that's fine. Um, but I do have anation. So, uh, thanks. I'm here representing Barti Patel on this application. The last meeting that we presented to, there were a number of commissioners that here tonight and I

44
00:12:48.800 --> 00:13:04.639
would like to move this to July to give myself an opportunity for those commissioners who heard the first part of our application to prepare the balance. So, really turn this to the July meeting. >> Okay. Um, staff has no concerns with

45
00:13:04.639 --> 00:13:23.680
that. Um, so we can make a motion to carry this to the July HPC meeting, which I believe is July 13th. However, I'm going to pull up my calendar and confirm that. Um, at we can Yes. So, the July HPC meeting is July 13th. So, if anyone wants to

46
00:13:23.680 --> 00:13:40.880
make a motion to carry this at the applica applicant's request to July 13th, >> I'll make the motion. >> Anyone want to second? >> I'll second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I I >> Okay, we will see you guys again on July 13th.

47
00:13:40.880 --> 00:14:00.519
>> Appreciate the help. Thank you. >> Thank you. you guys. All right, Corey, if you'd like to go ahead and call the next case. >> Absolutely. That's going to be uh case H-25-0297.

48
00:14:02.079 --> 00:14:19.839
Applicant Benjamin Wine, Esquire, on behalf of 26 Bright Street Corporation. Owner, the address is 26 Bright Street. uh block 14106 lot 38 the zone H Van Bource Park

49
00:14:19.839 --> 00:14:37.120
Historic District for the certificate of appropriateness for the proposed construction of a new four-story 4unit residential building and associated site work in the Vanvor Park Historic District for a recommendation to the Jersey City Planning Board carried from

50
00:14:37.120 --> 00:14:53.440
the regular HPC meeting of May 11th at the request of the applicant. Hi, good evening uh chairman, commissioners. Can everybody hear me? All right. >> Yes, >> we can. >> Perfect. Good evening everybody. Definitely weird to be back in this uh

51
00:14:53.440 --> 00:15:08.320
forum, but um but we'll we'll make it work. So uh just for the record, Benjamin Wine of Prime and Meelli on behalf of the applicant. Um, chairman, you went through the uh the metrics and the scope of this application pretty well a minute ago, so I'll keep it

52
00:15:08.320 --> 00:15:25.040
brief, but uh suffice to say, we were here in person at the uh at the May HPC meeting u wherein we presented our application for a new four-story 4family residential building at 26 Bright Street in the Vanvor historic district. And uh

53
00:15:25.040 --> 00:15:41.600
we completed our presentation both from our architect and our planner at the time. And uh throughout that presentation um there were a number of comments from the commissioners related to some of the design choices and uh materials um you know location of

54
00:15:41.600 --> 00:15:57.839
windows uh alignment um sprinkler location things of that nature. Uh we do have a full list that we'll go through and we took the opportunity to adjourn the matter to this meeting in an effort to address those concerns and reappear before you all this evening hopefully

55
00:15:57.839 --> 00:16:13.360
for a positive vote to recommend our application to the uh to the planning board so that we can move forward. So, what I'd like to do this evening, if it's okay with the board, unless the board would or commission, I should say, unless the commission would prefer that

56
00:16:13.360 --> 00:16:28.160
uh that we go through everything in detail, I think we can keep it pretty straightforward in that I'll have our architect bring up the new revised plans that were submitted 10 days ago and walk through all of the revisions uh based upon the comments that we received. So,

57
00:16:28.160 --> 00:16:43.920
um would that be okay, Maggie? >> Yes, I think that's totally fine. Um, >> perfect. >> Should be able to share your screen. Actually, the only item um, previous similar to the other applications, Stephen has reviewed the transcript for

58
00:16:43.920 --> 00:17:00.000
this as well. Ben, are you comfortable with him voting as a result of that? >> Yes, I certainly am. >> Great. Okay, Patel, you should be able to share your screen. >> Oh, I'm sorry. We have to swear you in. >> Yes, I was just going to say because Thank you, Maggie. Okay, Mr. Please

59
00:17:00.000 --> 00:17:18.160
raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you will provide this evening will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, thank you. >> Please state your full name for me and spell your last. >> My name is Priel Shukla. S H U K L A

60
00:17:18.160 --> 00:17:34.160
>> actually spell your first name for me just to be sure. >> Yeah. Prito P R I T A L. >> Thank you. Witness is sworn. Staff not staff notes that pretel has previously been qualified as an expert in the field of architecture in front of this board.

61
00:17:34.160 --> 00:17:49.200
>> Thank you. And Pretel, your license is still in good standing here this evening. >> Yes. >> Or good good good sitting, I should say. But uh >> Okay. So with that, so with that, Pretel, if you can please um put up the revised plans, just note the date for

62
00:17:49.200 --> 00:18:06.160
the record and confirm that these are the plans that were uploaded to the portal. Um I believe it was about 12 days ago or so. Yes, the date is 529 2026. >> Perfect. >> All right. So, Pel, why don't you walk

63
00:18:06.160 --> 00:18:23.200
us through what uh what changes you've made responsive to the commissioner's comments? >> Sure. Um, good evening everyone. So, the overall proposal remains the same. A new fourstory 4unit residential infill building on a vacant lot. Uh the

64
00:18:23.200 --> 00:18:38.400
revisions that we made uh focus on improving the front facade rhythm, the material transition, um entry detailing, rear elevation and utility locations.

65
00:18:38.400 --> 00:18:56.400
Um I'm going to first go over the proposed front elevation. Um so as you can see the windows proposed windows overall are aligned. They are uh 2 ft away um along the whole

66
00:18:56.400 --> 00:19:13.679
facade. Uh the second, third and fourth floor windows align and the first floor windows also align. Now in order to make this change we had to uh make some design revisions on the floor plan. So

67
00:19:13.679 --> 00:19:31.679
on A 100 sheet which is the proposed first floor plan. Initially we had a sprinkler room towards the front of the building which created the windows disalignment. The sprinkler room is now relocated towards the east side

68
00:19:31.679 --> 00:19:47.440
accessible from the uh second means of egress corridor. This allowed us to you know um align the first floor windows as well as all windows above to create a uh

69
00:19:47.440 --> 00:20:05.360
symmetrical facade. We also um we are showing the utility location for the meters. The proposed gas meters are to be located along the seller floor um access alleyway which are going to be

70
00:20:05.360 --> 00:20:22.640
outside as per PSCG standards. So these will be accessible through the alleyway at the same time these won't be seen visible from the public right of way. Uh moving back to the proposed front facade

71
00:20:22.640 --> 00:20:39.919
design, we also updated the entry door design uh without any divided lights. So now it has a single uh glass pane and um a side light also uh similar concept of

72
00:20:39.919 --> 00:20:58.080
single glass pane wood custom wood door. Um the cornice design was updated to um have a cast stone finish on top and wood um molding which kind of gels through

73
00:20:58.080 --> 00:21:14.400
the overall uh geometry of the corners design throughout the block. Um on the rear elevation we made some minor changes. Initially the windows both the windows along the sides were attached

74
00:21:14.400 --> 00:21:33.280
along the um balcony uh sliding doors. Now we created a space and more uh symmetrical facade for along the rear. Um moving to the side east elevation

75
00:21:33.280 --> 00:21:49.919
um the the corners detail was updated and the brick return initially it was proposed to be 12 in. However um we we are now proposing it to be almost 25 ft

76
00:21:49.919 --> 00:22:08.240
um up to the start of the light well window. Um the proposed side west elevation remained the same except for the corners detail. Um these sheets remain the same. We've

77
00:22:08.240 --> 00:22:23.840
updated the elevation. Uh these details remain the same. The front entry door was updated to remove the divided lights. Um and the corners details.

78
00:22:23.840 --> 00:22:43.440
The corners details were updated to show the cast stone on top and uh wood crown moldings and the last thing um the material sheet was also updated. So the base um of the

79
00:22:43.440 --> 00:23:01.520
building we are proposing a cast cladding base dark brown color. The bricks will be Belden modular red smooth brick with brown concave motor. Um a brown windows, classic brown windows,

80
00:23:01.520 --> 00:23:17.120
fiberglass double hung windows with um two over two style uh by Marvin. This the sill and uh lindals are proposed to be cast stone a similar classic brown

81
00:23:17.120 --> 00:23:35.840
color. Um, that's the custom door and custom sidelight. And we've updated the rendering to show more symmetrical window design alignment, a corners which kind of gels

82
00:23:35.840 --> 00:23:55.919
between the two buildings and an enlarged uh building entry illustration of the entry door and the side light. I am happy to answer any questions. >> Yeah, Pel, I just I just had one followup um because I know that it was a

83
00:23:55.919 --> 00:24:11.120
a conversation piece about the gas meter location and I know you just you glossed over it, but I know previously it was shown and it was kind of unfortunately visible along the frontage. Can you just walk us through what you've done with it in order to uh to creatively address

84
00:24:11.120 --> 00:24:27.840
that concern? Yes, it was uh so initially the gas meters were located along this area. Now the gas meters will be uh as you can see these are the steps that go down to the cellar floor and the

85
00:24:27.840 --> 00:24:44.520
gas meters will be located along the side wall of the stairs um along the seller floor area not visible from the street. And then my only other question, if you can jump back to the rendering on the last sheet.

86
00:24:44.559 --> 00:25:07.120
>> I'll wait till you get there. >> Okay. I just want to confirm that uh you talked about instead when we had initially proposed wrapping the brick of our building only about a foot, now it's 25 ft. Does this accurately represent um that wrapping that we're proposing? Yes,

87
00:25:07.120 --> 00:25:29.360
it goes far beyond the rendering angle doesn't show the full 25 ft but it goes if I show in the floor plan it's going to wrap around until this edge until the start of the light well

88
00:25:29.360 --> 00:25:45.919
which is 5 ft from the front facade >> and I think the commission's recommendation was to go at least 10 ft. So, so this obviously you felt more than satisfies that. >> Okay. >> All right. So, chairman, those were the uh the revisions that we made based on the comments we had received. Um and

89
00:25:45.919 --> 00:26:03.360
we'd open it up to you for any further comment and hopefully a positive recommendation. >> Does anybody any of the other commissioners have any questions or notes? Now, I would just say that the applicant

90
00:26:03.360 --> 00:26:22.039
clearly heard the commission's remarks and took them to heart and has incorporated that feedback into this proposed design, and I appreciate it. It looks much improved from where I'm sitting. Thank you. >> Thank you.

91
00:26:22.640 --> 00:26:38.000
>> Did anyone else have anything? Because if not, I Maggie I we could move to the next phase. >> Yes. So, if any uh if any commissioners have any uh questions, please let us know. If not, we can move to open public comment.

92
00:26:38.000 --> 00:26:53.200
>> I have one quick question about the cornice. Um um Miss Shukla, you mentioned I thought I heard you say that there was a cast stone on top and wood below. So, is the cornice made out of two different materials?

93
00:26:53.200 --> 00:27:10.559
>> Yes, that's correct. Was there some particular reason for it to made it be combined two materials? Just not something I usually see. >> Yes. So, um the the the look of the cornice will be dark brown and it's

94
00:27:10.559 --> 00:27:25.520
going to look the same uh in terms of aesthetics and visually. um in to the reason to have it as two different materials to have only the top as cast stone not the whole thing

95
00:27:25.520 --> 00:27:43.039
because of the weight um and structural implications. Uh wood moldings are uh much lighter as compared to cast and that was the main consideration of u using wood with a cast top.

