Are we doing 598 first? >> Okay. >> No, we still need a username. >> Um, I do know that. I have to look for it. Yeah. >> And that's going to go first. First
above 300. Okay. >> It's going to go. >> Okay. Cool. 598 then. >> That's fine. Whatever. So, we're going to do >> whenever you're ready and then we'll do 32 Sherman second because they're here
and then we'll go see the rest of it. >> Okay. Yeah, you are. No, you don't have to read any books. I do all this. You don't have to worry about any of that. Um, when I say we're going to call Yeah. So, when I say we're gonna I'm gonna say
basically we're going to go to old business, but we are going to be calling the cases out of order and then you can just go right in to say we're going to call uh C first. >> And you just read Yep. case number um that is Vabella. >> Okay. >> Like the Sure. >> I know.
>> Oh, okay. Perfect. And then Yeah, just read this. >> Okay, >> Iris, let me know when you're ready. >> Okay, perfect. All right, we're going to call this meeting of this regular meeting of the Jersey City Historic Preservation Commission to order. It is 6:33 p.m. 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 uh sent to the Bergen Record and Ellis Basalito on Friday, December 12th. Same notice
has pro been provided to the city clerk for posting on the bulletin board outside of the clerk's office in city hall and on the Jersey city website. I have proof of this notice in evidence that we can mark as B1 has received and marked. >> Thank you. Okay, we'll do a roll call of
commissioners. Commissioner Gusardo >> here. >> Commissioner Sank >> here. >> Commissioner Gunther >> here. >> Commissioner Sakong >> here. >> Commissioner Blazak >> here. >> Commissioner Gordon >> present. Commissioner Edgecom is absent. Commissioner Kay >> here. >> Commissioner Colbeach
>> here. >> And uh Chair Cronin is absent. So that's just Vice Chair Gera >> here. >> Okay. There. I'm sorry, acting chair. There are nine members of the commission in attendance. Five affirmative votes are needed for a certificate of
appropriateness. Um we do not have any minutes on tonight's agenda to approve. for correspondence. All application materials are linked on tonight's agenda. Um, and they're all available for public review through those links.
Staff has no announcements at this time. >> Sorry, one announcement. >> Oh, we do have one announcement. >> So, we have one announcement. Um, item 11A 20 Sherman Place B-25-0823 uh has carried to the March 2026 HPC
meeting. Great. So, moving on after announcements is open public comment. If there are any members of the public in attendance tonight who would like to speak regarding matters of historic preservation that are not on tonight's agenda, you can approach the public comment mic.
>> Staff sees none and recommends a motion to open and close public comment. >> Motion second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. So, that leads us to old business. I know we will be calling the cases out of order this evening. So, acting chair Griga, if you'd like to call the first case in old business.
>> We're going to call case number H25-00009. Applicant Robert Vertoello, applicant on behalf of JCH Development LLC, 598, Jersey A. Uh that's blocking lot 11205-43
in the Haramus Cove Historic District for the certificate of appropriateness for the proposed subdivision of the lot and adaptive reuse of the former North Baptist Church. an altered key contributing resource in the Haramus
Cove Historic District, dedicated 1887, partially destroyed by the fire in 1978, and partially rehabilitated for worship in 1983. The proposed residential project includes, but is not limited to, the integration of the character defining
features of the building with new construction to convert the site into a 14-unit residential building incorporating the extent west facade, tower, and partial south facade. uh recommendation to the Jersey City
Zoning Board of Adjustment carried from the November 17th, 2025 regular HPC meeting. >> All right. Good evening, commissioners. I am obviously not Robert Verdeo. My name is Veronica Shme. I'm also from the law firm Connell Foley on behalf of the
applicant JCH Development this evening. I'll keep my remarks very uh brief as obviously the star of the show is um Mr. Manny Perez, our architect and the structure itself. Um, we're here for an application for certificate of appropriateness for 598 Jersey Avenue.
Um, we submitted our application a while a little while ago. I know Mr. Pereas has been working very closely with Mr. Reeden. Um, we are in receipt of his staff memo dated November 14th, 2025 with the revision date of December 12th, 2025. As some of you may recall, I was here at the uh November meeting,
requested an adjournment so we could sort of get things in final order uh to present to you this uh tonight. In addition to this application, we've also simultaneously applied for site plan approval with the zoning board as well as a subdivision to subdivide the property into two lots to keep the
existing chapel and keep the existing church with obviously the um proposed adaptive reuse that we're going to be discussing tonight. Um, those are really my comments. So, I will turn it over to our architect to present the project to you all this evening.
>> Good evening. Do you swear that the testimony you provide this evening will be the truth? The whole truth is nothing but the truth. So I hope you got >> I do. Manny >> Manny Pedas P E R E I R A S with Pedas Architects Ubiquitous located at 1116
Summit Avenue uh in neighboring Union City here in New Jersey 07087. >> Staff notes that Mr. Prairius has previously been qualified as an expert in the field of architecture in front of this board before and your license is current to reflect that. >> It is current.
>> Great. >> Thank you. >> Thank you everyone for the opportunity to present. It has been a long journey. A long journey that started actually way way back right after the Civil War. Uh the North Baptist congregation purchased
these properties. is they they put together a few properties in the 1860s right after the Civil War. Um we have some records that this building was constructed in the 1880s. Uh we have a
small snippet in a paper where there was a mention of the congregation and the church in 1881 and they had their proper um opening ceremony in 1887. So, we're dealing with a great amount of history
that's impactful uh and and we'll learn more about it as we move forward. Uh right now, and just for purposes of the record, everything that you see before you, everything that I'm presenting on the on the board is the same submitt package that was submitted uh on the portal, and I'm just using it to
illustrate here. There are two easels to my left and my right. The easel to my left is a material board of the finishes that we have proposed for the church. uh that was previously submitted to the board uh through photographs. And then on the right is an old uh postcard which
was submitted. It was actually on page Z46 of the submitt package located in this spot just blown up so that we have a really good understanding of what we're dealing with and and the beauty of the church that we're working with. As we said before, we are on the corner of
Jersey A and fourth. Uh the property is consisting of actually two buildings. Uh you see from the the photograph we have the proper uh building and a smaller chapel next to it. One of the aspects of our application is the subdivision of
these two lots. We're looking to subdivide this into 46 wide for the old chapel and 54 that's along Jersey Avenue. And the depth of both of these properties remains at 83.83 83 feet. So,
we're looking to do a subdivision. The congregation that's there, which is the North uh Baptist Spanish Congregation, they're looking to hold on to the chapel portion of this building and take the proceeds of this sale. I lost you.
Okay. Hopefully that pops back up. Great. They're looking to take the proceeds of this sale, which is pending approvals, uh, to finish their church. Our application here today is strictly after the subdivision, the adaptive reuse of
the building on the corner, the the larger church. As you could see from the photographs, there were several plagues that happened to this church or problems. Uh, one was in the late30s
where the large windows that you see in the front of the church were blown out and they were then constructed around 1938 and infilled with brick and smaller windows. We felt that that was not part of the true historic fabric of the
church. And what we're looking to do is regain the original beauty and go back to the larger windows. Uh, and you'll see that in our proposal later on. And actually before I was even born in 1978, this church suffered a catastrophic
fire. And that fire took out and you could tell from here from this photograph the entire sanctuary. Uh so the the the only thing that m is maintaining is that facade on Jersey Avenue
and the choir loft which is in horrible uh dilapidated condition. It's practically ready to to collapse. But you could see that there's a large void in the back of the church. And let me walk you now through the existing conditions of the facade and what we are
dealing with with more detail. We split up the drawings in several ways. First and foremost, we wanted to document what was there. And this is sheet Z04. There's both photographic evidence and
an architectural drawing in uh in some detail of what we have there in the existing facade. The we've labeled every piece of the facade and there is some serious
dilapidation in certain areas. Uh for example, the darker shaded areas of brick. Um the one across the middle and over the window, that was an old uh chimney flu uh that has taken water and
that part is in really dangerous physical uh uh condition. We're looking to remove bricks of in those areas to be replaced and everywhere where it is possible to
maintain and keep the existing brick, we are looking to do so. clean it and uh and keep it in its beauty. There is also a great amount of beautiful architectural detail that is in wonderful condition and we're looking to salvage and restore all of these
elements of the existing church in our proposed adaptive reuse project. Um there are very few pieces of windows left on this church. However, we were able to uncover
uh a few pieces of of historic evidence. The primary source uh of evidence that we have is this p this window in our tower. After we removed the plywood coverings on that window, we were able
to see that there was a very dilapidated problemridden frame, but it was enough that between that and the photographic evidence, we were able to obtain a lot of information. Uh, and one of our proposals is that we're looking to
recreate these frames in their exact condition to match the dimensions of the original uh windows that we had on this church. So, we were able to remove that and with
the um the help of Mr. Readen and and different staff members, we were able to document that and take down all the profiles and really understand what was happening in these windows for future fabrication. The facade along Fourth Street is in
worse condition. Actually, uh the darker areas that you see here are completely dilapidated. The area here that you see, that is a uh shingle roof. That was a temporary fix. That was a fix that was supposed to last
a year or two and that happened many, many years ago and it's ready to collapse. The facade itself uh is in desperate need of repair and we're looking to salvage it in every way. So, one of the things that we're doing is
we're creating a steel frame in front of the facade immediately in order to protect it to make sure that no further uh dilapidation occurs and that this is sound during construction. And now we're turning to our demolition sheets where we're describing in detail
each of the pieces and what we're doing with it uh including demolition of that entire uh center uh window uh the infill. to be replaced with new windows. Uh we're removing the fence around the
the building in order to restore it. And looking at the fourth a entrance, there is a significant amount of construction that we're looking to do. And what we're proposing is that from the area of the buttress to the rear wall of this property, we are
documenting that wall and we are taking that down carefully for reconstruction later so that we have access to the site during construction. And with our proposal, what we have done is we have taken uh the evidence of what
was existing there and we what we're proposing is to take the same envelope of what was originally there and build within that same envelope. So what we're looking to do is on the cross nave on uh
fourth street we're reconstructing matching the same height of what was there in a more contemporary clean manner so that the building maintains the same volume and same uh fit into the neighborhood of what was part of that
historic fabric uh years ago. From the front facade, we're looking to see, as you see, to restore the brick uh to match it uh as much as we can. Um we have selected bricks that are very close in color, extremely close in
color. And we also have the added advantage that we have some porches uh portions of the building where we're able to take brick from those portions and reuse them on the front facade as well. and we're looking to do so.
The windows are trying to maintain the historic character of the original windows that you could see there, taken from the evidence from the from the photographs and what we were able to find online and really creating a true uh historic uh um restoration of that
front facade and then have elements where you see them here in the distance. uh step back of that cross nave along the front facade and then the cross facade on Jersey A. As you can see, we we took and and
borrowed from the the imagery and the the the um the shape of the existing or the previously existing building to propose our new building. Our the edge of our building is very much in line with the adjacent town houses that
are there to keep the character and the height of the neighborhood. And then as it steps back, it goes higher to the to the highest uh peak of the gable uh and the cross gable. We are looking to replace the glass with a clear glass
that is um lead um a leaded glass in diamond shaped pattern to infill all the windows to bring light into the spaces. And what we're proposing to do is to create uh apartments within the building.
The the existing conditions are there. Now in the lower level, there is an existing sanctuary that is going to be demolished, a small basement along the front along Jersey A. And what we're proposing is we're
proposing a basement. Uh the basement is for storage, bicycle storage, things of that nature, and our meter rooms along the front along Jersey Avenue. Our second story creates a lobby and a
secondary lobby. Uh the reason we have two lobbies is because we wanted to maintain the facades of the building as closely as possible. However, there are existing steps along Jersey Avenue. Uh even though it is the prominent and proper entrance of the building on the
main avenue, we did not want to cut the facade or modify it in any way. We thought that this was an important uh aspect of the historic nature of the facade and therefore we're maintaining that. So in order to provide ADA access to our building, we're utilizing the
topography of the site and able to provide a ramp by having a secondary entrance off of Jersey A. So the building has two entry points, one ADA compliant off of Jersey A and one uh larger main lobby along um uh Jersey A.