96
00:27:43.039 --> 00:27:59.760
>> Thank you. If staff doesn't have any problems with it, then I don't either. Yeah, >> we we'll get to staff comments, but I don't. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Are there any other commissioner comments or questions? >> I have one question. It's minor. You'll

97
00:27:59.760 --> 00:28:16.559
see it here on this rendering. It looks like the railings are sort of a dark brown or maybe black, but that the posts at the end are lighter. I don't know if that's intentional. Um, but typically you would see it as a single color. a hole of some. >> Yeah. So, uh the intention is to have

98
00:28:16.559 --> 00:28:34.880
the post to be same color as the dark brown. It's not accurately indicated um in the rendering, but um the intention is to have the railing, the post as well as the railing, everything to be harmonious in a dark brown color.

99
00:28:34.880 --> 00:28:57.520
>> Right. Thank you. >> Okay. Any additional questions, comments? Okay. Um, Patala, I ask that you uh stop sharing your screen so we can move to public comment. If there are any members of the public present who would like to speak

100
00:28:57.520 --> 00:29:13.120
regarding this application, please use the raised hand function at the bottom of your screen. If you are on the phone, you can press star 9. Okay. Staff sees no hands raised and recommends a motion to open and close public comment.

101
00:29:13.120 --> 00:29:30.399
>> Motion second. >> All in favor? >> I um I will do my best to keep my staff comments brief. Um we from the beginning have been recommending this project for a approval of a COA with conditions as

102
00:29:30.399 --> 00:29:45.200
well recommendation to the planning board. Um, however, I am very happy to see that um, like Commissioner Gordon said, the applicant really took the comments that the commission made to heart and made very positive improvements to this project. Um, so much so that there were a couple of

103
00:29:45.200 --> 00:30:03.520
conditions on the st original staff report that we were able to remove as a result of those um, changes. So, I'm going to share my screen and we can just quickly review the staff report.

104
00:30:04.159 --> 00:30:18.559
Okay. Can you guys see that or no? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, >> I can't I can't see it either. >> I'm sorry. I was looking at my side screen. >> The agenda.

105
00:30:18.559 --> 00:30:52.720
>> Let me try one more time. >> Any luck there? >> Nope. Okay, let me try to load it a different way and we can try that. Let's do Maggie. Not to steal your thunder, but

106
00:30:52.720 --> 00:31:09.200
if you need I can bring it up on my screen. >> Um, yeah. Why don't you do that because I have to share my entire email inbox if I don't >> I I have uh it pulled up. I can share. >> Perfect. Yeah. If we just want to scroll down to staff comments just to

107
00:31:09.200 --> 00:31:25.039
>> Can everyone see my screen? >> Yes. Yes. See it. >> Thank you so much. Okay. So, um the recommendation here is that we do believe that it is consistent with the standards for new construction um and that it is consistent with new

108
00:31:25.039 --> 00:31:40.880
construction applications we see particularly within the Vanforce Park Historic District. Um it is actually very visually compatible especially with the new construction that we have seen on Bright Street as of late. Um we believe that the height variance that is requested is consistent with new construction that falls within the flood

109
00:31:40.880 --> 00:31:57.840
zone and we don't take any exception to it. Um, in particular, this section of Bright Street does not have a consistent height. So, um, it kind of peace meals in there rather nicely and doesn't distract or, um, take away from the surrounding historic resources. Um, we

110
00:31:57.840 --> 00:32:13.760
recommend that this be approved with the conditions in the staff report. Um, you can see that, like I said, based on the revisions to the application, we were able to eliminate two of the conditions for the gas meters and for the front facade windows. Um but other than that we have our standard applications in uh

111
00:32:13.760 --> 00:32:29.360
standard conditions in front of us. Um you know addressing the roof deck, the exterior lighting, the forestry standards and then um there is one additional non-standard condition on there. Um the way that this property is configured, the front area way falls

112
00:32:29.360 --> 00:32:49.279
outside of the property line in order for it to align with the street. So, if the applicant needs a franchise ordinance, um it is up to them to go up to Please hold for one moment. Sorry, I didn't think anyone wanted to hear a cry baby. Um if the applicant

113
00:32:49.279 --> 00:33:05.000
needs a franchise ordinance, they need to pursue that with the city council. And if there are any changes as a result of that franchise ordinance being granted, they may need to appear back in front of this commission. Does any uh commissioners have any questions for staff?

114
00:33:09.120 --> 00:33:24.720
And Maggie, for the record, we take no exception to those conditions. >> Great. Thanks. Okay. Um, if uh Patell, if you wouldn't mind uh removing the screen share. >> Sure.

115
00:33:24.720 --> 00:33:41.360
>> Okay. And if there are any qu uh there are no questions for staff, we recommend a motion to approve with the conditions in the staff report and to recommend approval to the planning board. >> I'll make the motion. >> I just want to clarify if you could just

116
00:33:41.360 --> 00:33:56.720
specify what motion you're making for the record. >> I apologize. Give me one second. That would be a motion uh with all the uh updates that Maggie listed and it's a

117
00:33:56.720 --> 00:34:13.599
recommendation to the Jersey City Planning Board. C uh planning board, right? >> Okay. >> Thanks. >> I will second. >> Great. All right. We will do a roll call vote. Um

118
00:34:13.599 --> 00:34:29.679
Commissioner Gunther. >> Hi. Commissioner Gordon. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Edcom. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Callback. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Gucciarda. >> Hi. >> Okay. Commissioner Sanamp is absent. Sakong is absent. Blazak is absent. Kay

119
00:34:29.679 --> 00:34:45.919
is absent. Vice Chair Cronin is absent. Uh, Chair Gria. >> Hi. >> Okay. There are six votes in favor, none against. With no abstensions, the COA with conditions and recommendation for approval to the planning board is approved. >> Thank you very much everybody. Thank you

120
00:34:45.919 --> 00:35:02.079
so much. >> You're welcome. >> If you'd like to call the next case. >> Absolutely. That will be case H-24-0171. Applicant Steven Joseph Esquire on

121
00:35:02.079 --> 00:35:20.320
behalf of Six Gford LLC. Uh the owner uh address 577 Bergen, also known as 6 Gford Avenue. That's block 17801, lot 36, zone R3, West Bergen, East Lincoln

122
00:35:20.320 --> 00:35:37.040
Park Historic District, for the certificate of appropriateness for the proposed subdivision of lot 36 into two lots and the rehabilitation of the existing altered contributing 2 and 1/2tory 4 bay colonial revival style

123
00:35:37.040 --> 00:35:54.960
brick dwelling built circa 1915 in West Bergen, East Lincoln Park Historic District recommendation to the Jersey City Planning Board and it was carried from the historic the regular HPC M meeting May 11th at the request of the

124
00:35:54.960 --> 00:36:15.839
applicant. >> Okay, >> Thomas, I believe Stephen said he you were covering this. >> Yeah. Yeah. Good evening, members of the commission. Sorry. Uh I'm covering for Steven Joseph today on behalf of the applicant. Um, so as you may recall from the May 11th hearing, uh, we rep we

125
00:36:15.839 --> 00:36:32.880
presented two separate applications, the one right after this and this one. Uh, we kind of presented them together due to the fact that there's a lot of, uh, overlapping, um, elements to the two of them. Uh, today, I think we're going to take them one at a time. Um, and we're going to start it

126
00:36:32.880 --> 00:36:48.240
off with the subdivision and the rehab of the corner lot at 577 Bergen. Um I'm just gonna briefly have the architect um Ahmad Amara just to discuss um or just rehash some of the things that was

127
00:36:48.240 --> 00:37:04.480
discussed last meeting so we can get some testimony on that and then we can move on to the uh second application. Um but if you want to swear in uh Mr. Amara >> Mr. Amara, please raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you will

128
00:37:04.480 --> 00:37:19.839
provide this evening will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. >> Please state your full name. Spell your last for me. >> Sure. My full name is Ahmed Amara. Last name is E M A R A. >> Okay. Thank you. Witnesses sworn.

129
00:37:19.839 --> 00:37:36.240
>> Okay. And just to clarify, you >> Sorry, just a note uh again, we uh had one commissioner who was not here at the last meeting, Stephen. Uh he read the transcripts for this application as well. Uh Tom, if you would feel comfortable with him voting uh if if we

130
00:37:36.240 --> 00:37:50.880
get there tonight. >> Yeah, that is completely fine. >> Okay. Uh please proceed. >> Okay. And just uh Amed, just to clarify that your uh your um license is currently in good standing. >> It is. Yes, it's currently in good standing.

131
00:37:50.880 --> 00:38:06.640
>> Great. Thank you. Um so I know you went through the whole plans uh last meeting. Uh could you maybe briefly just go over what is being uh proposed for the rehab of the corner lot? >> Yes, absolutely. Uh good evening

132
00:38:06.640 --> 00:38:27.359
everyone. I'm going to just remind everybody of where the property is on a corner of Bergen and Gford and uh give me one second. I'm looking for the do you want to show? Yes. Here the

133
00:38:27.359 --> 00:38:43.680
corner of Bergen and Gford. This is the existing historic structure. Uh the subdivision takes place on along this line here creating this new property. But focusing on this property right here. This is the existing building and I'll go through

134
00:38:43.680 --> 00:39:00.800
the existing building um briefly. Um, it is in a and I just zoom in in here. Uh, the existing property is a vacant building that was previously used for a daycare. Uh, right now we're proposing a

135
00:39:00.800 --> 00:39:17.359
residential building. The permitted density is 11 units. Proposed uh is seven. We do have um the building remains exactly the same. So most of the um or all of the bulk uh and height requirements are existing not uh they're

136
00:39:17.359 --> 00:39:33.280
existing and they're not being changed. No modification. We do have bicycle parking in the basement and uh we have uh the the new fence that we're proposing around the property getting rid of the existing chain link fence which is not permitted in the zone or

137
00:39:33.280 --> 00:39:48.480
matter of fact in most of Jersey City. Um the uh I want to just show what this was the site plan for the civil. There are new plantings that are being proposed in the back also in the front

138
00:39:48.480 --> 00:40:06.000
and then street trees along uh Gford Avenue. Uh there's also new lighting that is proposed around the existing uh building along this whole area which lights up the perimeter of the building. uh from a um architectural perspective,

139
00:40:06.000 --> 00:40:22.480
I had shown uh I believe these uh plans, the existing basement plan which uh a few areas here are being demolished to make way for the storage for the units and the mechanical area. The trash storage is also in the basement now and

140
00:40:22.480 --> 00:40:38.400
there's bike storage in the basement along with the electrical and fire alarm room. Uh on the first floor where the daycare function would take place is the space is being demolished on the inside and in place are proposed three units

141
00:40:38.400 --> 00:40:55.839
two onebedrooms and one studio. uh the second floor. Similarly again to the first floor this space is being uh uh demolished on the inside. Nothing is touching the exterior walls and uh again two units are being

142
00:40:55.839 --> 00:41:11.440
proposed on this floor um with with still access to the egress which is on the second floor uh terrace area here. This is mainly just for egress and the stairs come from here. You take the stairs down. I'll show you that in

143
00:41:11.440 --> 00:41:29.359
elevation as well. Um the third floor again the inside is being demolished and cleaned up and uh two units are being proposed on this floor as well. That's a total of seven units. Three on the first, second, two on the second and two on the third.

144
00:41:29.359 --> 00:41:44.480
The existing elevation um is is what we're looking at right here. The building remains the same. We are replacing the windows within existing rough openings and exist replacing the um existing door entry door which is no

145
00:41:44.480 --> 00:42:00.319
longer um in in any good condition. Uh the brick is being cleaned up. I'm going to go show this. The brick is um proposed to be cleaned up and uh repointed as needed in certain areas. Um

146
00:42:00.319 --> 00:42:16.480
and the uh roof is going to be replaced with new shingle roof. This is the uh uh egress balcony that I was referring to from the second floor and from the third floor which is being maintained. Nothing is being changed.

147
00:42:16.480 --> 00:42:33.839
And this is the ladder down here. Um these are this is the other elevations. This is the rear elevation. I'm sorry this other side elevation which is the west elevation with the being the stairs also again being maintained. No changes to the exterior at all except again the

148
00:42:33.839 --> 00:42:47.839
windows are being replaced with those windows which are going to also be uh wood windows to be in the same within the same opening in the brick. Uh these are some of the details that we

149
00:42:47.839 --> 00:43:03.280
had um uh drawn up for this. Again, this is just really for the window because the brick stays exactly the same, the roll lock stone uh sill. And um and that's uh that sums up the summary of

150
00:43:03.280 --> 00:43:20.319
this um of the of the rehab of the existing building. I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Yeah. Uh Mr. Marge, real quickly, um I watched and read the transcript from the last meeting and I saw that there was some questions about the proposed light

151
00:43:20.319 --> 00:43:36.079
fixtures around the building. Could you just confirm for us that those proposed light fixtures where they are and what um you know position they will be um shining light from? Yes, these are being proposed here

152
00:43:36.079 --> 00:43:52.560
uh along the front of the building and also I'm going to go to the other elevation the side of the building. I'm sorry, this is the rear of the building. Uh and then the side of the building right here by the entrances. Um it's mainly by the walkway areas and the

153
00:43:52.560 --> 00:44:11.680
entrances and it will be u down lights. >> Perfect. Perfect. Yeah, thank you. Um, no. I have no more questions, so I open it to the commission. >> Um, I, uh, this is Commissioner Gardo. I have some questions about materials and

154
00:44:11.680 --> 00:44:28.960
colors. Um, you mentioned a new shingle on the roof. Can you describe that material, what it's made of, and the colors? >> It's a new shingle roof. Materials are shingles. And um I'm going to

155
00:44:28.960 --> 00:44:46.560
uh the uh the color is going to match what what what the existing condition is. Um historically there is no we don't have uh uh the um I'm sorry it's going to match the existing color condition. The the shingle roof is along the front

156
00:44:46.560 --> 00:45:01.680
here and also in the back. I just want to show this part here. And it's also along this for shape here in the back. So all that roof would be replaced with a shingle roof, new shingle roof that's going to match the existing U condition.

157
00:45:01.680 --> 00:45:18.000
>> So same material, same color. >> Same material, same color, and it's everywhere. Because I just want to be clear that the roofs, there's two separate roofs on the building. There's this main roof, but there's also the roof of the the like the the massing in the back of the building, and they're both being replaced.

158
00:45:18.000 --> 00:45:33.920
>> So So is that a gray? Is it a black? Is it a red? >> It's a It's a gray. Yes. >> Okay. Thank Thank you. >> Um the door that you specified on the front of the building, um it looks like it has a like a diamond

159
00:45:33.920 --> 00:45:50.160
shaped uh window on it. Uh but it seems like it has an elaborate uh glass surround. Is that correct? >> Yes, that is a that's correct. And that's gonna >> Yes. I'm just wondering about the door

160
00:45:50.160 --> 00:46:07.839
style itself. How you came to that decision to put that door style. Is a wood door? Is it a metal door? >> It's a It's a wood door. And again, it's matching what uh what we saw to be existing in in previously. >> Yeah. I'm just wondering. I I don't know

161
00:46:07.839 --> 00:46:23.599
for sure, but the for a building of this period, I wonder whether a diamond window on the center of a flat door was what was originally there. Maybe a little research might might provide you

162
00:46:23.599 --> 00:46:41.359
with a better solution than that. I'm I that's my my opinion. That was we we went through this with U historic commission staff for a while. This was the the style that we agreed to to be replaced with the for the existing

163
00:46:41.359 --> 00:46:57.680
door. Michael, you can also comment on that because I know >> you guys can contradict the staff can contradict me. That would be fine. I I just, you know, I'm not used to seeing that that particular solution. I know this is a later building 1915, but >> I want to show like this image cuz it's

164
00:46:57.680 --> 00:47:14.000
it's it's a little closer, but this is the condition here. >> Yeah, understood. >> Yeah. >> Um um and the the windows, you're saying you're putting in wood windows. Um >> the existing windows are wood, so we're

165
00:47:14.000 --> 00:47:31.200
replacing them with with with wood windows. Yeah. Yeah. >> Right. And the color that you're using on the building, >> the the white, the same color. >> White. >> Okay. And do you did do you have a fixture pick picked for the lighting fixtures?

166
00:47:31.200 --> 00:47:50.000
>> We don't have one yet. This is something that I uh can work with the staff on. Uh we we'll pick one and and work with them on it. Sure. >> Okay. I have a follow-up comment on the lighting, which I had last time, which

167
00:47:50.000 --> 00:48:07.359
is um a lot of these locations don't appear um to be appropriate for lighting um if you're trying to light an entrance way, you know, lighting next to a door is is a normal typical place. Um if you have a need to light uh recessed areaways or

168
00:48:07.359 --> 00:48:24.480
stairs, the light fixtures um maybe need to be located lower on the building. um you know be a little more creative in how you are lighting the areas that you need to for safety and not lighting the building itself. Um you know the some of these locations just they're not

169
00:48:24.480 --> 00:48:41.680
necessary and then the other there are other locations where they could be revised. It it appears like you're trying to light the building and just attach light fixtures in places where they don't make sense. And I think that you need to work with staff to properly locate lighting.

170
00:48:41.680 --> 00:48:57.200
I'm happy to work with staff to properly locate lighting, but if I may, the lights are being put around the the perimeter of the building where there is entrances or exits, stairs or egress. So, these are where the stairs are again stairs. These are this is the egress

171
00:48:57.200 --> 00:49:12.559
route here from here to come back to here. This is again around the egress doors, the the the stairs. So, it's all where the stairs are or where the doors are. They're not being put in in areas. for example, where I just want to light up the building here or something like

172
00:49:12.559 --> 00:49:27.680
that. It's specifically around the areas. We don't want to put a lot of things on the building because it's a historic building. So, we're we're specifically picking where these lights need to be to light up an egress path in in in need of that. >> So, can you talk about the two light

173
00:49:27.680 --> 00:49:42.720
fixtures? Can you go back to that drawing, please? >> Yeah, sure. >> That are facing Bergen Avenue. And then there's there's three like light fixtures facing Bergen Avenue >> that are not above any stairs. >> And there's a third one that's Yes. And there's a third one that's set back that

174
00:49:42.720 --> 00:49:58.960
is not fa it's facing Yes. There's not a staircase there. >> Sure. >> Are there entry doors in those locations? >> This the stairs are here and here. And this is the egress path to go back out. >> So if you fence around the building and you come down here, you have to walk around this building here to be able to

175
00:49:58.960 --> 00:50:15.280
come out. So this is where this they're being put. So, you know, I think if we look at the elevations, sure, >> there need to be this needs I think the lighting needs editing so that you're attaching to the building at fewer locations at more appropriate locations. And if there is a uh a need for

176
00:50:15.280 --> 00:50:42.079
landscape lighting where there aren't say doors, um that that be explored. >> Sure. I'm I'm okay with that. Okay, any more questions? >> Questions or comments? >> More comments.

177
00:50:42.079 --> 00:50:59.839
>> I also have a problem with the door. I'm not quite sure about that diamond door in the the main door. I don't believe that that's the original door is there. Uh, do did we have text photos of the

178
00:50:59.839 --> 00:51:17.119
building? I guess I don't recall right now. I guess we didn't, right? >> We didn't. No. >> Okay. Was there any research attempted on to find any other information, you know, about this building from the past?

179
00:51:17.119 --> 00:51:32.559
>> Certainly. Yes. We we've tried we've looked it up. We talked to the text office. We went to the library but there was no information that we could find. >> Um what about any sort of precedents from within this historic district or those properties tax photos for

180
00:51:32.559 --> 00:51:56.839
buildings of similar age style so maybe we could get an idea of what may have been there. I mean, I understand that maybe the the historic photos for this particular door might not exist and so we're we're kind of guessing, but >> yeah. >> Hey, Maggie.

181
00:51:58.319 --> 00:52:12.800
>> Yes. the concerns that Commissioner Gunther had and uh call back in Gucciardo, are those concerns that could be dealt with on paper or

182
00:52:12.800 --> 00:52:30.079
do the commissioners want them to address that prior? >> Well, that is partially your choice, of course. Um but Michael is the staff person on this application. So I can also Michael can opine if he thinks that

183
00:52:30.079 --> 00:52:46.319
it's something that can be worked on the staff level. >> Ultimately the commissioners are the ones who um if you guys are have decided that this is something that you can't vote on until you see those changes made that's

184
00:52:46.319 --> 00:53:01.280
of course something that's well within your power. I would encourage though to give guidance to the applicants of what you are looking for rather than just what you don't like. >> Yeah. >> Well, I was I was going to wait until

185
00:53:01.280 --> 00:53:17.280
staff comments and I was going to ask Michael the same questions I asked the architect uh about color choices. you know what was done to either verify that these are the right colors for the building for the period

186
00:53:17.280 --> 00:53:34.079
or if any other colors were recommended. Um the door um you know I I I just don't know but it I've seen this diamond door as a replacement door you know across Jersey City and I it I doubt that it's an original design but I could be wrong.

187
00:53:34.079 --> 00:53:50.880
So I was looking for some guidance from from staff. >> Yeah I would be happy to provide comments. I think uh probably that's a better served in the staff comments portion. Um sure. >> So maybe we could go through if no more

188
00:53:50.880 --> 00:54:07.680
questions we can move through public comment and then we can get into staff comments. >> Okay. Um so let's move into public comment. Ahmed if you wouldn't mind removing your screen share. >> Sure. >> Okay. Does anyone I see two hands

189
00:54:07.680 --> 00:54:23.280
raised. Um, does anyone want to make a motion to open public comment? >> I so move. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Um, regarding public comment for applications, uh, I will promote the

190
00:54:23.280 --> 00:54:40.319
hands in the order. I see them on my screen. Um, we will swear you in. You will have five minutes for public comment. Um, questions on the application are to be addressed to the chair. I will keep track of them. Michael will keep track of them at the end of the public comment portion. Um

191
00:54:40.319 --> 00:54:56.440
once we've closed public comment, we will uh go through them afterwards and answer them and request the applicant answer them as well. Okay. So, first hand I see raised is Charlene. Charlene, I'm going to promote you to a panelist.

192
00:55:01.920 --> 00:55:21.839
Iris, do we need to rewear in Charlene? Oh, you're muted. >> Yes, I am. No, Maggie, that's fine. I will just uh indicate that she was previously sworn. >> Okay, great. Charlene, did you hear that? >> Miss Brett, you remain under oath. >> I was previously sworn in.