Uh that main lobby has package room, electric room, uh and access to the trash room as well as access to two apartments on the lower level. The apartments are access from the lobby. We have
I'm not sure if the historic board is interested in the units themselves. Uh we have a apartment. Let me go by numbers to make this nice and easy. and clear. We have apartment number one where we're
utilizing a pre-existing door off of Fourth Street. That door has its own private access to the apartment. It is a 756q ft one-bedroom apartment that is fully ADA compliant.
The bedroom size is 410 by 116 and has its own walk-in closet and bathroom. Apartment number two is 1,17 square ft. It is a two-bedroom, two bath apartment. The access is from the lobby. Um, the
apartment is utilizing and really uh taking the beauty of the existing facade. There are windows that are slightly awkwardly placed, but beautiful in their own right. And I think that's going to be more clearly established on the upper
floors. Apartment number three is actually duplexed with the floor above in order to bring light into the space. And that is a total of 1,126 square ft. You have your living space on the ground floor and your secondary
spaces are on the second floor. And apartment number four is also duplexed for a total of 981 square ft with the same concept that the living space is on the first floor and the apartments are on the second floor.
Moving down to the second floor, we go back to apartments number three and four and we see the second story of these where we now have clear story over the chapel next door. So, we're able to bring light into these apartments. And we have two bedrooms on uh the apartment
number three and one bedroom on apartment number four duplex with what's below. Apartment number five is a two-bedroom, two bath of 1,062 ft. Apartment number six is a two-bedroom,
two bath of 1,95 square ft. Apartment number 7 is 897 square ft, two bedroomedroom, two bath. And here you we could see that some of the apartments are taking advantage of those windows along the front that they're open into the living area.
All circulation of this uh uh building is through a center core. That center core has two stairs for emergency egress and an elevator in the middle. That elevator provides ADA access throughout the building.
And then moving on to the proposed third floor, we have apartment number eight, which is a 1,095 square ft two-bedroom, two bath. Apartment number nine is a 162 ft, two-bedroom, two bath.
Apartment number 10 is a 990 ft two-bedroom, two bath. Apartment number 11 is a 881 square ft, two-bedroom, two bath. And then we move towards the fourth floor where we have again a few duplex
apartments. Um, apartment number 12 is duplexed. On the fourth floor, we have 1,092 ft in total area. With both floors, we have 1,988 square ft. On this floor, we have nice
open floor plan living uh dining kitchen area. We have two bedrooms including a master bedroom and the upper bedroom has a family room and two more bedrooms, one including a suite.
Apartment number 13 is against again duplex with the fifth floor. Uh the living area is along the front where we're able to use the rose window there. Uh and we have two bedrooms on this floor and then it gets duplexed above
where we're able to put two additional bedrooms. One of them being beautifully situated in the bell tower uh which I think will be an amazing space. And then finally, apartment number 14,
which is a four bedroomedroom, four bath apartment, which is again duplexed with above. We have two bedrooms on the fourth floor. And on the fifth floor, we have an additional two bedrooms, both of them being master suite. On sheet Z30, we see the massing of the
building, which is really the existing footprint. We're not looking to grow that footprint in any way. And we see that in the context of the neighborhood. And we see the facades, the existing condition and the proposed condition
along uh Jersey A. And on Fourth Street, we see again the existing and proposed conditions showing the envelope of the building as we propose it. We have interior sections of the building to understand the existing and
proposed conditions. These are the proposed conditions with cuts throughout the building that I could get into more detail if needed. Here we have building sections that start showing the relationship of the windows to the facade. Some site views to understand how the
building fits into the neighborhood. This is our structural diagram showing how the building will be temporarily held in place during construction. And I'd like to take you now for some three-dimensional modeling so that we
could really understand how this building is situated and how it fits into the neighborhood. Here we could really see the massing of the building and how it fits and how what our intervention is to the building. This is looking towards the corner away from uh
from so that we understand the back and how the building faces the townhouse and the existing chapel. This is facing uh fourth, the north side of fourth and on Jersey Avenue.
And these are some renderings of what we proposed to the building to look like uh in concept. There are details that are missing that we are working on, but in concept uh we're working to match the brick as closely as possible both in the
proposed addition and the uh existing church. We're looking to create some nice architectural detailing um really defining the difference between what is historic and what is proposed. We have
this trim detail that is a slightly brighter color so that that shows and defines what was part of the historic character and what is proposed. Our new windows are delineated as very rectal linear as opposed to the pointed Gothic
windows of the historic fabric of the church to make the contrast. Yet, we're using the plated glass look so that it matches and ties everything in together. And with the facade, our intentions are 100% to restore it as much as we can to
the original as possible. And then as a salute to it, uh take some of those elements into the proposed facade, but not disguise this, not pretend that this is a historic uh facade. This is a contemporary facade. clean lines, clean
edges, uh clean windows, but with a nod towards the historic and what and in and our sensibility of materials and the way it's uh being presented. Here we see a flat version of the facade and understanding the the volume of what
the building is. This is a flat uh elevation of the facade on Jersey Avenue. And then finally, a corner image taken from eye level but in very similar perspective to the historic uh
photograph or at least from the location of the historic photograph at a lower perspective at eye level so that we could really understand the massing of the building. And again detail is missing. It's uh it's a crude image to understand the massing of the building. Uh but I think that this presents uh the
intention of what we're looking to do today and I turn it over to you. I thank you for the opportunity to present. I I I thank Mr. Reeden for all his guidance throughout this entire process and I am open for your questions.
>> Uh before you um before the commissioners start asking questions, maybe you might just want to run through your material sample board really quickly. >> Thank you so much. That's such an important thing. So, we we went through a lot of
pain to find what the appropriate roofing material would be for this building. And while it might not have been the historically used material, we thought that slate would be appropriate is made in used in similar buildings of
this era. And so, what we're proposing to do is a slate top. That sample is slightly deceiving. The sample, this portion is the exposed part. This is one entire rooftop and that is a faux
um slate roof that we're proposing for the entire roof except for the tower portion. The tower portion, the original spire uh was obviously a lot taller. It's it would be inappropriate to build
that today. So, we wanted it to almost disappear from the streetscape. So, we're doing a very low pitched roof that you don't actually see the roof. It doesn't create more of an obstruction to the neighborhood. So, in order to create that low pitch roof, we couldn't use the
slate tile. Uh, so we're using the roof that's below that. That's a standing seam metal roof, which is not really visible in general from the street. The bricks, we have two bricks. If you look at the the building, there are two different color bricks. There's a lot of
beautiful uh brick elements in white as an accent. We matched the white as closely as we could. It's like a bone white. Uh and the grout for that is matching almost identical. It's a lime based uh grout that is appropriate for
its time. The red brick, which I would call like a salmon color brick, we found an extremely close match. Uh we were able to do some control clean tests of the brick so that we're matching the clean brick and not the brick that's
there today. That matches pretty closely to the brick. It also matches pretty closely in the defining edges uh of it. And the salmon grout which again is a linebased grout. It's very close in color to it. The windows and pardon for
the small uh sample. this sample that is the color that we're proposing for the window frames. Uh we thought that was appropriate. That was from a Benjamin Moore historic uh uh palette which was probably extremely close to the original
color of what was done with the church. And that's what we're proposing for not only the uh historic windows but also for the proposed windows in the in the new design. >> Sorry, material on the windows. What is that representing? So the that's
representing only the color the the window manufacturer is going to be making an aluminum extruded window so that we could match the frame and the and the the style that was there historically. >> Okay. And what what material is the white um
this uh white banding thing that you're using to divide between the historic and the new facade. What material is that? >> So So there's a couple of materials to be clear. This uh there's combinations
of stone, white brick, and that white bandandy material will be like an alucabond type of material. It'll be uh aluminum uh compressed metal. >> I have a question about the bricks. The um you said that you were trying to
match the historic brick work as closely as possible. Is there a stock size that does match in terms of the exact dimensions? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, we don't have to worry about you need to do custom because I know you're doing a lot of brick work. So it might be cost effective to do that if
you needed. >> Okay. And my other question is about the area where it's labeled for condensers. Can you explain that a little bit more? >> Happily. So
go up to the roof. So, we have in this area we have and actually let me go back and forth between the model and that area that is somewhat of a sunken courtyard. You have the roof that is at
a pitch along this area right here. The f what we label as faux slate tiles and then you have the wall of the apartment that's set back at the cross gable and then you have this bit of a sunken courtyard. So, we thought that was the perfect opportunity to hide our
condensers. So, going back to the three-dimensional model, those condensers are in this sunken courtyard under the parapit, so they won't be visible uh from the street. >> Okay. So, that um like horizontal
is there brick work above that or are they I guess I'm trying to visualize where they are in this rendering. Yeah. So they are right behind they're here. >> And that's a brick parapit. >> And that's a brick parapit. >> Okay. Thanks.
>> Oops. Lost you. Oh, drawing on the screen is too much for the tech. Anyone else? Um, you I I think I understood. I wanted to clarify. Are you saying that the roof
lines depicted in your plan are the same roof lines that existed on the original building? Is the volume the same? The the volume is the same. And the roof lines, the pitches are the same. The
roof Yes. And there is there is one point where I do want to clarify because it's it's a little deceptive. This little corner here, which is
this portion. >> Mhm. >> That is not the existing roof line. That is the only portion of our building that is beyond what the envelope of the building was. >> That's where your condensers are. Same location. >> So the condensers are behind that.
>> Behind that. Mhm. >> And the north facade, which I don't know that we talked about in detail. That's the No, the north the north facade. >> Sorry. Um I notic that that did have a different pitch and was treated differently than the sort of tuckedway
terraces on the south. >> Yes. >> And this is a historic pitch. >> Actually, thank you for point pointing that out. >> I think that's what I was. Thank you. >> Yeah, it it just feels atypical cuz usually they're >> the historic pitch would have been
thorough from one end. Same as the front >> to south, right? >> This is the back. I misspoke. You're correct. This is wider in the back of the building on the north end. It is a wider pitch. The envelope does grow a little bit larger. >> Yeah. >> Not the street facing but the the north end. >> Right.
>> And that is going to be visible from I know these these renderings are all from which is >> it will be visible from the street. Yes. It's a little um I I think one of the things I would ask for is that the renderings are done from the perspective
of a pedestrian on the sidewalk. >> These um views are help are helpful, but I think ultimately what we're most concerned about is the view from the street. >> That makes sense. It would be this perspective just probably about 15 feet lower.
>> Yeah. Mhm. >> And so the brick the brick that you're showing on the material sample board, is that both the brick that you're going to use for replacing bricks that need to be replaced on the historic facade and any new bricks all around the building? >> That's correct.
>> Okay. >> Just a question about the window tracery that you discussed you were guys were going to replace. I was looking at Z37. So, is the intent to try and clad the aluminum frame with
a wooden or for better word, stone replacement on the exterior to make it look as though it's part of that original tracery style. >> So, you said you were going to replace it as per the window that you found. >> Correct. So, we're taking the profiles
of the existing window. We're extruding new windows that can match that profile exactly and then it gets painted and then we the and and then the infill will be the leaded glass. >> Okay. So, you're going to get an
aluminum extrusion in the shape of that original tracery. >> Correct. >> Right. >> And the original tracery was made of >> It was wood. was >> which collapsed and and partly it's because the scale and it was
unsustainable the the scale of the original and that's why there was a a secondary historic infill in the in the late 30s. >> You could verify that large rose window was wood that that's a very large window to be wood.
>> We I don't >> Was it Dan? Uh >> yes, I can I can verify that. >> Okay. Yeah. Um, so the the big question I have is on the south facade. Um,
please tell us how the decision was made not to recreate from photographic evidence um, what the south facade would have originally looked like and why are we doing a modern interpretation on that facade.