193
00:55:21.839 --> 00:55:39.599
>> And you remain under oath. Thank you. >> Yes. Thank you. >> I'm starting your timer now. >> May I ask this is the application regarding the subdivision. Am I correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. So,

194
00:55:39.599 --> 00:55:55.200
in the introduction of the official historic district guidelines for the Westber and East Lincoln Park Historic District created by ordinance, it describes the district as having a distinguished architectural character

195
00:55:55.200 --> 00:56:12.960
and represents important aspects of the social history of Jersey City. As a whole, the historic district maintains a high degree of integrity of setting. I stress that integrity of setting and design. Since the spatial relationships

196
00:56:12.960 --> 00:56:29.040
among the individual buildings, it stresses that as well. Streetscapes and layout of the streets has been maintained. This is a block that is one of just three within the historic districts that

197
00:56:29.040 --> 00:56:44.240
have the large residential lots that are unique and distinctive to this particular historic district in all of Jersey City, unlike those downtown. And particularly they are concentrated

198
00:56:44.240 --> 00:57:01.839
on Bentley and Gford avenues. If you go down the block from this particular structure that faces Gford Avenue, all the other private homes are very large buildings on 75 ft lots.

199
00:57:01.839 --> 00:57:19.119
Um, with the exception of the buildings from the 1950s to the west of this site and one lot on Belmont Avenue, the entire block from Bergen to Kennedy Boulevard, Belmont to Gford contains contributing and significantly

200
00:57:19.119 --> 00:57:34.880
contributing historic resources. The entire block, it's one of the only ones that's almost completely uh significant or contributing significant. The district retains, this is quoted directly from the guidelines,

201
00:57:34.880 --> 00:57:51.280
the district retains the countryfi charm of the 19th century past when the area really was an outer suburban ring of Jersey City and to a greater extent of New York City. Both of which makes this district a special place worthy of

202
00:57:51.280 --> 00:58:06.160
preservation for current and future generations to enjoy. On page 70 of the guidelines, new construction in historic districts lists number five, relationship of

203
00:58:06.160 --> 00:58:19.920
vacant land to buildings and structures. Specifically states that the relationship of a building or structure to the vacant land between adjoining buildings or structures

204
00:58:19.920 --> 00:58:37.920
should not violate the existing parad. paradigmatic spatial relationship relationship of historically significant structures to the vacant land between and said structures in adjoining

205
00:58:37.920 --> 00:58:54.240
buildings. It's really stressing that that land between buildings is just as important as the structures themselves. Again quoting again a characteristic of these large homes is the generous sideyards that surround the structures

206
00:58:54.240 --> 00:59:11.760
seen just down the block from Six Gford. Six Gford is a contributing historic resource to the historic district. It's defined as a structure or object that adds to the historic integrity or architectural qualities that make a

207
00:59:11.760 --> 00:59:27.680
historic district significant. Again, this is one of those representative um properties that's still intact since since >> I checked the maps from the uh plats

208
00:59:27.680 --> 00:59:45.839
from 1919 and this is exactly the width of this property at that time. The setting is integral to the historic historic structure and removing the sideyard with a subdivision negatively impacts the integrity of the district's

209
00:59:45.839 --> 01:00:02.559
character and I would urge the commissioners to deny the subdivision. I know this offers a counterveailing opinion to the staff recommendations, but I believe that the guidelines indicate the spatial relationship between structures has equal value to

210
01:00:02.559 --> 01:00:37.839
the significance of the structures themselves. Thank you. >> Thank you, Charlene. Okay, the next hand raised I see is Colin. Colin, I'm going to promote you. Colin, we just need you to turn on your

211
01:00:37.839 --> 01:00:53.839
camera and unmute yourself so that Iris can swear you in. >> There we go. >> Hey, Mr. Reagan, please raise your right hand. >> Do you swear that the testimony you provide this evening will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Please state your full name, spell your

212
01:00:53.839 --> 01:01:10.640
last and your address, please. >> It's Colin Egan. EG an at 35 Sherman Place in Jersey City. >> Thank you. >> Right, Colin, your five minutes starts now. >> Um, a little bit of I hope good information and I just want to uh add my

213
01:01:10.640 --> 01:01:27.440
voice to what Charlene said. That building was purchased in about 1960 and owned till about 1979 by the Bergen School, which I happen to go to, although not when they owned that building. But I just checked on Facebook and the Bergen School alumni page has a

214
01:01:27.440 --> 01:01:43.760
photo of the building with a very different door. And so you can check that and see because the door that's there is definitely not original. Can't say that the door that was on for Bergen School was, but I think it had a good shot at it and it's probably more in keeping. So I can send you a link with

215
01:01:43.760 --> 01:01:59.119
that and I probably have photos and your books to send you as well. Um, as far as what Charlene said, I absolutely agree. And if we unfortunately get that far, I'll I'll speak to the design of what's being proposed for what's now the open

216
01:01:59.119 --> 01:02:14.640
lot. But it is that open space that reveals the building and gives a sense of openness. That is what makes that site particularly important. As someone who walked by it every day for a number of years, I can't stress that enough

217
01:02:14.640 --> 01:02:30.319
that building anything next to it is a mistake. And Charlene's interpretation, I think, of the value of the open space to this and other historic sites is valid. So, I would uh emphasize that I would hope the commission would consider

218
01:02:30.319 --> 01:03:01.680
what she said. Thank you. >> Thank you, Colin. Okay, I see Sharon with her hand raised. So I will right Sharon. >> All right, Sharon, can you uh unmute?

219
01:03:01.680 --> 01:03:16.880
There we go. Perfect. Iris can >> Miss McCormack, please raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you will provide this evening will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Please state your full name and your address, please. >> My full name is Shireen McCormack. It's

220
01:03:16.880 --> 01:03:35.440
S H I R I N. Last name M A C O R M A C K. My address is 130 Glenwood. >> Thank you. Please proceed. >> Sure. Um, thank you. Uh, the first thing I wanted to say about this property and this project is that I'm thrilled to see

221
01:03:35.440 --> 01:03:51.839
it being revitalized because it sat there empty and I've often gone by it and looked at it with um, you know, just appreciating the vestages of the beauty and and wondering how it ever came to be abandoned and sitting there vacant. So, I do appreciate that it's being um

222
01:03:51.839 --> 01:04:07.760
revitalized and um somewhat adaptively reused um and going back to its original um use as a residence. Um I wanted to know a few things, but the the first question I had and please answer after

223
01:04:07.760 --> 01:04:23.440
I'm done is I it might have been mentioned, but what's happening with the mural on the back? Um, so I just didn't understand what was happening with that that colorful mural from the days as a daycare. Um, I also wanted to say that I

224
01:04:23.440 --> 01:04:39.760
agree with the comments that were already said by Commissioner Gunther about the lighting. Um, I think that there is like this modern uh contemporary tendency to just light up buildings and add it adds light pollution and it also doesn't um make sense from a historic perspective of you

225
01:04:39.760 --> 01:04:55.119
know or even functional sense of what's necessary. Um, uh, Commissioner Steven, um, brought up the door and that's, um, a hot button and I I completely agree. I I don't think the diamond, um, makes sense on

226
01:04:55.119 --> 01:05:12.480
this door. I think that I defer to the um, historic preservation office and the commissioners to do research on what kind of door makes more sense, but the diamond shape looks a bit um, Jetson's to me. it doesn't look like it belongs.

227
01:05:12.480 --> 01:05:28.960
Um, it doesn't seem appropriate with the diamond in the door. Um, as far as the windows, I I realize that there the color and the style of them does seem appropriate and has been done, but I do wonder if historically other windows

228
01:05:28.960 --> 01:05:45.359
would be more appropriate. Perhaps it might be worth considering whether the top half of the windows contain like a wooden lattice design. I I'm not an expert, but I do believe that that might be a more appropriate choice and help this um contributing asset in the

229
01:05:45.359 --> 01:06:01.039
historic district and this really important project being that it's a corner property um you know um continue to be contributing um and restore its former glory. The last thing I wanted to say is regarding Charlene's comment and

230
01:06:01.039 --> 01:06:17.839
um Colin's comment, I couldn't agree more. I find it problematic to look at this property um as separate from the sister application tonight when it's really a twofor one. It's a two for one project um in light of the proposed subdivision. If anything, I think that

231
01:06:17.839 --> 01:06:32.799
we should have looked at the other property first um because the grounds are part of the property. Thank you. >> Thank you, Sharon. Okay. Um, the next hand I see raised

232
01:06:32.799 --> 01:06:56.640
is Jonathan. Jonathan, I'll promote you right now. All right, Jonathan, you should be able to unmute yourself and turn on your camera so Iris can swear you in. >> Thank you. >> Hey, Mr. McCauley, please raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you will provide this evening

233
01:06:56.640 --> 01:07:13.680
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Please state your full name. Spell your last for me. >> Uh Jonathan McCauley, MC, Capital A U L E Y. >> And your address, please. >> 111 Mallerie Avenue, Unit 3, Jersey City, New Jersey, 07304.

234
01:07:13.680 --> 01:07:29.920
>> Thank you. Witnesses sworn. >> Great. Your time starts now. >> Uh thank you for the ability to uh uh uh come before you. Uh, I think that the spatial relationship is is huge. Um, and the the subdivision is just

235
01:07:29.920 --> 01:07:44.640
inappropriate in this case. I know personally, um, I've been to Mystic, Connecticut recently, and driving into town, there's a a number of really wonderful buildings and then, to put it nicely, a very non-historic building.

236
01:07:44.640 --> 01:08:01.280
And it really just it ruins the the the visual and uh, I think economically it makes a difference. and then just to the community. So, I would urge you all to to really think about the spatial relationship and the subdivision in this case does not make sense. I would hope

237
01:08:01.280 --> 01:08:18.640
uh the builders and again, we all want more housing. We all know how important that is. I appreciate that fact. But, uh doing this in a way where we could have uh either trees or gardens in that side lot rather than another building uh would be something that would make the

238
01:08:18.640 --> 01:08:40.799
the neighborhood proud and Jersey City proud. Thank you for your time tonight. >> Thank you. Okay, the next name I see is Rebecca. Rebecca, I'm going to promote you. Okay, Rebecca, you should be able. There

239
01:08:40.799 --> 01:08:55.359
we go. Perfect. Iris can swear you on. >> Hey, Mr. Steey, do you swear that the testimony you will provide this evening will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. >> Please state your full name, spell your last, and state your address, please.