I I'll share with you my design aesthetic and why we came to this conclusion. Um, this is an adaptive reuse. The use of the building is no longer a church. What we're proposing is a new
concept, a new use within the existing structure. And as such, we're marrying the two uses of what it was there historically and what we're proposing. And I didn't want to imitate. I feel as an architect and and I know we all have different philosophies sometimes it's
appropriate to imitate. I think in this situation we had the ability to preserve and we preserved a historic facade and our intervention what we're proposing as new take the importance and the the characters that are necessary but not hide this with imitation but create a
new design aesthetic. And that's that's the only reason behind it. So when I when the word imitate is used, it's usually used for new construction of let's say there's a a rowhouse missing and you want to build a new rowhouse.
You don't have evidence of the old a rowhouse. You're going to do a modern infill, then I would understand not imitating his trying to pretend that you're historic in that case. But in this case, we know what was there. We know what the
existing building looked like. So I wouldn't consider this an imitation but a res but a restoration and a rebuild. I understand that and I would agree with you 100% if we were rebuilding a church since we're not rebuilding a church and we have a new adaptive use. Now that I
think is causes the difference where I feel that it is appropriate to do this and I and I know this is a very personal choice >> and I understand that you might have a different opinion but I think it's a valid choice considering it's a new use.
>> I I would agree with you there too as well. I don't I don't think it would be actually I don't think it would be appropriate to rebuild based on the historic evidence here just because of the history of the fire and this is going to be a residential structure. Um
I would be I' never I've been walking by this building for 15 years and I don't think I ever imagined someone completely rebuilding that southacing facade. Um, I always thought something a little more modern and contemporary would go in there since I always assumed that this
would not no longer be a church building. >> Um, I think there are different ways that this can be done in a modern and contemporary manner. I I think there might be some comments and work to do on this proposed, but I don't I don't think that looking at that postcard and
copying exactly what was there would be the right approach here. Yeah, >> I'm not sure why I I got your opinion about it, but you know, we on a regular basis have, you know, people who are
working on their homes restore missing missing portions of a building. Um, you know, and >> might be different if it was covered up. If it were if there were if there was a fire and, you know, there was a substitute material put on there in the
70s or 80s and it was still under there, you know, that might be different. But also think of the different, you know, we've done church conversions. >> Exactly. >> Nothing quite like this though where it create there's they're creating so much of a new building. So this this is a
unique I think for us uh situation as well. >> I I think personally um the the key point here is the fact that this is adaptive reuse, >> right? And I think because um unlike um
applications where we see an existing church and we're trying to see how we can use existing fabric um towards this new use, I think the reconstruction of fabric that no longer exists towards a purpose that it wasn't built for. I
think that's the for me that's the part of the um the argument that that I I I agree with that um it shouldn't necessarily be a reconstruction. Um the the discomfort I have though is with the
design Yeah. of that of that south facade >> for sure. Um, I would and and without trying to represent the full totality of sort of my my reservations about it, I'll I'll I'll just point out a couple things. Um,
the the large expanse of glass, the combination of I think vision lights and spandre glass that constitute that kind of central window design. Um to me this reads neither as let's say uh masonry you know punch masonry opening nor let's
say curtain wall right like you have these slivers of brick that um float between the the glass bays the bricks that don't actually conclude in anything you know >> um and that also I think sit kind of uncomfortably on this stepped uh
alukabond I guess trace um let's say coping I think I think there's some work to do with the proportions and the the the let's say the relationship between solid and void uh on that on that main window design that it should kind of
take a position. It should either it should either read as a opening within a masonry wall or it should read as as a curtain wall but I think right now it it reads as neither. And I think this kind of um uh I guess it's a it's almost like a C channel I suppose um tracing the
let's say the cross apps >> um you know unlike unlike um and again without without advocating for this to be an imitation I think the fact that that's kind of embedded on either side of two planes of brick that are
co-planer to each other makes it read as a kind of applied um let's say ornament rather than a real break in massing in plane, which the roof line purports it to do, but in plane I think it it's it's quite flat. Um, and then the way the
whole thing sits on that sort of one-story wall, I I sense a discrepancy between the elevations uh and the three-dimensional um renderings. In the renderings, there looks to be this kind of heavy brick band um that's quite
quite deep that that runs across um and here it's interrupted by these plasters. Um the the height of that band is actually looks much shallower than in the 3D. And I think the fact that it it ends on this kind of cantalvered over
the the secondary opening the ADA entrance rather than kind of resolving uh again like the opening doesn't read as like a modern um uh void under under a cantal lever nor as an opening in a in a wall. It just looks like
it just looks like a sort of a I don't know contingent condition. It it reads as a as an afterthought. So I I think I think there's some work to do here about the relationship between brick, glass,
bricks and plane, what's meant to read as like heavy heavy masonry, what's meant to read as light filigree um and and voids. Um that I I would like to see another attempt at personally. >> And then there's leaded glass in in
there. I mean to top that off. So it's con I'm confused by this facade and I'm also concerned because uh the Jersey Avenue facade was spoken about as the primary facade but when you look at the rendering renderings and you look at
this corner there are two primary facades here not just one. Um, and the second the secondary facade, if we'll call it that, is no less ornate in the original, no less important in the original. So, um, I'm still having
concerns. I understood the argument from fellow commissioners, but I I I don't see what's gained by this particular treatment. Um, um, I think there needs to be a much more successful solution for this to work.
Sorry, just one other comment on the um on the slightly on the views that you had 3D views looking sort of down, not quite aerial. Um the shadow under that white coping line seemed to get deeper as it progressed uh I guess further
east. Was that a is there a >> Yeah, maybe you could zoom into Yeah, the image. Yeah. So, does the coping actually get deeper? >> No, that's a modeling issue. >> Okay, got it. And then and then can you speak to the height of that band being so different from what's shown in the
elevations? >> Um, no. It should be the elevation that that's a modeling issue. >> Okay. >> I I also think there needs to be a I don't know if that's the most successful way to marry the two pieces of the building together. I I think I'd like to
see something that maybe it's some sort of cast stone or you know something that's that's taking a cue from the existing building and and maybe also the other question that I have is should the exact same brick be
used >> at at both buildings or should it or not both buildings both parts of the building. I almost wonder if it there should be a differentiation and and that could be another way to kind of we can >> Yeah, I think this is something design.
>> Yeah, >> lots of design choices. I mean there there was there were intentional kind of concepts that we wanted we wanted an ambiguity to this facade. We wanted it to feel is this it's no it's not a punch window.
It's not a it's not a curtain wall. wanted that to read through this. Uh there's a lot, but these are all aesthetic choices and so and I understand all your commentary. I I can agree with all your commentary. I also
understand how we came up with our concepts. >> Yeah. And look, this is a building that's it's incredible that it's still there, quite frankly. So, I think we're all happy that something's being done here. >> No question. A and time is such an important factor in this. Every day that
that goes on it, we're risking the collapse of this building. And that that is a sad reality. Uh it is this fire happened before I was born and this building is in receiving a lot of water. The congregation that has it cannot
maintain it today. They need this closing to happen, this approval for that closing so that the building can be salvaged. Um, I just want to add to those comments. Um, I don't personally mind the sort of modern interpretive rebuild.
Um, I find it appropriate even if maybe the detailing could be um, you know, explored further. Um, but I disagree about the brick work because I feel like if you have a modern and a a historic design and the brick work is a
consistent that maybe that's okay. So, we're not overly, you know, bifurcating what's new and what's old. Um, but I still have concerns about the north facade. I know it's not as an as important a facade as the south facade, but I do find that the way that that has
been handled in terms of the massing is a little awkward. Um, it will be visible. I just think that maybe that's something that could look take another look because I think it's handled well on the south facade um more successfully and maybe the north facade could benefit
from a similar. Right now it feels like it's just part of a different building that's kind of attached to this. >> Could I add to that? Um if you recreated the original roof line, what is the effect on your project?
It will significantly reduce the size of some of the apartments. >> Uh but the ones on that floor, right? Only on that floor. And and how many apartments does it affect? I'm just curious. >> Two. >> Uh is it the ceiling height that it's affecting?
>> No, we would lose bedrooms. >> That was it. >> Yeah. So you you know it may from a historic preservation point of view and what the rest of the public sees it may be something you need to consider in order to make that a a
facade that a lot of people are going to see in the in the district. >> Yeah. >> The thing that that that is distracting to me is the shallow pitch of that roof. And maybe I mean maybe it would be a flatter roof.
Maybe it could be higher. Maybe that would be less distracting actually. But that's that's also why I think it's important for us to get that what that view from Jersey Avenue from the north looking south is going to be. >> And maybe maybe I don't know that I even need the exact roof line to be
recreated. So maybe there's some other solutions. I just don't think it's that that shallow pitch of the roof. And I also would want to know what the pitch of the roof on the south facing towards Fourth Street would look like
and what we're going to see from there cuz it's that it's that up above those windows where you have the flat roof tiles. I don't I don't know how visible that's going to be. And there's just something about that that is just throwing me off as well.
>> Okay. I would I would agree that it's the shallow pitch on the north facade that's bothering me and have it either be more in keeping with the other facades or something wholly different like a flat roof. >> Flat roof. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah, it might I could see that. I understand. And I wanted to ask too, so the the bu the subdivision is that the existing congregation is keeping the the building just to the north and they're going to rehab that and use it as a as their
worship space. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Um I have a question about the roof on the um tower. You said uh looking at the postcard, it's very clear that it's distinctive. Um I was just wondering
what the uh what your rationale was for create um building one you know at that level very low. Um >> so there were several aspects of this that were taken into consideration.
Number one the tower without a spire >> has existed for at least maybe threequarters of a century. So that is become part of the fabric of that neighborhood that is a non-visible spire. Got it.
>> Also, I didn't think anything that we would introduce that has a higher pitch that is visible from the street created any appropriateness. It is no longer a church, no longer really needs a spire as a piece of typography or or any symbolism. So we wanted it to disappear
and that was the only choice. That was a choice that we made to make it disappear. It it was our choice. I don't know if that was the right choice or not, but we thought it was appropriate here. >> Thank you. So, are you you're just matching essentially you're just m as it
is now. Correct. Or is that are you changing? >> It's pretty much the same. >> And so, and the spire came down even earlier than when the fire happened. Correct. So, that you said 3/4 century. So, >> the spire came down in 1937. >> Okay. >> Along with the windows.
>> Almost a century. Are we ready to move on? >> Um, I I have another question. I'm sorry about the roof line. So, the roof line in that image and the roof line in your drawing on the south facade, you're saying they're the same
pitch? >> No. >> Okay. So, that was my original question. It was are is the are the roof lines the same and is the volume under roof the same? The so what we did is we matched
the the highest point of the of the roof line along jersey a we matched that line to fourth a right and then we took the same pitch of an angle on the cross gable and we maintained that.