240
01:08:55.359 --> 01:09:12.159
>> Rebecca Pizzazzi. P U S T I Zi, and I live at 60 Prospect Street. >> Okay, thank you. Witnesses Warren. >> Becca, your time starts now. Uh, I would just like to also reiterate some of the comments just encouraging

241
01:09:12.159 --> 01:09:28.400
research on colors, door style, window style in general based on what's historically accurate instead of just replacing exactly what was there, knowing and assuming that uh adaptions and updates have been made since the property was originally built

242
01:09:28.400 --> 01:09:45.120
and they might not be historically accurate. Um, in in addition, just a general question that we've focused a lot on the exterior and I'm curious to understand what is um still of historic value inside the property and if there's

243
01:09:45.120 --> 01:10:01.760
any plans to preserve any of the historical and original architectural elements of the house. Thank you. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Okay. Are there any additional members of the public who would like to provide comments or have questions on this

244
01:10:01.760 --> 01:10:18.800
application? If so, you can use the raise hand function at the bottom of your screen or press star 9 if you're on the phone. Okay. Staff sees no hands raised. Um, so we recommend a motion to close public

245
01:10:18.800 --> 01:10:34.719
comment. >> Motion. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? Hi. >> Hi. Hi. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um I think I heard one or two questions. Um

246
01:10:34.719 --> 01:10:51.520
that >> I have two written down. >> Yeah, I also have two written down. Um so if the applicant would like to address the mural on the back of the building. >> Sure. Yeah. Uh, Ahmed, do you have a

247
01:10:51.520 --> 01:11:06.719
>> The mural on the back would be removed because this is this was added to the historic building in recent years for the daycare. So, that would be something that's uh removed. What's the second question, Michael? >> The second one was about the interior historic features if any are being

248
01:11:06.719 --> 01:11:24.560
maintained. >> U, the interior exterior of the walls are all being maintained. The exterior the interior walls are being removed so we can make way for the new walls in. >> I think that addresses the two questions >> in terms Okay. Go ahead.

249
01:11:24.560 --> 01:11:39.840
>> Oh, you continue. >> I do want to mention that the photo that was mentioned is something that we we have we've looked at. Uh the windows do still look like they're white and the entrance door was a different door than the diamond door. I agree with that. I

250
01:11:39.840 --> 01:11:54.880
don't know if that door was the original door, but is that something that we can u we can, you know, change revise the design to reflect? >> Okay. Um I think if that concludes the testimony and everything, we can move on

251
01:11:54.880 --> 01:12:10.880
to staff comments. Um so I guess starting out with the door, that's where we kind of just left off. Um, so from staff's perspective, uh, I have always known that that door that's on the plans would not be the one that

252
01:12:10.880 --> 01:12:26.320
is actually installed. Um, I think multiple times I gave the comment that it should match the historic door. Um, I recognize that through a lot of research, we have not found much historic evidence. Um, those photos that

253
01:12:26.320 --> 01:12:43.320
we have appear to be an earlier door. don't believe it was the original door um that would have been at the site. Uh and as a condition in the staff report um which I could actually share and bring up.

254
01:12:43.920 --> 01:13:07.920
See, can everybody see my screen? >> Yes. So, if you could make it a little bigger mic, that would be great. >> Yes. Uh, it's a good question. How do I do that? There we go. Is that good? >> Yes. Thank you.

255
01:13:07.920 --> 01:13:25.840
>> Of course. No problem. Um, so one of my conditions that I proposed at the bottom was that throughout the course of construction, site and photographic evidence shall prevail over the approved drawings for the restoration of the front facade of the existing historic building. Um, I always hold out a little

256
01:13:25.840 --> 01:13:44.640
bit of hope that in the door jamb there may be some historic evidence of what was originally there. There might be paint ghosts for colors of the door surround the windows. And then if nothing avails itself then we can rely on some stylistic evidence. Um but from

257
01:13:44.640 --> 01:14:01.040
my perspective I always uh was thinking that it would require some research and some leg work uh to find a compatible door. Um the diamond door uh was what was originally proposed by the applicant um and not something that staff um saw

258
01:14:01.040 --> 01:14:17.719
as a final destination more as just a placeholder. while we waited uh to do the um investigatory work uh particularly on site, removing the the door surround um seeing if there's any historic evidence left. Um

259
01:14:17.760 --> 01:14:33.760
um so I think that uh addresses the the door from staff's perspective. Um regarding the subdivision, um the proposed subdivision does create two conforming lots. Um both of them are actually over what is

260
01:14:33.760 --> 01:14:52.159
required of the uh zone. This is the R3. Um so it's a little bit uh of a different zone than what the HPC is typically used to seeing. Um but we actually currently what is proposed or what is existing is 125 121T lot. um the

261
01:14:52.159 --> 01:15:08.800
with the 25- ft subdivision um of the uh long piece on the um that that would be the the empty lot. You'd have a 90 you know 91 plus foot lot um

262
01:15:08.800 --> 01:15:24.800
remaining which is still larger than a lot of those 75 foot lots that are down further on the block. Um, additionally, I will just note um that about half of the length of that portion um was actually somewhat recently added

263
01:15:24.800 --> 01:15:41.440
to the lot. um up until even when you look at the 1980s tax maps, um the 1986 survey, uh the tax map that they used as the base map shows it as um just a rectangular lot and then kind of that

264
01:15:41.440 --> 01:15:58.560
flag pole portion of it um was added to the existing lot sometime probably in the '9s. Um and we have some historic maps that show um when this property was constructed it was just a rectangular lot. Um currently as propos

265
01:15:58.560 --> 01:16:15.280
as existing it is just a driveway. Um and the applicant is uh forfeiting their curb cut at the driveway. Um so staff believes that that also um helps the historic nature of the property by removing that you know um non-historic

266
01:16:15.280 --> 01:16:32.480
feature. Um I know a few times was mentioned about the uh proposed new construction. Um I will just remind the commission that uh we are not reviewing the new construction under this application. We are just reviewing the subdivision and the restoration of the existing

267
01:16:32.480 --> 01:16:48.320
building. Um other than that um staff supports the proposed work at the uh site and uh um believes that the project as proposed will not cause an adverse effect on the character and/or integrity of the

268
01:16:48.320 --> 01:17:04.560
historic resources or the Westber and East Lincoln Park Historic District and recommends approval of the certificate appropriate appropriateness and a recommendation to the Jersey City Planning Board uh with the following conditions and those are the conditions that are laid out in the staff report. Um a majority of them are our standard

269
01:17:04.560 --> 01:17:21.199
conditions. We do have a few unique ones. Uh the one the one I mentioned before about uh site and photographic evidence. Um the applicant will also uh forfeit the curb cut. Um shop drawings for every uh everything on the facade on the exterior. The windows, doors, and

270
01:17:21.199 --> 01:17:36.320
surround shall be submitted to HBC staff. And then um the fire escape shall not be used for leisure. Um and then the rest of them are are standard conditions. I did write down the condition um that Commissioner Gunther

271
01:17:36.320 --> 01:17:53.760
uh was speaking on um that the applicant shall work with HBC staff to relocate the proposed light lighting um to a more appropriate location. Um I think she mentioned lower on the building and I I support that as well as possibly investigating uh the possibility of

272
01:17:53.760 --> 01:18:12.480
using off building lighting uh for any walkways. I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Um, yes, Michael, thank you for that. Um, so, uh, just for clarity, um, before, uh, a color is chosen for the

273
01:18:12.480 --> 01:18:28.719
windows, there'll be some investigation, maybe scraping back to see if there was some earlier original color. >> Yes. >> Okay. That that that helps me a lot. Thank you. Um the uh and just for clarity,

274
01:18:28.719 --> 01:18:46.159
what we're hearing right now is both the subdivision and the rehabilitation of this of this building. Right. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um uh landscaping. Do you have any comments on the landscaping that has been um

275
01:18:46.159 --> 01:19:01.199
recommended here? >> Uh I don't have any. I I support the landscaping. um the street trees uh are what's required and then um they have a little bit of landscaping in the back but it was nothing that I thought was uh unusual. I thought it was fitting with the proposed work.

276
01:19:01.199 --> 01:19:17.199
>> Okay. And the cleaning method on the bricks and any repointing that has to be done of course will be matching mortar. That's that that's Yeah. Okay. That's that's helpful. And I just felt that there was maybe not enough research done

277
01:19:17.199 --> 01:19:35.199
here by the applicant to support the decisions that they were making. And I'm glad that there's going going to be further investigation on the site. As to the subdivision, you know, I I I have some concerns. I heard what the public

278
01:19:35.199 --> 01:19:51.679
had to say and I I I I never like seeing these buildings in Lincoln Park. uh I don't like their settings being reduced. Uh can you talk to the the distance between the new building and the existing building, how close together

279
01:19:51.679 --> 01:20:08.400
they will be? >> Um I'll let Ahmed speak to that. I I know that there are um pretty substantial uh setbacks on both buildings. Um I'm not sure exactly the footage um off the top of my head. Um but yeah, maybe if we could pull up the

280
01:20:08.400 --> 01:20:24.000
plans just uh um I will I didn't have the benefit of the drawings. I just read the transcript, so I didn't get to see the other building. Okay, >> I understand. >> Yeah, >> I will reiterate while we're pulling that up, Michael's warning to say focus

281
01:20:24.000 --> 01:20:40.719
on what this application is about. I know it creates a tricky situation while they're relying on this subdivision to do their next project, but focus on >> Right. Well, in order for me to be comfortable with the subdivision, I need to know how close the building on the

282
01:20:40.719 --> 01:21:06.480
next application is going to be to this building. I think that's relevant to this application. >> Okay, sure. I'm going to share the screen. This is

283
01:21:06.480 --> 01:21:29.760
me zoom in so we can see over here it's it's uh about 84 and then it shrinks down here to 79. Yeah, the property line. >> Thank you. Of course,

284
01:21:29.760 --> 01:21:44.880
>> I do want to, if I may, I do want to mention uh commissioner that we did do the research with staff and um I was aware of the conditions that this would happen during construction. We have a couple of different projects in historic areas in city, one of which is being

285
01:21:44.880 --> 01:22:00.320
completed now. And that was exactly the same thing. I met with Michael and and met with uh Dan also on site several times when we took off the doors, took off the windows. we had to reconstruct things. We did the did the u investigation on site. So I do want to

286
01:22:00.320 --> 01:22:26.000
mention that this is something that we tend to do to make sure that this goes back to as you know as good of a a condition as it was historically. >> Thank you. >> Any further questions? I I just want to mention I emailed the

287
01:22:26.000 --> 01:22:45.760
picture that Colin um had mentioned to staff of the uh of maybe not an original door but uh one of one of the previous doors. >> Thank you. >> I will share that with the uh team the

288
01:22:45.760 --> 01:23:01.360
development team. >> I I can share the screen with it to make sure that we're looking at the same thing. I have it too, Michael. um share the screen, right? I don't >> sure >> I don't know if we have to. I We can. Um

289
01:23:01.360 --> 01:23:20.800
we would just have to enter it as an exhibit. >> No, it's fine. It's up to you. >> It's up to It's up to the commission if if they would like to see it. >> Uh I'd like to see it. >> Okay. That's why I'm asking. >> Uh one second. Let me share the screen.