So the cross cables do have the same pitch. And so this and let's see if we it could maybe from the rendering this uh this angle
>> and this angle match. Okay. If I may, I did bring my protractor in last week and uh I did check the the gables are the same. However, the gable
on the south side is off of the tower by several feet. If you look at the circa 1905 1910 postcard, you can see that the
gable dies directly into >> the tower >> the tower, >> right? >> And that's not what's happening here. We're actually filling up some of that volume >> much much higher. That's Yeah. >> But the the angle the pitch of the actual gable is the same. It does not
terminate at the same place though. So we took the the rough height of the adjacent uh town homes and brought that across as the volume of the building and then the intersection of the gable across here
and and just so that I don't want to mislead anyone the historic height this point was in the original building probably a couple of feet lower than what we have what we did today is we matched the same gable height of the
gable on fourth street. So that is the same height of what was present on Fourth Street, not ne what was present on Jersey A, not necessarily Fourth. >> Right. So So again, if you dup duplicated the roof line as it is in the
image, you would lose you would lose volume inside. Again, it's bedrooms or size of units. >> We would lose significant we would lose practically an entire floor of apartments, >> right? And the my fellow commissioner mentioned
the uh the the tower the spire. Um not too long ago. I guess it was 2015. Um the centenery church on Pavonia Avenue replaced its spires, four of them uh on that church. I don't know if that
was by choice or by requirement of the commission, but it's a it's a case where something significant was replaced. I'm not sure I'm suggesting that here, but I just for the record. >> And I think if this was a church, I would agree with that. >> Oh, no. This is nine. This is nine
condos now, you know, in the >> I I understand. I know. I'm familiar with that project, and I think it's appropriate when it is a church, but it's no longer Centenery. >> I'm having a problem with that. >> Excuse me. Um, centenery had the
smaller towers uh reproduced in fiberglass >> uh mainly as uh a decorative element. They are much smaller than what is here for sure >> what would what would have been here and also to shed water off the building. It
was a design choice by the by the developer at the time. Um, so I think that centenery is a slightly different
uh we're talking a whole different set of engineering. >> And why did this spire come down? Was that mentioned? Why why >> the spire? It appears that the parish had fallen on hard times. Um it never
had a lot of money. Um they seem to have uh stopped. They they built the church and didn't completely finish it. Um the windows that I have seen
uh did not look uh well constructed. Uh they weren't quite uh beefy enough. They were a combination of a wood frame at the great west window and the south
window were a wood frame with iron uh frames within them with leaded glass puttied in. The weight must have been tremendous over that incredible expanse.
Um the tower also started to pitch and to lean. There was bad maintenance. Um even looking at the inside of the church today or a few years ago, you could see where shortcuts
were taken and decoration. I just don't think that they my personal opinion is they just wanted to get the church open. It was built very quickly and uh
probably not engineered correctly. So by 1937 you're talking that's 50 years later. Uh the windows gave way, the steeple had given way. And there is
uh a story slash legend that the steeple andor windows had been destabilized by black tom, the black tom explosion. Um which is probably more rumor than truth uh because it seems to have happened to
every church. But um there are a lot of possibilities for why it why it came down or why it why it had to come down. and the 19 the tax records actually show the scaffolding around the building
um with the church being >> it might be nice to have that included in the in this presentation set for next time. >> Yes, that was something that we came AC that I came across by accident. Um the
originals were wrong were filed under the wrong address. So we only came across those recently uh so that we were able to verify that yeah there was a problem 37 through 38 that
they had to rectify. >> Did I answer that question correctly? >> Yeah, I think so. >> Oh, okay. >> Can I ask a question about um lighting? >> Um I'm looking at the wall section in my set. It's on Z35.
Um, it looks like there's a a light fixture wall mounted that may they may that may trace the outline of the that C channel. Yeah. On the upper right, >> we're not we're not proposing any
lighting at this time. >> Okay. All right. >> Well, and I had the only thing I noticed in in one of the ren and there some of the renderings it looks like there's a bunch of uplighting, too. Right. >> We're not proposing any lighting at this
time. >> I mean, I think a really sensitive lighting package would be a wonderful thing to fold into this applications. >> Absolutely. >> I would love to um Anyway, okay. If if you say it's not part of the application, then
>> I was just going to say that um I wanted to remind the other commissioners that this is an adaptive reuse for me. um the the volume that the adapted the adaptive for use is is creating is so close to the original uh church that that's
probably one of the most important features of of the the design that's been proposed tonight. Um I think about um the other Baptist church we heard I believe it was this year um on Jersey Avenue as well.
>> Mhm. Um and there were large shed dormers that were visible from the public right ofway on both sides of the building. Um actually on the on the south side of the building there was a um a large um projection that was created for uh new residential units. Um
this this one I believe is much more sensitive to the building than the one that we approved um you know on uh on Jersey between um Bright and York. Um and then I also think of this particular
building more um more akin to almost a ruin like um St. John's. Um and when I think of St. John's adaptive reuse. I mean, if if we all think about it, um
any of us that were on that um it it had the facade, but then it had a large >> apartment building inside of it. Um so I I think this is a much more sensitive um
set of plans and I I for the most part like it. I I agree with um Commissioner Sakong about um some detailing that probably needs to be looked at a little more. Um I think there's better ways to probably achieve what the architect's
trying to achieve there in a modern way. Um but I don't think I don't think there's things here that are um insurmountable. Um, I think the client should be feel confident that this commission is going
to say we're pretty close. Any other questions? Staff comments now. >> Would you like to see if anybody from the public would like to speak? >> Right. There are any members of the public present who would like to provide a comment on the presentation this evening. Please approach the public
comment. Mike mic staff sees no members of the public present and recommends a motion to open and close public comment. >> Motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> I >> I was I'm just going to say before do we do we want to get into staff comments
tonight? I mean, personally, I think from what I've heard, I I think that I'm not ready to vote on this tonight and that they're well, well, I think that there is a path forward here. I think we definitely need to see some revisions and have them come back as soon as
they're able to to um to, you know, have an updated um renderings, updated um facade details and elevations before I'm I'm ready to vote on this personally. So
I don't know if any if anyone else agrees but maybe staff comment should then wait for the second or yeah the return based on any revisions they make. >> I agree with that and I also agree with commissioner Sanamp that that there seems to be very bright very viable path
forward that this is very close but that I do think that it will be greatly improved with um some minor revisions. Um, staff would like to make some very general comments. However, >> that would certainly be helpful to me to
hear some of staff comments. >> And I I think that it's important that we make sure that the applicant knows what they need to change going forward. >> Absolutely. >> Now, given that our attorney has said the applicant needs to know what they
need to change going forward, I'm going to kind of springboard off of that. I think that probably the greatest deficiency of this concept is that we don't have definitive details and that
makes it very hard for staff and for the commission to see how everything fits together. Uh the um that reveal that was brought up that separated the new from the old that
could work. I just don't know what it's going to be. Uh the I mean I know what it's intended to be, but I don't really know what it's going to be. uh the extruded windows. I don't
necessarily know, nor am I confident, that we're going to be able to copy the uh Norman Lancet window with the quattrophoil at top in the campanal in an extrusion.
I'd like to see that. There was a comment about a lighting package and that we are not proposing any lighting at this point. I think that lighting is rather important when you're having people living in a
building. Um the architect and I um and staff and uh the proposed developer uh we have been working on this.
I think that it is good that the architect was able to get some feedback from the commission. Uh I'm glad that we uh had the discussion about recreation as recreating the old
church as opposed to having modern infill. Um I think that the modern infill uh the modern construction is the way to go. Um the matching of the
new brick with the brick on the historic facades. Uh that is something that we had discussed. uh and uh I think that there is on one level there is some
refinement to be done. Okay. But at a deeper level uh we really do need to have more in the way of actual detail. Okay. having an application that does
not have window and door details or a lighting package. Um, we have decks that do not have railings. uh it's a dis it's a disadvantage to the commission but it's also a disadvantage
for the applicant because you really can't we can't really see what the vision is. Uh usually when an application comes to the commission we try to make sure that it is buildable
to the greatest extent that we can. Um and that requires a lot of detail. We we just don't have that level of detail. I would like to see that put together by the next meeting. >> Okay. Uh I think I was just going to
jump in and say like I was looking at this and I saw there's really no there's there's a building section but there's really no window or door sections kind of like like you mentioned. I think that's that's really important for us to see how that's all going to come together.
And on the south elevation, I think that uh aside from stylistic preference, I think that uh it will make more sense
once those details have been provided. Again, uh I think the commission knows that I'm not a big fan of renderings. Um, I think that they can often misrepresent
uh what's going to be built. I do try to look at the black and white line drawings um because again we don't have uh corruption from shadows and such. Um
I think looking at the line drawings it is that also helps to uh clarify the architect's intent. However, the line drawings themselves are not fully
developed as well. Okay. Uh the north facade gabled roof, the shallow gabled roof, I believe that is labeled uh the frontest piece of that is labeled
fascia. Again, I don't know the materials. I don't know the details. Um I'm assuming that the color will be Bahama Brown uh that we took off of the rest of the building. Um
once all of those details are stitched together, I think that this will uh co coales as a project that the commission can say yes this is
appropriate or yes this is appropriate however uh and then grant conditions. Um that having been said uh I did write a report. I think there are 21 conditions of approval that I
recommended. You know I am I am aware that the building is in terrible shape. I was surprised at the degradation >> that has taken place in the past
less than 18 months. I think if I'm correct on the inside I am a little bit fearful but and and of course I don't want perfect to be the enemy of the good
but but it does sound like the commission needs to have details to be able to actually vote clearly on a project. Um,
the commission is is much more used to seeing uh details worked out rather granular granularly on the front on on buildings.
>> Yeah. If if I may, Dan, u I I I would agree more detail is going to be very helpful uh throughout throughout the the project, but more detail on the south facade in its current form is not going
to help me. Um I think there are some changes in design that need to take place. And I'm not 100% against a modern interpretation. There are some very successful modern um uh as a counterpoint to
existing historic structure that is extremely successful. I just don't find the southern facade is doing that. I find that it's it's kind of rubbing against the the original in a way that is not doesn't feel correct to me.
>> I I think that's right. We need the detail, but we also need substantive corrections to the application. And I'm always sympathetic to applicants when we are in this situation who may walk away and not know exactly what the commission is seeking from them. And part of the problem stems from you have m multiple
commissioners and we may not all agree on everything, but um I think there have been a lot of comments from the commissioners. You can't please all the commissioners all the time. Um so for my part, I'll just provide my my um highlights. Uh, I think the most salient
points I heard were about um the fact that there are actually two primary facads on this building and um that we shouldn't neglect the importance of the south facing facade on Fourth Street and um you know there's already been plenty of discussion about um potential
solutions. Um but that definitely requires more attention. Um and I know that there was some talk about potentially having multiple um brick colors to delineate the old from new. Um, I know I think it was Commissioner Gunther who said that might not be appropriate. I tend to agree. I would
prefer a uniform brick uh type and color. Um, I think the approach of having a sort of a line delineating old from new is appropriate, although what that line material is and how it appears is I guess an open question. Um, but
with those those are the issues that I'm focused on. Um, I guess I would turn it over to the rest of the commission to give you further direction. >> If I could just uh end my comments with uh this. The commission is here to see if this is a is here to determine
whether or not this uh is an appropriate intervention, not to really get into the granular details of it. Um if the and the commission has been pretty receptive
to design professionals opinions as to why a certain intervention is appropriate. >> Okay. And uh
I can have a discussion with the architect as to using the standards for uh rehabilitation, the standards for new construction. I can have a conversation explaining why
or why not something may or may not work. Okay. But uh it will be up to the architect to make that design determination to say I think
this is appropriate because and if there was perhaps weakness in the uh the presentation tonight, it might have been that uh the details didn't clarify the
design and the design was not explained in accordance with the secretary's standards. >> That would be helpful to me to to understand what what uh what road we're traveling down. >> Yes. So
if I mean I guess the devil could quote scripture. Um I could defend this or you know uh not defend it. Um if but I don't have the details.
Um when I have the details, I'd feel much more comfortable making a uh a uh a set of comments describing why something is or may or may not be
appropriate. But I think at this point um uh yes, maybe it can be handled differently. I think on the north elevation especially um I my personal preference would be to see a
steeper slope, but uh maybe a flat roof might be the way to go. Um it is up to the design professional to be able to explain why this choice was done. um and using the standards
to uh justify those those design choices. >> I wanted to follow up on that. Um I think an example of that tonight of uh was the discussion about the spire brief though it may have been um at first it
was the rationale was just you know um it's not in alignment with the time um I asked for further clarification just as a point of order as well I'm completely
uh kosher I guess with the uh happy Hanukkah. >> Um I'm completely good with the level of this uh roof right now. Just want to make that clear. Um,
I would also say with the detail though, um, with such large windows on the south facade, it would be nice to see what's going to be view viewable through them because they're so, uh, large and can be seen through the sidewalk or by from the
sidewalk. Um, but, uh, I want to recognize the amount of work that went into this. this was clearly uh late laborious to do and I want to recognize that that we're almost there and we all
want to see something built here. So, um yeah. So, are there any other comments from any of the commissioners? Do you have any questions for me? Anybody? >> No, you have a question. Um, >> honey,
>> you've been very quiet this evening. I >> I would just want to give the applicant an opportunity to ask questions of us if that would help clarify where this is going and what you might want to bring back to us. >> I feel that is a very good idea. um
especially since this building seems to be in a kind of danger of coming down. So, do we want to preserve this building or have it preserved or be another St. John's? Um this is what I fear to happen
if we don't give the applicant the opportunity to come back with something that they know they have a direction. Otherwise, they just going to be in the dark. So um if you would want to ask some questions
to get more clarification so that when you come back you know have a better chance that would be probably good. Um, we do have uh
from the audience uh the contract purchaser has been waving and making hand gestures at me which seem to be polite and happy. Uh so he might want to address the commission at some point. >> That be okay.