290
01:23:20.800 --> 01:23:43.679
And this would be A1. >> Yeah, if we could just mark this as A1 historic um photo. Okay, >> A1 is received and marked. >> Thank you, >> Mandy. Is that the picture? >> I I don't hear Mandy, but I I will chime

291
01:23:43.679 --> 01:23:59.040
in. I I did find two. I found this one and one other one. Uh but they did both have the same door um present. >> It's that that that three light door. >> Correct. Yeah. >> And these also depict a window style,

292
01:23:59.040 --> 01:24:16.000
the upper window style. Correct. >> Yeah. It looks like a six >> six over one in some of them. >> Yeah. Are you using that as I don't think you're you've picked that design feature up. Correct. I I personally from staff's perspective

293
01:24:16.000 --> 01:24:36.000
would like to do more research to see if these were also later edition or later um uh replacement windows, but yes. >> Yeah, I think the windows and the door really need more research and I do think I do believe that this is possible. This

294
01:24:36.000 --> 01:24:53.600
is a very prominent building has been at school for many many years. Um I doubt that there's not more uh pictures available and I I would urge um the applicant to do more research and take

295
01:24:53.600 --> 01:25:09.920
more time. Uh as you stated, you want to bring it back to its uh historic glory. So uh little bit more elbow grease and going to the library looking at uh you know yearbooks. Uh if we can pull up a picture in a

296
01:25:09.920 --> 01:25:34.639
couple seconds from a Facebook group um it it should be possible to find more. >> And my apologies I can't screen share. So otherwise I would that's why I emailed it. >> Yeah. And if I can just briefly comment, the uh applicant takes all the comments

297
01:25:34.639 --> 01:25:56.960
uh with exception and you know, we will definitely spend some time in the library to make sure that we got the right stuff. Um we'll work closely with staff and uh Amara to make sure that we get the right things for the the building. >> Uh I have one more question for staff

298
01:25:56.960 --> 01:26:14.159
concerning the subdivision. um because it's possible to create two um two lots that are of appropriate size. Uh does that mean that his historic then

299
01:26:14.159 --> 01:26:30.960
has to approve that subdivision because two lots are of a of of an appropriate size or are other factors allowed to be considered? >> So we don't have any specific language. There are some um districts, some zones

300
01:26:30.960 --> 01:26:47.440
within the city that um have specific wording about um you know um uh not recommending subdivision, not recommending demolition on on lots. Um I believe off top of my head like RH1, RH2, uh those ones specifically

301
01:26:47.440 --> 01:27:02.000
discourage a subdivision of their lots. Um this zone does not. Um and I will just note that this is ultimately a recommendation to the planning board. all subdivisions go to the planning board. Um so ultimately they they will

302
01:27:02.000 --> 01:27:19.760
also vote on this and um it it would be based on our recommendation >> and and we can take into account uh what Charlene Burke read into the record as far as uh the description in the in the historic district. I I guess it's the

303
01:27:19.760 --> 01:27:36.880
nomination that she read. Um we the the commission can take that into consideration. Yes. >> I I don't see why not. Uh Maggie, I don't know if you have any comments. >> No, I think you clarified it. There's no specific language in these zones that

304
01:27:36.880 --> 01:27:53.440
discourages subdivision. Um and the the nomination form is certainly of merit, but it doesn't impact the specific underlying zoning. The Westber historic district is an overlay historic district. So um we put the historic

305
01:27:53.440 --> 01:28:18.960
standards on top of the existing zoning. Both are taken into account for this application. So I think we're at a point where I I know we've answered a bunch of questions, gone back and forth. Um, do do commissioners feel like they're in a place to vote on this application

306
01:28:18.960 --> 01:28:35.520
tonight or is this something that you guys would like to see the work done before you vote on it or are you comfortable remanding certain items that we've discussed to staff? >> I think there is quite a bit of work that we've discovered in our discussion more than we thought maybe at the

307
01:28:35.520 --> 01:28:51.280
beginning of our discussion that will need work. >> I agree. Are we are we clear that this was uh written what Charlene was um reading was from the nomination or was that from the

308
01:28:51.280 --> 01:29:08.760
historic district guidelines? I when I when she was reading it and she was quoting um the pages etc. I had the feeling that or I was of the impression that was from the historic district guidelines for Jersey City.

309
01:29:10.480 --> 01:29:26.639
I don't I I was under the impression it was the nomination, but I can circle back Charlene. >> I think it was the nomination because it was specific to this district. Um and I believe >> we have specific guidelines for this district. >> I'm sorry. >> We have a separate set of guidelines for

310
01:29:26.639 --> 01:29:42.719
this. >> Yeah, I will I will circle back with Charlene, >> okay, >> to confirm that. Um but and and Charlene, I do see your hand raised, but I can't promote you for public comment. We've closed public comment. We you and I will speak separately on this. I

311
01:29:42.719 --> 01:29:58.960
promise I'll be sending you an email tomorrow morning. >> Um that being said, if we have two commissioners who feel like they're at a place where they uh would like to see the information presented on the plans and do not think that they can vote on this tonight, we will not have enough commissioners to approve a certificate

312
01:29:58.960 --> 01:30:15.760
on this. >> Right. >> Yeah. So I think that forces our forces the commission the staff's hand a little bit to recommend that this be carried to the next meeting um pending revisions based on

313
01:30:15.760 --> 01:30:32.639
HPC comments. >> Yeah, >> I think that's appropriate. Um I I but none of these concerns are insurmountable with the appropriate research and and coming up with a a workable solution. I have no doubt we can reach a resolution. Where I have

314
01:30:32.639 --> 01:30:48.159
more concern personally at this moment is the subdivision issue which I had kind of just taken as red uh when this was originally presented but the public has raised some you know uh legitimate concerns and I understand you know

315
01:30:48.159 --> 01:31:03.679
staff's position. Um but I'm not totally at ease with that issue. So, if we could I don't know if there's more to work to be done there, but if we could get further clarity or if um the applicant wants to um clarify their position and

316
01:31:03.679 --> 01:31:21.120
respond more uh substantively at a later date, I think that would also be helpful for me. >> I would agree with that. Thank you, Robert. >> Okay, >> agreed on that. >> All right. So, uh Tom, I think the commission's made themselves super clear on this one. So with that, uh, we are

317
01:31:21.120 --> 01:31:35.520
going to re, uh, SAP's going to recommend that a motion be made to carry this to the next HPC meeting. >> Motion to carry to the next HPC meeting. >> Second. >> All in favor?

318
01:31:35.520 --> 01:31:55.920
>> I cannot hear the next application. Correct. Because the subdivision is not approved. Correct. Yeah, I would advise against it, Jonathan. >> I mean, this is the problem that we run

319
01:31:55.920 --> 01:32:12.000
into, right? They're separate applications, but without the subdivision, you wouldn't be able to do the second application, >> right? So, I should the staff recommendation would be to carry this application to the next HPC meeting as well. >> Mr. Hardington, how do you feel about

320
01:32:12.000 --> 01:32:27.920
that? >> Yeah, that's completely fine. Um, I know AMD has a really great presentation on the second application that we can go over in full detail at the next meeting. And I figure based on staff's comments and comments from the commission that we'll be able to address everything uh

321
01:32:27.920 --> 01:32:43.600
between then and now on the first application hopefully to a satisfactory amount um that we can get through that quickly and then we can go into the presentation. So that's fine. >> Great. All right. Staff recommends a motion to carry. >> Motion to carry. Second.

322
01:32:43.600 --> 01:33:00.639
>> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. >> Well, that brings us to new business on the agenda. Tom, are you staying on for this one as well? >> I don't think so, but I see that Steven's listed. If I need to do

323
01:33:00.639 --> 01:33:16.239
something, I'm happy to do something. I think it's being carried, I think. >> Okay. Yeah, I there was a little bit of uh back and forth on this one. So, um Corey, why don't you uh call this application so we can carry it.

324
01:33:16.239 --> 01:33:33.280
>> Okay. Um ju Okay. Uh case >> 9A. Yeah. >> Yeah. Case H25-0494. applicant Steven Joseph Esquire on behalf of downtown Jersey City LLC

325
01:33:33.280 --> 01:33:49.760
owner. The address is 285.53rd Street, block 11108, lot 6, zone H, Harsimus Cove Historic District, for the certificate of appropriateness for the proposed

326
01:33:49.760 --> 01:34:06.400
construction of a new three-story single family residential building and associated site work in the Haramus Cove Historic District. Recommendation to the Jersey City Zoning Board of Adjustment. >> Okay, thanks. And Tom, like you said, you the applicant is requesting to carry

327
01:34:06.400 --> 01:34:23.520
this one as well to the next HBC meeting. >> Uh, yes, that's correct. >> Okay. If any commissioners want to make a motion for that >> motion, >> second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> Okay, we will see that at the July HPC

328
01:34:23.520 --> 01:34:39.840
meeting. >> Thank you all. Have a good night. >> You too. Okay. Um, all right. We are down to tabled cases, guys. Um, we do not have an update on 285 Grove Street. Correct. >> Uh, correct. I have not heard anything

329
01:34:39.840 --> 01:34:58.159
from them. I am going to reach out to them. I'm not in tomorrow, but I will reach out to them on Wednesday. >> Great. Thank you. All right. And that brings us down to demolition review. Corey, if you want to call the first demolition application. >> Absolutely. That's going to be uh 2840

330
01:34:58.159 --> 01:35:21.280
John F. Kennedy Boulevard-25-2474 carried uh to the regular HPC meeting of June 15, 2026. >> Okay, Michael, >> I are there any members of the team here

331
01:35:21.280 --> 01:35:39.199
um that is representing this application? I don't see anyone. Um I believe that they decided to not show up and are just going to let us hear the application. Um so I will again share my screen and then

332
01:35:39.199 --> 01:36:00.719
we can get into it. Let me see. Okay. Can everybody see my screen? >> Yes. >> Okay. So this application is 2840 JFK

333
01:36:00.719 --> 01:36:19.840
Boulevard uh B-25-2474. Um this property is the uh center property in this photo uh the Soho furniture. This is the photo that the applicant submitted. And then this was the photo that they

334
01:36:19.840 --> 01:36:40.480
submitted for the adjacent properties. And um just to orient ourselves a little bit off of the site plan that they submitted, we have JFK to the bottom and it is uh this central uh portion sip runs behind it. Uh there is a parking

335
01:36:40.480 --> 01:36:56.960
lot behind it as well. And then I can bring up the report that was submitted by staff. Um, this property is mentioned in the phase one survey as a contributing resource to a potential Journal Square historic

336
01:36:56.960 --> 01:37:14.239
district. Um, the phase one was adopted as part of the U Jersey City historic master plan element. Um, it is a pretty well intact example of an art deco building. Um, we do not have a tax

337
01:37:14.239 --> 01:37:30.320
card for this property, but um, I think based on what we can see on the existing building, um, this, uh, building that was built circa 1930, uh, maintains quite a bit of its historic

338
01:37:30.320 --> 01:37:47.280
materials. Um, we have, uh, these fluted columns uh, along with like a decorative cornice above. Um the first floor has some alterations uh but that is again pretty typical of um first floor commercial. We

339
01:37:47.280 --> 01:38:02.719
see those alterations over time and very often um underneath some of these uh kind of signage bands we have a lot of intact historic material. Um so staff believes that this property maintains

340
01:38:02.719 --> 01:38:22.800
integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship and feeling. Um, and I will open it up to the commission to to speak on this application. >> Well, I I will say that um something that we've talked about during a few of these prior demo applications is whether

341
01:38:22.800 --> 01:38:38.080
there is intact historic fabric that we can't see. And I think different commissioners have taken different positions on this. I'm you know to me I can't I feel that I can't assume that it's intact if I can't see it. That

342
01:38:38.080 --> 01:38:54.159
being said with this particular property there is clearly enough visible intact historic fabric that um you know ex at the risk of repeating everything you just said Michael the fluted columns and decorative corners like to me um I'm not

343
01:38:54.159 --> 01:39:08.719
exactly sure what defines art deco. This seems maybe it's because of its modern usage. It seems a bit vernacular to me, but you can clearly see the art deco elements that um give it a distinctive feel and um I would not support uh

344
01:39:08.719 --> 01:39:27.440
approving the demolition. >> I agree with uh Commissioner Jordan. Um it looks like the steel caseman windows um are still intact, which is very rare for a building uh like this. also speaks to the integrity of the area in Journal

345
01:39:27.440 --> 01:39:45.360
Square which was highly developed during the um during that time depression era terra cotta um and one of the it's one of the surviving pieces of that 1930s trans transit oriented commercial

346
01:39:45.360 --> 01:40:00.639
development pattern as we're seeing so much happening in Journal Square. would really be um sad to see this building go. Um I think this needs to be protected. It's a it's one of those main

347
01:40:00.639 --> 01:40:21.760
street very typical depression main street aesthetic and uh I think it's very important that we preserve that building. >> I'm going to agree that I don't believe demolition is warranted in this case. Um we have at least half of a building that

348
01:40:21.760 --> 01:40:39.920
is intact and is nearly 100 years old. Um in the defining one of the defining styles of the Journal Square area. Um you know whether or not any material remains between behind the big sign band. Maybe maybe not. Um there is quite a bit of context here for any potential

349
01:40:39.920 --> 01:40:59.360
future restoration or even if it remains as is for for a long time. I'm going to go on record to say I agree with my colleagues here. Um, and with that said, there's I have nothing additional productive to add.