>> Of course. Um, but uh before you do that, I would prefer that we've we've had design discussions before with this commission
and they in my experience have um often led to more confusion than to any clarity. Unless there is a real consensus among the board that you
know don't do this or do that >> um I don't know how helpful >> that will be because already we've gotten conflicting I mean my notes here
it's you know good bad and maybe okay >> and always remember for the applicant team that you need five you only you need five of us and there's nine of us. So you you need five for for the vote. >> Well, this is you know why we have kind of informal straw polls and discussions up on the day discussing amongst
ourselves so can see if there's if it's not unanimous at least you may have a consensus. >> So um would you like to introduce your client? >> Yes, absolutely. This is Mr. Vincent Prio and he will be the developer and he
is the contract purchaser. Um, if I may add as well, you know, I know he'll probably touch on this. Um, in addition to the structural integrity of the building, too. You know, I know that the the seller is also very anxiously waiting for the sale. I don't mean to be dismissive of your comments in any way,
shape, or form. Um, but I do know that they have been waiting for quite some time to to see something move here as well. >> We have all been waiting for a very long time. >> I have been waiting since the first week I started the job.
>> Exactly. the week of July the 22nd, 23rd of 2002. >> This property is very um recognizable by the neighborhood. Everyone's aware of it. They're aware of its condition. They love the building. They're I'm sure
they're going to be happy that it's finally being taken care of. But now's not the time to rush through it after all these years of waiting. Yes, please raise your right hand. State your full name for me, please. >> I do. Vincent Prito P R I E T O.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity and first of all, you know, I appreciate all the comments. Very well thought out. Uh, I've sat on boards like this before, not historical, but uh, planning and zoning boards, and I take
pride in making sure that the people that sit on them do their due diligence. So, I really appreciate that. Want to give a special thanks actually to Dan because Dan actually has been uh, really instrumental in teaching me how we would
get here. And it's been uh, a long journey. This has been almost about two years since I started this since I saw the church. I got it kind of involved with it. And uh first uh thing that was told told to me, don't touch it with an 18 foot pole. >> And I did not scare away from it. So let
me give you a little background. I'm actually a construction official and that was my daytime job amongst other things that I did. But actually I'm a building inspector, plumbing, fire. So I actually have a lot of the disciplines and was construction official in some
major cities, city of Union City, uh um Squauus, Guttenberg. So I've actually done uh a lot of u uh construction uh man um inspections to make sure that they get built properly. The one thing
that I can tell you, uh Dan has sort of uh shown me what things we needed to be able to get here. I thought we were almost getting here because we need to get through the other phase so I can take control of the building. Right now I do not have control of the building even though that uh we've had pieces of
the roof blow off that we have taken. The roof gets more the building gets more water inside than it does outside when it rains. So I can tell you that and I would welcome for somebody to to even come look at it because as a code official I see it in a different way. So
Dan actually has uh been very gracious. We went out there, we we were there hours taking windows off. Uh spoke with him in the last week over an hour on the phone. Then uh Friday, I sat with him over two hours to, you know, trying to
get this to where it is because sort of the urgency as a former code official. I'm going to be totally honest with all of you. This to me is an imminent hazard because how it is. And if you go in it and see it, you'll see what I'm talking about. So there is a little bit of an urgency to it. and the church can't take
care of it. We had the uh the bridge that stands outside. A piece fell. Uh your mayor elect actually gave me a call. We actually fixed it and and uh cobbled it up because at the end, this was like in the summer. So, I've been
staying on top of it, but I don't own the building. I don't have control of the building. So I have to get permission when I'm going to go in and all that to get uh so saying all that I just want to explain that I want to make sure as heading forward I want to make sure I have a clear understanding
because I am uh was fine with all the uh stipulations that Dan put on this because we want to make this work and it actually has to make sense for us. We didn't try to create something grotesque. We try to do as much as we can so we can uh uh build a beautiful
building that is going to give back uh to the character that it had and the beauty of it. And as you see it it is a focal point. So I fell in love with it when I saw it. Uh my wife and I drove it by. She wasn't in the same thing. He goes, "Are you crazy?" But at the same
time, I see the potential with it and it's very important. So again, I just wanted to put that in more as a construction code official that I can tell you that's why I've been trying fighting to get this going as quickly as possible because until I get through this hurdle and then the next hurdle, I
I can't get, you know, and and stabilize it. And probably the one of the first things we're going to do is probably try and uh stabilize the building and take that bridge out because that bridge in itself is iffy in itself. Mhm. >> Uh so again, I wanted to make that and like I said, if anybody would want to see the building inside, I'll more than
happy to show them. But again, I'm just trying to to to get to the next phase and Dan again, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put on this. >> Thank you. I am going to strongly advise the commissioners not to uh visit the
site with uh with uh uh with Vinnie uh mainly because that would be an exparte communication. Yeah. >> Uh not a great idea. We everything should be on the record. Uh and staff does acknowledge that uh time is of the
essence. I've been in the building. Okay. It's doesn't look really great to me. Um but I think that instead of
the pressure being put on the commission to give approvals so that you can move to the next step. Um the uh pressure really lies with the design team
>> and and I and I'm fine. I just want to make sure that as long as you know where we have to go so that way I have a resource of you know to to get here before the next month because I I as said to you I am very flexible in what
we're doing. Obviously, it has to make sense also because we're trying to keep certain amount to be able to to uh have the units that we have and all that. So, I want to kind of explain that. That's why the uh the north side was done a little bit different because that way it
gives us a little room. We're trying to follow the contour with the cables on the uh south side to look at it giving that mixture of more modern look with and and preserving what was there. So you can see the difference again. But as
long as I know exactly where we are, I don't mind making changes and that. But I don't want to come back here and keep spinning our wheels. And the reason I came up was because there is times of the essence. And I just wanted to back up what Dan has said as from a uh uh
code professional of what I would do if I be the code here and and know and knowing what I know today. That's that's why I'm saying times of the essence. >> Yeah. Okay. The next Unfortunately, um you don't have control of the
building. You need to get approval from this commission and from the zoning board before you're able to close on the building. >> Okay. To be able to get that um those approvals, the drawings have to be
completed if not rethought in part. Okay. Details have to be provided. Okay, >> I'm okay with that. >> I think that that's very very clear. Um, certain treatments to the building
uh might want to be reconsidered. I think the commission's been kind of they they've given you ideas. Um, especially along the south facade, the north facade. I think those were the the two major
>> well so in in in that >> facad >> towards that interest maybe it now is the right time to um uh >> make a list. >> No um to have the uh the architect um have any you know pose any questions if
you have any. Um >> I just want to take this opportunity to thank you all. They were very insightful great comments. Uh there is nothing I disagree with. I understand and there's a level of detail that you need me to bring. I think that we're there pretty
much as far as concept envelope of the building except for the south facade how we're going to make that little change. Uh and I think the overall picture is there. I just am extremely worried about time because time is against us. Not
only there are contractual obligations, the church is very uh ready to pull a contract as well. And then there's also the reality that this building's ready to collapse. And
>> respectfully, I don't think that matters at this point. >> Understood. >> We we still, you know, like everyone said here, well, the majority of the commissioners here, they still have their concerns. I completely understand that time is of the essence for you guys
and I completely understand that you're in a bind. But as it stands here, Dan, who is one of our experts, says that your portfolio that what was submitted was not detailed enough for him to even
guide us in staff comments to say, "Hey, I think you guys should still go ahead with this, but here is, you know, my concerns and what should be addressed." Dan will put that and uh if Dan's not
comfortable at this time because of lack of information, that's just where we stand. >> I do just want to add, you know, we do have the memo, which I thought as I read it um did recommend approval. So, you know, again, I do not mean to be in any way dismissive of the comments, but if there are things that we can address by
conditions of approval, we would obviously I think we've shown that the design team and the owner are really open to to working with Dan and with everybody to bring any elements that you guys may need. In conclusion, I'd like to say that my memo was written,
the original memo said that you should not be granted a certificate of appropriateness for the work. Um, after a month, um, I rewrote the memo. Okay.
um still lacking some information but being as broad as I could in all of my conditions and as generous as I could in all of my conditions given the month that uh had transpired between the last
meeting and this meeting. Um the now I have uh testimony from the architect and questions from the commission. Okay. Which further
speak to um uh which which would further inform my comments. I still recommend re I still would recommend a certificate of appropriateness for the building, but as
the commission has pointed out and I do not disagree with them, this is not a complete application at this point. I think that's the clearest simplest way of putting it. The next meeting of the
commission is January the 12th. You can ask for a if you need to, you can ask for a special meeting of the commission, but I think that um and we have had this conversation and we can put it on the record that
um this is a very large project and a lot of resources need to be put into the presentation of this project. uh into uh finalizing the details of this project
before coming to the commission. This is a little bit different than going to a zoning board where it's a little bit more conceptual. I guess you know they might not ask you about the texture of the bricks.
They're going to do that here. Um, that being said, I think if you really concentrate on your details, you will be able to see where there are potential issues that the commission's
already brought up and may reiterate. Um, and then you can fix them. So, so this process, this dialogue between the applicant and the commission, this is an iterative process that sometimes, you know, sometimes an
applicant only comes once and sometimes we have to go back and forth, but we've you've made the, you know, you've made it abundantly clear that time is of the essence here. We need to move quickly. So, I think a few of us have now explicitly offered the opportunity to clarify and kind of focus test. If there
are any areas you want to clarify, I would say, you know, let's let's do this and move on. If you have any questions or >> I didn't mean to put pressure on the board. The pressure is on me. I there's a lot of details that I need to put together and just so that the board
understands and and partially I'm just thinking through this. If the commission is on January 12th, I need to submit by January 2nd. That's New Year's and we have Christmas. That means working through the holidays. I basically have less than 10 days to produce a whole lot
of details and lighting plans and everything else. And I know this it would be impossible to complete that. My team would be unable to do so to the level that I think would really satisfy everyone. However, I want to get to a
point where we are on a a place where you are comfortable to move forward. And I will promise you that I will do my best to get to that point. Even though we're talking 10 days, including Christmas and New Year's, I will do my best to get these
details, but it is it's be and the pressure is completely on me, but it is in a critical stage and we have a very difficult critical path that if we don't meet this deadline and it's if I don't meet this deadline, um we're in danger
of losing this church. And I thank you all and I think you couldn't have been more clear. There were there there is some ambiguity as far as design intents but I think those are design intentions not necessarily what the details if I have the details
that support my design intent. I'm I'm sure uh everyone would understand and I again I appreciate you all and I I appreciate Dan very much. He's been a tremendous help throughout this whole process. >> And you you have everything that you need from us, right? Like there's no Is
there anything else that anyone here could clarify for you? >> No, I think every comment was very eloquently made and I took notes, mental notes and a few when I got back to my seat and I I will do my best to comply.
>> And if you need more time, when is the next meeting after the January? >> The next one would be February 9th. >> We don't have much time. So, it's like do or die on the outside of the applicant. So, >> I'm going to I'm just going to throw
this out. Um, in the past, we've had uh applicants who have come to the commission and with incomplete projects
and they have come back with an incomplete project. um and they get told the same thing. I would prefer I I I think it would be preferable
um and commission can disagree uh given my experience. I think that it would be preferable to try and complete as much as you can. Okay. And ask for a special meeting. I'm sure that the commissioners would be more than happy
to sit for a special meeting once you've gotten your details together. >> I would also like to offer and anyone who disagrees please let me know >> that you know while a lighting package would be nice to have. >> I feel like as long as the building envelope and the massing were addressed
that that's the critical element. Those are the critical elements that if a lighting package needs to be handled separately in the in the entrance of of of advancing this and getting it to a place where the the building can be secured um that I would be comfortable
voting without dealing with lighting. >> Yeah, I appreciate that. >> Yeah. >> Anyone else? >> For me, it's all about this the south facade. I think you're making every effort and I trust staff to understand
what's appropriate replacement of, you know, you're concerned about extrusions, you're concerned about the brick. I know we have great staff. They'll address that. We've trusted them before. My concern is the south facade. Uh you may not need my vote to get this passed, but
if I can be helpful so that you don't have to come back again. The south facade is kind of in between. It's not it's not old and it's not new. And there's some forms there that are bothering me, particularly on the top where the glass fills uh the the the the
top of your building. Um it kind of feels like an arch, but it's not the same arch. So, I think it's competing with what's happening on the main facade. I wouldn't try to do any kind of arch there myself, but that's that's totally up to you. But I think it looks
like you wanted to do an arch and you couldn't is how it feels to me. And maybe the amount of glass to brick, maybe the proportions aren't right there. So I'm hoping when you revisit this, it I'm not, you know, I could probably move off needing it to be
recreated, but it's going to have to be something that feels right with the rest of the building. And that's where my main concerns are. >> I I concur um wholeheartedly with that. >> Yeah. I I also wanted to make clear um my concerns with the south facade. Um
personally, I think the roof to I guess divider windows um to put it simply, I don't like them. Um >> could you could you explain which
windows you're talking? I'm I'm a little lost. >> Yes. Sorry. on the south facade. The new windows proposed in the um >> in the triangle. >> In the triangle. Yeah. >> Okay. And the gable. >> And the gable. Uh down the triangle
down. Um I think um one, we need to see what's in going to be visible through the windows. Two, um maybe consider having them resized. I
don't want to personally uh make any changes that will impact the layout of the apartments themselves, but um this is clearly a primary facade as has been made clear.
Um, I also would say, um, if those windows are to be kept, um, as Dan was saying, a little more elaboration on the rationale uh, behind
the artistic choices behind those. I'm not I if that were to be made more clear at an at a later meeting um I would certainly be amendable to seeing your point of view. But as of now um I think
we're all in concurrence that we are making our reservations known for next time. Um just uh one quick thought uh the window treatments can be a very difficult um
issue to work with um because you have different owners and such. We usually don't get into window treatments, but sometimes with an expensive expansive glass like this. Um, we do recommend strongly
that the developer pick a type of a window treatment and use it throughout the building. Hint hint. um you know not that everybody has to have their blinds closed at the same time but just that there is some sort of you know general
uniformity. Um the larger question that I have other than curtains and shades is how you are going to treat the spandrels where the the floor assembly is where the ceilings are.
>> Right. And by the way, the notes on the wall section actually call for the vision lights to be stained and leaded. So I just like that's also another kind of there's I think just a lot of ambiguity
uh that needs clarification. >> Does that does that kind of >> sound like what you were trying to say or close to? Okay, >> we're all rooting for you. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Absolutely. >> Uh >> if that wraps up everybody's comments,
uh staff would recommend that, uh the commission make a motion to carry this application to the January 12th regular HBC meeting. >> I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> They got it. >> So, we have Tony and we have Stephen. Uh
all in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you all and thank you all for letting me try and make my case. Iris, would you like a break? Yes, >> we'll take a short break. Um,
>> maybe 10 minutes. We'll come back at >> 8:30. >> Yep. >> 5. Yeah, 8:30. >> 8:30. >> Thank you. >> You ready to roll, Iris? >> Yes. >> Okay. Are we all ready? >> Yep. call the meeting back to order. It
is 8:31 p.m. If you want to call the next case. >> Okay. And just to confirm, we are going is that >> 8B. >> Okay. So, we are going to do the demolition review 32 Sherman Place B25-10002
carried at the request of the applicant from the November 17th, 2025 regular HPC meeting. >> Good evening. Jennifer Bard of the firm Wells Jorski and Leeman on behalf of the applicant. Uh the applicant is the owner of property located at 32 Sherman Place
which is also known as block 3702 lot 44. In May of this past year, the applicant had submitted an application for demolition for the property. And thus, pursuant to chapter 105 and section 345-30 of the city's zoning ordinances, um
we're here today to confirm for the historic preservation commission that the subject property possesses no cultural, historic, or architectural significance which would prevent its demolition. Um to provide a brief background before our expert does, uh
this property is approximately 18 acres. It maintains a 2 and 1/2tory uh building which was constructed in the late 1890s. Um the property as you can see on the photograph on the screen is flanked by two 4 and a halfstory buildings um which
sort of dwarf the building and completely engulf it. What you're going to hear today from our expert Mr. Peter Primava is that over time and prior to the applicant taking ownership of the property, the property has the structure
has undergone extensive alterations um including among other things the fact of um the removal of the front porch, a replacement of the exterior cladding and facade, a replacement and relocation of the size and type of the windows, a
replacement and relocation of the door and size, a replacement of all the architectural al details um with the installation and introduction of modern materials and as a result of that the property and the building as it stands
today retains relatively none of the original characteristics that it once maintained. Further I just want to highlight for the board that this property is not designated as a local landmark. It is not located within a designated historic district and it is
not listed on either the state or national register. Um therefore this commission is charged with reviewing this application under section 345-30e1 um which provides a review of properties that have not been designated as
historic nor um as a landmark property. And um as the testimony is going to show show and as we're going to review the building's age, its historic architecture historical associations and most importantly it's retaining integrity. um it does not meet the
criteria that's set forth in that section and that's because nearly all of the architectural features have been removed and replaced. Um so based on the evidence that we're going to be providing you with this evening and consistent with the reports
that have been prepared by both Mr. Peter Primava as well as Mr. Robert Weise. Um, the building located at 32 Sherman Place fails to meet uh the historical significance threshold and approval of this demolition permit can be provided. It is appropriate and it is
consistent with the city's ordinances. So, unless the commission has any questions of me at this time, I'd like to call Mr. Peter Primava. Do you swear that the testimony will be the truth of that? >> I do. >> Please state the full name for me.
>> Peter Prima. P R I M A V E R A. >> Thank you. >> Staff notes that Mr. Primivera has previously testified in front of this board and is an expert in the field of historic preservation. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I know Mr. Prima has
been before this board on several occasions, but Peter, maybe you could just give us a little truncated um response of your background. >> Let me zoom in on Jersey City specific. >> Um I've been working in Jersey City since 1979
when the Army Corps of Engineers started the emergency drift removal projects on the Hudson. Uh we were on the team to evaluate the docks, the peers, the collapsed materials that were all along the waterfront on the New York side and the
Jersey City side. So I go back to when I was three years old. Well, no, I was actually 18. Um when when we did that worked on the reservoir project for the city civic engineer, worked on uh the Riverview project which is a park
project for the city architect. Worked on the embankment four different times. Once for the guy who owns it all this all this time, twice for other alternative uh uh uh developers who look to do something with it. And uh at one
point we even consulted with the mayor at the time long time ago, 22 years ago on options for the embankment. Uh that besides scores and scores of other historic preservation projects that some of you have seen me present and talk about. >> So in addition to your extensive
background in um architecture and historic preservation, you have a also a little bit of a focus focus and a uniqueness um with Jersey City. Is that correct? Jersey City and the entire Gold Coast. >> Okay. And you are familiar with the city's ordinances in particular also
chapter 105 and chapter 345? >> Yes. >> Okay. And um have you had an opportunity to visit the site? >> Yes. >> And have you had an opportunity to review and prepare a report for this board's consideration? >> Yes. >> Okay. And um have you also had an
opportunity to review the report that was prepared by Mr. Robert Weise in May of 2019? I did. I very carefully analyzed uh Robert's report and I actually used it as an appendix in my report if you seen the report. >> So would it be accurate to say that you
agree with the position of Mr. Ro Robert Weise with respect to the lack of historic significance for this property? >> 100%. He concluded in a very objective manner why he felt uh it didn't meet the did not meet the criteria under the
demolition ordinance and he was working on the previous version. um uh of why it's not historically significant. >> Not to interrupt, can you just clarify to the commission that that was presented to the zoning board, not to this board?
>> Correct. That was presented in response to um a determination of significance >> appeal. Yeah. >> Right. >> So, the board has a copy of Mr. Weise's report. However, that uh was presented to the zoning board, not to this board. Right. just to make sure we're all on
the same page in terms of familiarity as to that for report. >> That's why I included in mine so you had that. >> Um now if you can review for us um the findings from your report but generally would you find that this property
maintains sign historical significance? >> No. >> Okay. Now um I know you've prepared for us also a little um PowerPoint presentation. if you could review for us the PowerPoint, give us a little context of the setting um and advise as to the
details of your report. >> Sure. I'm going to try to run through this fairly quickly, which means that the court reporter will probably have to stop me because I speak fast. Please don't hesitate. Before I do, I would be remiss to not point out to this
commission and Commissioner Sukhang uh his Nightsbridge Armory project that is getting so much acclaim. uh if you haven't seen it or if you have the opportunity to present it to the board,
it is an extraordinary example of a very complicated project with many many thematic issues and an adaptive reuse that's getting a claim all over the greater New York area and even beyond.
and Austin was key to that design team uh on the uh Knightsbridge uh Armory in Bronx. Right. Not just sputtering you up. I just had to say, you know, I know it's a great project and I know you put
a lot into it and it's a great example. It's a great example to see how complex rehabilitation can be done properly. Um so let me then that's me. Here we are. Uh I'm going to some of these are self-explanatory so I'm not really going
to talk much about them. Primary facade uh with the two buildings on either side. Our building was built in about 1890s. Uh these two buildings on either side were built about almost 40 years later in uh 1929 period.
So they obviously were out of character with the domestic scale of the Sherman place. The rest of it is pretty much, you know, twotory, two and a half story, threetory buildings that are domest individual domestics. Uh, as Jennifer said, those are the historic districts
in town. We're not in one of those. Another rather dramatic uh view from um bird's eye of the setting and where our building sits in the setting.
I think it's very telling context and setting. Another one. Just go down to about 50 ft down the street and look back and you can see our building disappears pretty quickly behind a asphalt parking lot in the front yard.
And you're going to see the previous condition shortly. Back to our building. And I'm not going to go through the details right now. At the end I will summarize the changes you see here but I'm going to get to that through the historical documentation
that we have that was presented in the report and since so there's two primary historical documents that we're working from the 1935 tax map which uh you saw tax map tax card and photograph which
Maggie uh cited in her report uh and the Hunter Maggie report Uh, and uh, this is pretty poor quality, but there's some things we know right away, and I've listed them down the right side. Um, the
chimney has changed. That's the original chimney, it appears. Uh, the two next two arrows are two windows that no longer exist. Those are on where the primary facade turns the corner, so they would be
visible from the street. Those are behind stucco if they even exist at all. So those two windows don't exist at all. And then the other thing to speak to the setting and the overall architectural character of a Queen Anne period from the Cananan house from the Victorian period. You would expect a beautiful row
iron fence. You would expect a house that's over 40 years old to have mature plantings as it did at that point. And then uh hard to see other things. So, let's go to 1975 and we can detail the other 28 plus
changes that have happened to the primary facade. Here we go. Um, I'm not going to read all of them because I'm going to assume you had a chance to read my report. Uh, but as you can see, uh, I kind of like the 1968 Volkswagen Beetle, but I don't
think we can consider that as part of the historic character. But you see from the foreground the row iron fence that was there originally. You can see as we work left to right going from bottom left to up the side of the building we've got a bricked in
front porch which was not original. It doesn't show in the previous photograph. No bricked in front porch. Um the front porch has then been removed. Uh the window and the third arrow is a long tall window which would be
characteristic of Queen Anne houses. And I'm going to talk about what are the characteristics of Queen Anne houses. One of which is a building uh window is a window form which is generally a 2:1 ratio two times as high as it is wide.