350
01:40:59.360 --> 01:41:15.679
>> It's just aside from the awning and the windows. It's pretty straightforward on that top there. Who knows what's behind the awning. >> Okay, maybe we'll move into public comment. >> Okay. Are there any members of the public present who wish to give public

351
01:41:15.679 --> 01:41:31.520
comment on this application? Okay, Sharon, I see your hand raised. Um, I will also just note before we make a motion for public comment, Charlene, I do see your hand raised as well. I don't know if that's a hold over from the

352
01:41:31.520 --> 01:41:47.280
little bit on the last application. Um, if it is not, you can choose to lower your hand. Um, but if it is, I'll promote you an extra public comment. Anyway, anyone want to make a motion for public to open public comment? >> Motion.

353
01:41:47.280 --> 01:42:10.320
>> Motion. Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> Sharon, I'm going to promote you. >> Hi again. Um, yeah, I I think >> for the record that you're still under oath, >> correct? I just wanted to say that you are still under oath and you remain

354
01:42:10.320 --> 01:42:27.679
under oath. you were previously sworn. Thank you. >> Thank you. I just wanted to um reiterate uh what the commissioners already stated that I think it would be such a shame to demo um a historic asset like this art deco building. It's very special and it

355
01:42:27.679 --> 01:42:42.719
really um the the biggest mistake other than demoing it is that the the fact that it's not already part of the art deco district just around the corner. Thank you. >> Thank you, Sharon. Okay, Charlene, I still see your hands

356
01:42:42.719 --> 01:43:18.320
raised. So, I am going to promote you as panelist, assuming that there is public comment on this. Okay. Okay, it is not allowing me to promote you. So I going to lower your hand and

357
01:43:18.320 --> 01:43:40.080
if you do want to give public comment on this, please raise it again. I apologize for the tech issues if there are any. Okay. I do not see the hand reappear, so I'm going to assume it's a carryover. All right. Um,

358
01:43:40.080 --> 01:43:58.320
we have no additional members of the public who would like to speak. So, if you would, if the commission would like to make a motion to close public comment >> second. >> All in favor? I >> I >> So, just to reiterate, staff recommends

359
01:43:58.320 --> 01:44:19.040
a motion to prepare a resolution recommending denial of the demolition application to the zoning officer. >> Yes. Or on my end at least. >> Okay. Anyone want to uh make a second?

360
01:44:19.040 --> 01:44:43.440
>> I will second the motion. >> Okay. I will do a roll call vote. Commissioner Gucciardo, >> Stephen, you need to unmute yourself. >> Sorry. I >> um Commissioner Gunther. >> Hi.

361
01:44:43.440 --> 01:45:03.360
>> Commissioner Gordon. Hi. >> Commissioner Hedgecom. Hi. Oh, Mandy, I think you're also on mute. >> Oh, I I can you hear me? >> Thank you. Perfect. Commissioner Callback. >> Hi. >> Okay. Sand Camp, Sakong, Blazak, K, and

362
01:45:03.360 --> 01:45:20.480
Cronin are absent. Chair Griga >> I. >> Okay. There are six in favor, none against, no abstensions. The resolution, the motion to prepare resolution is approved. Okay. On to the next. Cory, if you'd

363
01:45:20.480 --> 01:45:39.280
like to call the next case. >> Yes, that's going to be 81 Atlantic Street B-25-2406. >> Okay. As with the other applications, are there any members of this application team who are present

364
01:45:39.280 --> 01:45:54.639
to address the commission? Use, if you are, please use the raise hand function at the bottom of your screen. If you're on the phone, you can press star 9. Okay. Staff sees no members of the applicant team uh present for this application. So, Michael, I believe you

365
01:45:54.639 --> 01:46:09.760
can proceed with the staff presentation. >> No problem. I will take it away. Um so, again, we have the survey that was submitted by the applicant. Um we're near the corner of Atlantic and Sacket Street. U it's a two-story frame

366
01:46:09.760 --> 01:46:32.639
dwelling. For this one, we actually do have a 1938 tax card photo. that's on the screen right now. And then this is believe uh this is the photo. Sorry, I

367
01:46:32.639 --> 01:46:51.199
believe these are the adjacent photos. Uh let me let me just >> 81 is the blue house. >> Yeah, 81's the blue house. I don't I think that they Let me just stop sharing for one second.

368
01:46:51.199 --> 01:47:23.920
I opened up the photos that they submitted and I thought that I had one of the house, but Okay. So, I am uh I have a

369
01:47:23.920 --> 01:47:41.719
apparently the applicant um did not upload the correct photo and I don't know how I think I missed that as well. So, I'm going to quickly

370
01:47:50.639 --> 01:48:05.920
Okay. Quickly pulled up Google Street View. Um I believe that the applicant had submitted one more photo, but it might not have moved over when we switched it over from um Tyler into the um open

371
01:48:05.920 --> 01:48:22.400
portal. So, we have a Google Street View. Um, and it is the blue property in the middle. Um, the white and the brick properties flank it on either side. Um, so this building was constructed about

372
01:48:22.400 --> 01:48:40.400
uh about 1900. Um, is uh it was it was sorry, the tax court noted that it was about 1900, but it's likely that it was a little earlier 1890 uh to 1895. 1880. Sorry. Oh my gosh, I'm all over the place today. My first Zoom meeting. I've

373
01:48:40.400 --> 01:48:57.760
got the flusters. Uh, this property is mentioned in the Jersey City Historic Preservation Master Plan Element. Um, and it is representative of the Italian8 um architectural style. Um, has a a nice Italian 8 cornice that's

374
01:48:57.760 --> 01:49:17.679
remaining. Uh, this property has undergone some alterations. If I just quickly flip back to the tax card, uh, you could see it has lost its porch has replacement windows. Michael, this might be much to ask for

375
01:49:17.679 --> 01:49:41.520
your first Zoom meeting, but would you be able to zoom in on the text card photo and like put them side by side? That would be perfect. Well, >> you're putting me on the spot. Yeah, I I could definitely do that. Amazing. Thank you.

376
01:49:41.520 --> 01:49:57.040
>> Is this Are we able to see them? Are they close enough? >> Yeah, that's that's great. >> Okay. Um, so yeah, so we have replacement windows. Uh but they look to be roughly the same size and

377
01:49:57.040 --> 01:50:12.320
fenistration openings, a replacement porch, very likely a replacement door. Um but we have um the intact cornice as well as um an intact uh location. Um if

378
01:50:12.320 --> 01:50:29.280
you look down the street, we have a very uh uniform and and intact uh streetscape uh with very little um modern intrusions. Um so uh staff believes that the property

379
01:50:29.280 --> 01:50:47.840
retains integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship and feeling and I will pass it over to the to the commissioner. >> I agree that the building retains those five characteristics.

380
01:50:47.840 --> 01:51:03.920
Um, even if you can, it looks like possibly the first floor windows were um reduced to a standard size stock size window, but the framing may be there. Um, there's a lot of, you know, context on the block for

381
01:51:03.920 --> 01:51:24.639
I mean, it's it's shocking how much is is still similar to this photo. >> Yes, I would I would agree. Um the the setting is for all intents and purposes intact. A lot of the uh details that define the

382
01:51:24.639 --> 01:51:48.639
building are still there. It hasn't been added to or subtracted from its location, design, workmanship is still evident. Okay, we have no further comments from any commissioners. Uh, I would again

383
01:51:48.639 --> 01:52:04.960
recommend we move into public comment. >> Okay, there are any members of the public present who would like to comment on this application. Please use the raise hand function at the bottom of your screen. If you're on the phone, you can press star 9. Right. Staff sees two hands

384
01:52:04.960 --> 01:52:20.320
raised. So, we recommend a motion to open public comment. Motion >> second. >> All in favor? >> I >> Chris, I saw your hand raised first, so I will promote you first. >> Michael, if you could remove the screen

385
01:52:20.320 --> 01:52:36.320
share too. >> Of course. >> Hi everybody. >> Hi Chris. Um, we'll swear you in. >> Do you do you do you swear that the testimony you will provide will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but

386
01:52:36.320 --> 01:52:52.400
the truth? >> I do. State your full name please and your address. >> Uh Christopher Pedal P E R EZ and I'm at 69 Union Street. >> All right. Thank you. Please proceed. >> Good evening everybody. Um I just want

387
01:52:52.400 --> 01:53:10.080
to encourage the commission to not approve demolition for this site. Um Atlantic um that specific section of Atlantic is quite interesting. It really shows a timeline of development. Uh you do have some properties that are more of an empire style even. Um and just for your

388
01:53:10.080 --> 01:53:27.440
information, uh that area was originally called Sherwood. It was conceptualized in 1852. Um the area between Bergen and Garfield Avenue from around Bram Hall to Myrtle was conceptualized as these two areas

389
01:53:27.440 --> 01:53:44.239
called Sherwood and Claremont. Um and they have quite a variety of historic housing builds. So, that block is quite awesome because a lot of it's intact. Um, and there's just a really nice timeline of different historic architecture. Thank you.

390
01:53:44.239 --> 01:54:06.000
>> Thanks, Chris. >> Okay, the next hand I see raised to Sharon. Sharon, I'll go ahead and promote you. All right, we see you, Sharon. Hi again. >> McCormack, you remain under oath.

391
01:54:06.000 --> 01:54:23.199
>> Yes, thank you. Um I believe it's 66 Atlantic. That's just across the street. And um it's absolutely been um kept up and restored and it looks beautiful. And I don't think that it would be any stretch of the imagination to think that

392
01:54:23.199 --> 01:54:38.400
with a little bit of TLC, this property that's up for demolition review could be just as beautiful as 66 Atlantic. Um, furthermore, I I understand that the porch has um like the lattice woodwork

393
01:54:38.400 --> 01:54:54.239
um base is is now, you know, maybe like stone or faux stone or concrete. Um and that some of the like wooden columns um are have been altered um and and siding put up around um what would have been

394
01:54:54.239 --> 01:55:10.080
the top of the porch. However, um those can easily be removed and probably are protecting the beauty underneath. So, um to me, it would be extremely tragic to um approve this for demolition and it

395
01:55:10.080 --> 01:55:24.960
would be just as tragic um for me personally as someone who lives on a block that um had some demos approved um on a mostly intact block. So it it really reminds me of um what happened at

396
01:55:24.960 --> 01:55:42.719
um 124 Glenwood which was demolished and I I think that um you know mistakes were made and this this building absolutely should not be demolished. Thank you very much. >> Thank you Sharon. Are there any other members of the public present who would like to speak?