Uh that wasn't a fixed ratio by every architect but that's characteristic. They wanted that verticality to be expressed in the Queenand period. Going up you can see uh that we've got siding that's changed. As we all know, clean buildings had very ornate types of
siding uh and tall windows. We have windows that seem to be somewhat in the location of the present windows. But as you can see next to the mo the modern comparison modern photograph, uh those
windows have changed in size, in shape and particularly the window to the right was a bay type window and that's no longer a bay type window. So, every window, including the two up in the gable ends, has been changed
uh in form and in materials. Uh going further up, chimneys changed. It's gotten shorter all of a sudden. And that's the 1975 documentation of what I think is the current condition right now. I think it's the wind the chimney
is pretty similar. I don't know. It's hard to see from that photograph. Again, up in the gable end of that bracket, the brackets are gone. Uh the window has been changed, the siding's been changed. We do have the tower shape, the two
gable end and then next to it the tower shape which I think the building has retained those two elements which I think in the city's report in uh the report that Robert uh Wise did and my
report we all agree those two elements are what has survived. And then going around a little farther. As we keep going, I point out the window uh that's changed in the tower. Below
the tower, you can see uh the double columns and the uh balcony that existed at one time and the window that was behind it, which is certainly not the window that's there now. Coming down a little further, uh you see again the
whole porch has been completely removed. Um the front door obviously completely removed with a modern door as you can see in the existing photograph. The front steps bales gone and back to the
row iron fence which is part of the setting. So that gives you a quick idea of I believe we generally lump that into about 28 changes to the primary facade of the building. Again,
uh going back and emphasizing what I just said, you can see the building's been completely stripped of all of those elements that I just delineated. Uh over 25, I think right now it's 28 vinyl windows, different window sizes from the
original, different window placements than the original. The roof on the tower and the roof above uh the main block of the building are asphalt shingled. That certainly wasn't the case originally. Uh inappropriate shingles were added at
some point. You don't put shingles on Queen Anne buildings. It's just not something you do. Uh and uh at some point somebody added Queen Anne shingles and uh the paved front floor. But I think the most
profound change and the change that has the most ominous uh outlook for the building is this building was stuckcoed before the current owner. All this work was done before the current owner took took took
ownership of the building. And as you all know as preservationists, when you stucco a clabbered building, a woodfinished building, what you're doing is sealing it. I hate to think what's behind that stucco right now. Uh to say
that the original walls are back there is a stretch. To say that they are in anything resembling uh original condition or in good condition is a stretch. We're probably looking at dry rot. We're probably looking at all the other conditions that we all know from
the technical breeze from the National Park Service and other studies. Uh means that the finishes on the building have been sealed behind a hermetically sealed stucco uh which allows no air to pass and therefore all sorts of bad things to
happen. Not only moisture but dry rot. Right across the street, pretty good example of a Queenhand Victorian with a lot of what it's got. The only thing that this one is notably not got, and I just do this for comparison, it's right across the street. You see a couple of
pretty good pretty good versions of of uh Victorian area buildings here. I would point out again the long tall windows, which are the two the 2:1 ratio. I would also point out on the gray building, uh the siding has been changed. You can see the siding has been
changed on that whole building, but they've managed to retain a lot of the character definfining elements that we just described have been stripped from 32 Sherman. Again, back to the uh ordinance.
And what we're doing is we're talking about uh and I don't I won't I won't bore you with this because I know you know it and you've seen it in the report. We're talking about the age. We're talking about the structure, identifying components and elements of the structure. Uh the building that's
associated with events that have made a significant history. Well, we can't say this is associated with a person, place, or event that's made significant contributions to the history, either local, state, or national. Uh the building structure was associated with the life of a person who was
significant. Well, that's not the case. uh whether the building structures embody distinctive characters of a style. I think I just listed over 28 on the primary facade alone that are gone. Uh and then down to six, whether the building survives has has yielded or may
be reasonably likely to yield information important to history or prehistory. um as a historic preservation expert uh just on this block alone uh there are many many better examples of uh Queen and
Victorian houses which are existing and in some cases actively being restored. So the ability of this building to provide any new information is virtually zilch. And like I said before talking about this the stucco on
the building, it's likely I don't know for a fact. I have not looked behind the stucco. But it's likely as we all know when you stucco a building of this age, what's behind it is not in good shape and not likely to tell us anything about
Victorian architecture, Victorian era architecture or Queen Anne architecture. Uh >> we could just hold for one second. Um and before we >> can you just make sure you talk and there's a mic there. You can turn it on. >> Just tap. >> Yeah, just tap. Yeah, perfect. There we go. >> Okay. Yeah.
>> Um if we could just go back to two slides prior. Um item one. So we are reviewing this in accordance with section E1 and the first provision uh refers to um a structure that has existed for 50 years or more. >> Yes,
>> we meet that. Would you say in your professional opinion however that we would meet any of the other for instance the architectural style or historical associations associated with the uh Victorian Queen Anne? >> No. >> Okay. Thank you. Um and now if you could
and and just to confirm um the building has not been designated as a landmark. >> No. >> Nor is it located within a historic district. >> That's correct. and it has not been associated to the best of your knowledge or the city's knowledge with any special event,
historical event, historic person. And as you also confirmed, it does not maintain any of the workmanship that would be characteristic of that time period either. >> Correct. >> Or any of those elements that actually exist.
>> Correct. And um so that's the first step of the review is whether or not we met all of those elements and then we review the integrity of the structure itself. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> If you could please review for us um the
criteria for the >> Okay. Here's the integrity criteria that's listed in the ordinance. And as you know, uh, as I've said to some of you before in the past, Dirty City has two different ways of evaluating whether something is historically significant. Under your landmark ordinance, which
actually creates this commission and creates the original landmarks ordinance, use the national register criteria, which involved the four criteria, person, place, expenses, ability to contribute information. Then there's also the seven components uh
that are considerations like grave sites can't be and other kinds of things can't be and then the seven integrity aspects considerations uh are different than the seven that you have in the demolition ordinance. So we've got two different ways in Jersey
City of measuring historical significant significance under the demolition ordinance. I'll be very frank and thanks for leading on this question. um is the threshold for determining what is historically significant and could be uh
or should be saved is lower than if we use the national register criteria. I won't waste your time on Oops. Oops. Oops. Oops. Oops. Oops. Oops. Went the wrong way. I won't waste your time on going through the National Register criteria, but what you see is a lot of
red nose and these are not opinions. These are facts. >> So even though we're not subject to those particular requirements, >> we're not subject to that. So we want to what we want to say is is is that we took that into consideration because
it's a very formal as you know process of evaluating significance. It's timeested since the National Historic Preservation Act was put into place in 1966 and it's been used for many many years how you develop develop an arguments for significance. So, I wanted
to make sure you knew that I'd done it both ways and arrive at the same conclusion, but this is not this National Register criteria is not part of the demolition ordinance. >> Um, I'd want to push back against that a
little bit. In 105-3, it does say applications for permits to demolish and hold or apart a building or structure to reconstruct the facade of any building or structure shall require the private approval of the zoning officer for compliance with the provisions of chapter 345 regarding historic preservation and other
applicable sections of 345 as well as the criteria for evaluation set forth in 36 CFR60-4. Isn't that >> those requirements? Those relate to properties that have already been designated as a landmark or are in historic districts which more I believe
it precisely mirrors section E2 of uh 345-30. And I so I think that's where the distinction is is that E1 is for properties that have not been designated nor are landmarks. E2 which mirrors that language that you just referenced is for
properties that have been. And I anticipated that question and that's why I included these these slides right here that if we did want to consider a more disciplined detailed 36 CFR 800 National Historic
Preservation Act criteria for evaluating significance. You have four criteria the ones you see on on the screen in front of you. We don't meet any of them. You have seven considerations. None of those apply to this building, of
course. And then you have seven aspects of integrity. And in the National Register, the way they use the aspects of integrity is it's not that you have any one of those. You've got to demonstrate that you have
them all or the most of them in order to maintain integrity. Again, I flipped to a slide you've seen from me before with the definition of the word integrity. Integrity is wholeness. It's a cohesiveness. It's a unity. It's not some things have integrity and
some things don't. If I may, again, back to where we were before, uh, the specific criteria in the demolition ordinance is what you've got in front of you. And, uh, you see red-nosed dicks to everyone except for
the first one. And I'd like to speak to the first one a little bit. Uh, location. The building is in the original location. No two ways about it. The question is in part the setting and also the
modification to the footprint of the building. The building is not the same footprint as you saw from the original slides showing the building from above and the porch is gone. So the footprint in part you could say
the location has been modified. It hasn't been moved. The main block has not been moved. I want to be very open and honest about that. tried to be open and honest about everything, but uh uh that that location is
a little compromised, but I put yes, it's still in the same location, just altered. conclusion real quickly. Um, according to the uh ordinance, we don't see that it meets any of the criteria either
under the National Register criteria or the criteria specifically cited only within the demolition ordinance for integrity doesn't meet the integrity test as we say in the preservation world. And so the appropriate treatment for the building would be that it be
demolished because it doesn't meet any of those criteria. If we could just sorry go back to the integrity. I know you you reviewed for us the location um and why yes the building is in its general um location but it has been altered over the year. If you could
review for us um the remaining >> provisions for let's go through let's go through the seven. And so location you just heard me talk about design. Well, when you're missing 28 of the of the uh primary character defining buil
features of a Victorian area building just on the facade alone, it's hard to say what you've got left is a uh a Queen and Victorian building. Uh and then the treatments that happened to it after that before our owner got it like the
stucco and the changes to the windows and the all replacement of the windows those all compromised the design of the building uh the setting well I think you know there's two period of significance and I I don't want to belabor this but I
think it's relevant you all understand the concept of the period of significance and I think the period of significance um is is certainly from the late 19th century well into the well into uh the mid 20th century. Uh the majority
of the buildings that we would consider historic or character defining to this Sherman Place area are buildings from the Victorian period. And so uh I think that when we talk to the setting, what we've got on either side of it though
are two buildings that fall outside of the Victorian period. two big apartment buildings from 1929 uh that are not in keeping with the style mass configuration and they're not set back like all the other residential
buildings on the block. Those two buildings are all the way up to the sidewalk. So they change the setting incredibly incredibly. Uh the materials I think I don't have to review that quick again for you. I talked about that
already. all the materials that have been stripped from the building. Uh, and frankly, I don't think there are any materials on the facade of the building that are from the period of significance. Nothing
left, including the roof and the tower which have asphalt roofs on, asphalt shingles on them. Uh, everything else has been replaced. Everything else. Um >> so even the roof which might maintain um
the shape that >> we think we think those two elements of the roof the tower and that gable end towerlike effect and then the chimney sticking up would be reminiscent and consistent with a queen building. But
all of the materials have been replaced. >> But all the materials on them were replaced and the chimneys been modified. And then all the trim and finishes have been changed on all of them. So uh next to the workmanship, well ship is gone. Simple as that. I don't know how to say
it. Any planer. Uh the workmanship has been uh has been taken over by the vinyl siding king and the stucco king as they came through Jersey City. Uh the feeling uh there is a very specific the the
ordinance doesn't define the word feeling and that's always a problem for me when I come to talk to you. Uh feeling is defined in the national register criteria and I have the definition if you'd like to see it but feeling is you know is does the property
express the time period? What is significant about it? You know, you could say this about if it was a Franklidd Wright building, does it still remember look like a Franklidd Wright building? If you could say this is a building that Washington slept in, does it still look
like the building Washington actually slept in? In this case, does it feel like a Victorian period building? I again back to over 28 changes and all the inappropriate modifications, the feeling is completely gone. Um so and
then the association as Jennifer just said we don't have it associated with uh other historic properties, events, persons, a historic district uh that's been designated. So uh that goes back to
the seven criteria for a point of clarification if it's appropriate. Um, in the way that you are arguing um about the setting, uh, is it your position that um that the
integrity of the setting is established only by the immediately adjacent buildings and not by >> buildings down the block? >> Definitely not. And and as I said, I I tried to be careful about that. um is the rest of the block, particularly that
block and almost all of that Sherman Place area that's been studied has domestic scale buildings. There's very few multi-story apartment buildings. So, uh I would not deny and I showed you a picture of a great Victorian house right across the street, Queen Anne Victorian,
right across the street, which I would consider a classic example of one. So, that's the setting literally across the street. I think all I'm trying to do is differentiate that this setting has been substantially compromised by the construction of those two buildings.