397
01:55:42.719 --> 01:55:58.000
>> Okay. Staff sees none and recommends a motion to close public comment. Motion >> second. >> All in favor? >> I >> Okay. I >> So I will just reiterate uh staff's

398
01:55:58.000 --> 01:56:12.880
recommendation again is uh a motion to prepare a resolution recommending denial of the demolition application to the zoning officer. I'll make the motion to uh the resolution for denial to the

399
01:56:12.880 --> 01:56:33.280
zoning officer >> based on the integrity of the historic integrity. >> I'll second do a roll call vote. >> I would encourage the commissioners to put their reasons on the record. >> Yep.

400
01:56:33.280 --> 01:56:48.960
Okay. Can do that as I call on you as well. Um, Commissioner Edgecom, >> I believe there is enough um elements that are intact meeting criteria uh and that the uh also the block being uh

401
01:56:48.960 --> 01:57:04.080
intact is why I would vote. >> Okay. >> I commissioner callback. >> Um I vote for denial. Uh it's mentioned in the historic preservation master

402
01:57:04.080 --> 01:57:20.960
plan. Uh it um remains its um its visible craftsmanship and feeling uh also the integrity of the block. Um so here we go. >> Okay. Commissioner Gucciarda.

403
01:57:20.960 --> 01:57:37.199
>> Uh yes. I vote uh I to deny uh because of the integrity of the location, design, workmanship and the overall uh site and setting of this block. >> Okay. Commissioner Gunther

404
01:57:37.199 --> 01:57:54.719
>> vote I for integrity of design and workmanship materials and integrity of location. >> Thank you. Commissioner Gordon. Um I believe that the property maintains integrity of design, setting, materials,

405
01:57:54.719 --> 01:58:11.679
workmanship, and feeling. Um while clearly there have been some alterations to the building over time. Um, it's largely intact and the original structure as we saw it literally side by side up uh between the current status of

406
01:58:11.679 --> 01:58:28.960
the building and the tax card photo makes it very clear that the building um is the same building it was at the period of significance. And we also heard um that the streetscape um that this building is is a key um piece of

407
01:58:28.960 --> 01:58:46.400
that streetscape and uh to demolish the building would be detrimental to the uh neighborhood as a whole. So I vote I >> Great. Uh Commissioners Sandamp, Sakong, Blazak, and K and Cronin are absent. That leaves us just with Chair Gria. I'm

408
01:58:46.400 --> 01:59:02.880
going to vote I on the building still uh retaining uh historical um significance, the um ambiance of the block uh and and the setting and the

409
01:59:02.880 --> 01:59:19.679
materials and I vote I I want to thank first I also want to thank all the public on this property and and the others. Um but that's my vote. >> Great. Thank you. So, there are six votes in favor, none against, and no abstensions. The motion to have staff

410
01:59:19.679 --> 01:59:36.360
prepare a resolution recommending denial is approved. All right, Cory, if you'd like to call the last demolition case of the evening. >> Absolutely. That's going to be 273 Bergen Avenue, B-26-0165.

411
01:59:38.080 --> 01:59:54.239
>> Okay. Are there any members of the applicant team present for this application? If there are, please use the raise hand function at the bottom of your screen. If you're on the phone, you can press star 9. Staff sees no members of the application team present. So, Michael, I believe you

412
01:59:54.239 --> 02:00:11.280
can proceed with a staff presentation on this one. >> Sounds good. Um, so I pulled up uh what was submitted. I hope everybody can see it. >> Robert, I got them side by side ready for you.

413
02:00:11.280 --> 02:00:28.639
So, um, this is 273 Bergen. So, this is right on the corner, right as you're going down Bergen. This building was built circa 1909, 1910. Um, it's a brick dwelling with a

414
02:00:28.639 --> 02:00:46.560
projecting bay upper story. Um, and this was mentioned in the historic uh preservation master plan element. Um, this really features as one of the um a really great example of a detached brick

415
02:00:46.560 --> 02:01:02.080
single family house um with a slightly more vernacular um attempt at um a tutor revival style. So we have this photo that was submitted

416
02:01:02.080 --> 02:01:19.520
and then we also have this photo of the back along with the out building that is behind it. So again staff believes that this property maintains architectural significance um due to the integrity of

417
02:01:19.520 --> 02:01:34.800
the location, the design, the materials, the workmanship and the feeling. Um, let me just get back to this photo. Um, as you can see, the building is incredibly intact. Um,

418
02:01:34.800 --> 02:02:02.159
there are few if any alterations. Um, oh, sorry. Dogs barking away. I apologize about that. Uh but you can see that the first floor we still have these masonry arches um as well as uh

419
02:02:02.159 --> 02:02:19.520
the entryway. It is likely that the front door is a replacement. Um but the window fenestration um appears to be intact. Um, you have the uh the

420
02:02:19.520 --> 02:02:40.239
stick style upper decorations that are very emblematic of um Judo Revival and I can pull up the report

421
02:02:40.239 --> 02:02:59.440
if anyone has any comments or if we would like to move into public comment. >> I think this is a building that speaks for itself. It's a highly distinctive architectural design. I think you said

422
02:02:59.440 --> 02:03:28.800
tutor revival style. Um, remarkably intact. There any additional comments by commissioners or should we go to public comment? >> I'm okay with public comment. I mean, it's pretty straightforward like

423
02:03:28.800 --> 02:03:48.280
Commissioner Gordon said. >> All right. If there are any members of the public who would like to speak regarding this application, please use the raise hand function at the bottom of your screen. If you are on the phone, you can press star 9. Okay. Oh, Chris, I see you. And I will promote you.

424
02:03:57.520 --> 02:04:13.840
>> Hello again. >> Okay. Mr. Perez, you were previously sworn. You remain under oath. >> Yes, I'm still the same person I was 10 minutes ago. >> Yes. Um, so I would discourage demolition of this property. Um, as you've mentioned, it's a pud revival style

425
02:04:13.840 --> 02:04:30.800
property. That intersection at Claremont and Bergen is kind of a very awesome intersection. Uh, because you do see again timeline and context and history of development in the area. Uh, you have more Victorian style structures at the other opposite corners. and even the

426
02:04:30.800 --> 02:04:46.320
apartment building um really shows you a timeline of the homes that were built um and then the increased urbanization of the area uh into the more art deco style apartment buildings that evolve and unfortunately we've lost a lot of these examples um because of that development.

427
02:04:46.320 --> 02:05:02.800
So I think it's critical that we keep this example. Suda revival style is a very rare example um in the immediate area and that's why I think it's essential to keep this site and not demolish it. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, Chris. All right, Sharon,

428
02:05:02.800 --> 02:05:25.840
I see your hand raised, so I'll promote you. All right. And Miss McCormick, you remain under oath. >> Uh, thank you. I agree with what's already been said and I um find that

429
02:05:25.840 --> 02:05:42.480
such a beautifully well-crafted and intact um structure um is it's is essential that it not be demolished. Um it would be extremely discouraging to see anything happen to this um

430
02:05:42.480 --> 02:05:59.440
architectural asset in Jersey City. and as a passionate member of the Jersey City Landmarks, I um have to say it's a bit shocking to even see it um being proposed for demolition. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Are there any other members

431
02:05:59.440 --> 02:06:16.960
of the public who would like to speak regarding this application? >> Staff sees no hands raised and recommends a motion to close public comment. >> Motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? Hi. >> Hi.

432
02:06:16.960 --> 02:06:33.040
>> Um, are there any additional comments from commissioners or should we get into the staff recommendation on this one? >> I mean, I I think the commissioners agree here. Um, so why don't you just go into it,

433
02:06:33.040 --> 02:06:47.520
>> Michael? So again, uh staff's recommendation is uh to prepare a motion to prepare a resolution recommending denial of the demolition application to the zoning officer. Uh the building maintains integrity of location, design,

434
02:06:47.520 --> 02:07:05.040
uh materials, workmanship, setting um as as evidenced by um the 1938 tax code photo um is staff's recommendation. I'd like to make that motion verbatim.

435
02:07:05.040 --> 02:07:19.440
>> I will second the motion. >> Okay, we'll do a roll call vote. As always, you are encouraged to justify your vote um at the time that I call your name. Um commissioner call back.

436
02:07:19.440 --> 02:07:35.679
>> Um I vote I for denial. Um it's on the historic preservation um master plan element. It is a very intact interesting tutor style um style house. Uh the craftsmanship and

437
02:07:35.679 --> 02:07:50.719
integrity, workmanship, feeling and very few alterations. I don't see any reason why this should be abolished. >> Thank you. Um Krishna Giarda. Uh yes, for all the same reasons

438
02:07:50.719 --> 02:08:06.000
mentioned by both U Michael and Natalie. Um plus plus the condition. I mean it's incredibly uh in good condition. You I mean the the chimney is still erect and straight. I

439
02:08:06.000 --> 02:08:20.880
mean it's just amazing how well it stood the test of time. And in addition to that, the rarity of this particular type of design, I I I would vote I. >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Gunther.

440
02:08:20.880 --> 02:08:37.840
>> Also, I um the the property retains integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and setting. >> Thank you, Commissioner Gordon. >> Yeah, I agree that the property maintains integrity across um most of

441
02:08:37.840 --> 02:08:55.360
the criteria. Um, this is just a a fantastic example of the tutor revival style with the decorative half-timbering, the asymmetrical layout, the full width brick porch, um, and the the tall chimney. Um, there's also the

442
02:08:55.360 --> 02:09:11.360
the bay window and um, the dormer that are very distinctive and uh, it's it's highly intact. So, I vote I. >> Okay. Thank you. For the record, Commissioners Sampong, Blazak, and oh,

443
02:09:11.360 --> 02:09:28.079
I'm sorry, Commissioner Edgecom. >> All right. Um, I echo all of my fellow commissioners uh statements. The craftsmanship, the integrity is intact, the rarity of that tutor style architecture for Jersey City as a historic property. Um, so I vote I to

444
02:09:28.079 --> 02:09:43.280
the nine. >> Thank you. Apologies for almost skipping you. I caught myself for the record. Commissioners Sand Camp, Song Blazak, and Kay and Cronin are absent, which just leaves us with Chair Gria. >> I'm going to vote I uh I'm going to echo

445
02:09:43.280 --> 02:09:59.360
what my fellow commissioners have said. At the end of the day, this is, you know, um historically significant still. So, yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. There are six votes in favor, none against with no

446
02:09:59.360 --> 02:10:16.560
abstensions. The recommendation, the motion to first off to prepare a resolution recommending denial is approved. All right, we have a handful uh moving on the agenda, we have a handful of demolition cases that are tabled. Um we

447
02:10:16.560 --> 02:10:32.159
have no update on these cases. We hope that they will come before you soon. Um we have no resolutions to introduce or discuss and no resolutions to memorialize. We do not need an executive session. So, this just leaves us with adjournment.

448
02:10:32.159 --> 02:10:47.199
>> Motion. I'll second. >> Okay. For the record, staff notes it is 8:49 p.m. All in favor of adjournment? >> I. >> Motion passes.

449
02:10:47.199 --> 02:10:49.840
Thank you everybody.