>> And I guess the question might that I would want to ask is if this building were to be replaced by let's say a six-story building, would you argue that the setting um of Sherman Place relative to those historic buildings, the Queen style buildings would be further
compromised? >> Could you repeat the question? If the if this building was building >> and if this building were demolished and replaced by a building very much like the buildings that you just said take
away from the quality of the setting. >> No, I don't think that's necessarily the case. No, I I don't think I don't think the buildings on either side set a precedent for what the setting should be. I think the two buildings on either side are anomalous to the district and
detract from the district. So what could go in between could be something this size. >> It could be something smaller. Uh but I think it would have to conform to your broader point >> the the the context of the Sherman Place
block. >> It would have to be something in keeping. It would have to be something even if it was a contemporary. >> I I just want to make the point that I understand that we're not reviewing an application for a new um design. I just wanted to clarify sort of um your
language around what detracts from the setting and um and and and that you agree that the setting is comprised by more than just those two immediately. >> Absolutely. And you're never going to see me come back and say that, you know, a building as large as those two are
necessarily appropriate to the setting because of the rest of the setting. And what's character defining about that potential district is the domestic scale. And that domestic scale like you show I showed you in the building right across the street is four stories. Most of it's
two two and a half. But those are generally the buildings that are in that with the exception of the two on either side of us. And I think the fact that on they're on either side of us is is is directly uh uh is is is a significant
consideration when we talk about setting. But there is a larger setting to not only Sherman Place but to Jersey City. There's a larger setting to uh Victorian architecture. There's a larger setting to Queen Anstyle architecture that exists above and beyond just Jersey
City. So you can establish context in a number of ways not only physically but temporarily. If we might want to go to the next slide. >> Uh well I was going to say if you could just reiterate for the board and provide
us with some examples of some characteristic features that you would see in a queen style um construction. >> Well let's look at one. There you go. Uh, that's a pretty, you know, I could
have chosen zillions of different uh, Queen Anne buildings. What I tried to do is choose one from the Northeast. Choose one that is similar scale and massing to ours, choose one that's an urban Victorian. obviously Victorians
uh and Queen Anne buildings when when it's at Llewellyn Park and it's you know uh Thomas Edison's out it's a sprawling massive thing that's eusive and uh is covered with with uh
various kinds of finishes and decorations and relief relief is a huge component to relief on the facade is a huge component component to every Queen Anne building. And so what I did is I chose this one. Yeah. I mean, I chose
this one because I was trying to be similar to what I think existed on this block and what I know exist exist partially exists still on this block. But that's a classic one. You know, that's as good as it gets, you know, and
you can see how enormously different in feel, massing, penetration, finishes, detailing in every aspect of the building uh that a classic uh Queen Anne
house, urban Queen Anne house would be from what we've got here. So, I did try to uh illustrate the difference right there with that one. I don't want to uh I think Jennifer said
accurately before and may want to say again. Uh we're aware of the Hunter study that was done and finished in 2025. Uh it's our understanding, is it correct that this commission has voted for or endorsed that study yet?
The commission wouldn't vote on a study like that, right? They the commission doesn't approve or they don't have their within their powers by the >> ML comment on >> it hasn't come to the commission for a vote yet. We're in the community outreach section of any >> so the community outreach none of that's
none of that process has started and then >> well no the community outreach has started. >> Okay. >> The it's okay >> in process but the >> but it's not designated yet. The comm the Sherman Place Residential Historic District has been identified as a
eligible historic district locally and on the state register. It has not been designated. >> It's not been identified on the state register. What it has on the state register is a shipo opinion of eligibility. >> Yes, it's been identified as eligible >> different than being determined eligible
to the state register. >> Sure. >> That's different from a determination of eligibility. That's the lowest level of determination that the shipo can make that they in a in a quick review think that you've got something that's uh eligible as a historic district. And I
concur. I concur that that with the ship opinion that I do think there's a potential historic district there, but it legally I'm sure Jennifer is going to stop me quick if I say anything more. Legally, it's not in a historic district
yet. And the study has been done. The little blue arrow is is our property. Uh and just to remind you of the Hunter study. It did several interesting things is uh uh one the yellow are the
non-contributing buildings. I looked at every single one of the non-contributing buildings and all of the non-contributing buildings are either new or empty lots. None of them are existing buildings that have been compromised. I can't see how
that could have been the case. It just doesn't seem possible that every building that exists is contributing. Uh and so I also would point out that in that study, as you know, in historic
districts, which you're so good at at uh stewarding here in Jersey City, a historic district generally has key contributing and non-contributing. There are no key buildings identified in the Hunter study in the historic
district. I think that says something about the district which I'll leave it to you to con conclude. Um here's a page from the Hunter study and this title on top exists in several different locations by several different
professionals. In the staff memo, uh the staff concludes that the building is historic or significant in form only and then talks about all of the loss of fabric.
Then Robert Weise went on to say it's old in form only in his report. You have that in the appendix to mine. Hunter came back in 2024 and that's the page copied and where you see my yellow arrow
you can see what they said it's old in form only and then they go on to describe everything that's missing I think what you have there is five or six historic preservation professionals who all come to the same conclusion about
this building >> just for the purpose of the record can Can you go back to that last slide and can you read the last sentence? The full sentence >> the bold sentence >> it is it is old in form only but retains if you want to finish that sentence
>> that Hunter wrote if you're opining on what >> No I I don't want to >> look I don't want to get into staff comments at this point but I do think it's worth the record that if you're going to testify on what someone else what someone else's opinion is you should read the full sentence. I
provided it in my report. I provided in the >> Okay, for the record and I will read it for you right now. >> Thank you. >> It is old in replacement. It is It is old new I got new glasses. >> Oh boy. >> It is old in form only but retains. >> Can you do it into the microphone for
the It doesn't pick up on the recording unless it's in the microphone. It is old in form only but retains sufficient scale and architectural character particularly at the roof line to be contributing. Pretty badly worded
sentence. Where is the architectural character that they're talking about? If it doesn't have anything but the form, they then make this complete nonsequittor where they say it has architectural character. What character?
They go on to say it's the roof line. >> Thanks for reading the whole sentence. >> So >> I would never do otherwise or try to mislead you with the facts. >> So in your professional opinion, your review and based on everything you've provided to this commission thus far,
the structure itself, sorry, can you go back one second so I can read? Um, when we talk about scale, we talked about the fact that the building was constructed generally in that position. Is that correct? >> Yes. And when we talk about the architectural character we've reviewed
for this commission, the fact that only the ones you've identified, 28 elements have been removed from the facade. >> Yes. And >> we we lump that into like all the cladding, but there's lots of different cladding that's been res. We just saw cladding as one of the 28.
>> And with respect to the architectural character that goes to whether or not we would meet and satisfy that of a queen and style, >> right? the character defining elements of Queen and architecture are gone. >> So it's your opinion that there are no
there to have um the architectural features of Queen and building are severely lacking from this existing property >> absent except for the roof line. >> Um and based on your professional analysis um 32 Sherman meets the
criteria and would be appropriate for demolition. >> Yes. and demolition for of this property would be consistent with the city's ordinance. >> Yes. And to the commissioner's comment, some point down the road if this building is replaced, a new building is
going to have to come to uh maybe once this is designated as a historic district, but even under if it's not, a new building would have to come before this board and meet the town's uh all the requirements for new construction.
And just like I heard you talking in the previous application, all the subtleties and the nuances of how new new construction can be done. So it's sympathetic and differential to the historic context. >> I do not
>> there's an opportunity my my my assertion was is that uh there's an opportunity to put a pretty nice building here. I do not think though that the commission should consider any future buildings in determining this
application tonight. >> Right. >> But I was asked about a future building before by one of the commissioners. >> You were and I didn't say anything the first time, but the second time I just want to clarify commissioners what you can consider in making your decision tonight. >> 100%. And and just to clarify the
statement as well, if this is not designated as a historic district, then the review of a future development at the site would not come before this bill board. >> That's right. >> Okay. Does that conclude your testimony at this time?
>> We would move into commissioner comments. You can always add to it. It doesn't stop you from adding to your testimony. >> All right. If there are any questions from any commissioners for Mr. Prima Vera. I >> I don't have any questions. I've just been reviewing it and reviewing his
report. Um and looking at the seven um aspects of integrity. Just my personal opinion and someone who does have a historic preservation degree and has been on this commission and works work for worked here, written these reports and works for New York City
Landmarks Commission. The in my opinion the building does have the aspect of location. The location hasn't changed. Okay. There has been uh perhaps been an addition on it that hasn't I don't think that should affect
it. I do think the building still has the uh design aspect and I think that's mainly as as was referenced in the Hunter report is due to the roof line. I don't think anyone's going to look at this building and confuse it with a building that was built um in after
World War II. Um though it has lost the materials and workmanship. Um I skipped over because I do think the setting is still there. I think that the adjacent buildings though they are uh I believe you said 1929 buildings. I think
that's typical in Jersey City to have apartment buildings encroaching on Victorian um residential districts. We see it in the West Bergen district. U there's a lot of those uh 1920s, 1930s apartment buildings. So that's a very normal
condition that we see happening in the inter war period between World War I and two. Um therefore there okay we have three I don't think we have materials and workmanship and I do think the feeling is certainly there and again that's largely because of the roof form
uh and obviously association it does not have as well. There's no important historic event or person. Um so I think that there's still four of the seven uh aspects of integrity that that I feel it still maintains. I think people can can
look at it make their own decisions. Obviously Mr. Prima Vera thinks this partially meets one. Um I'm not sure what the staff report said if it were three or four. Um but generally I I do think that there are four aspects of integrity that that this building
maintains. >> If I might I just slipped up a slide with anticipating Brian's Commissioner Brian's uh comment on feeling. And feeling is something that's very specifically define defined in uh uh
bulan 15 of the na uh by the national park service in how you evaluate historic significance when I talked about the seven aspects of integrity in the national register and the state register they unlike this ordinance they actually define the word feeling and
that's it if it helps inform your comment I'm not necessarily trying to change it I just want to make sure you see a formal definition of feeling and when I read that I don't get feeling out of this building. >> Do you have an opinion on how many of
the seven should be met um in order to qualify um in order to um uh not meet the threshold for demolition? >> Commissioner, legally what the seven says is after each and let's go back
>> says and or right >> and or >> right >> so your point is well taken. And I anticipated that also. Um, as you can see there, it says and or. So, is it the position? It's the position of
the text in the ordinance that it only has to meet one of those. >> Do you believe that? >> Is that is that is is anybody serious about that? That a building that simply maintains location is significant?
I'm just asking for your I'm just asking >> I just I just don't I just I just you know under any preservation standard I've never seen that before >> personally. I think it should be what the ordinance says. It's what the ordinance says and I'm not
doubting it and I anticipated uh Austin's Austin's comment what it says. It says and or so I think that means it could be any one of them. I'm not trying to um this is not a gotcha. This is not a obviously right. I I'm I'm I actually
really appreciate the thorowness and the kind of point forpoint um addressing of each item of the ordinance. In fact, I wish more um of our applications had this kind of thoroughess. I'm just asking for your um the applicant's position on whether or not one meeting
one out of the seven suffices and if not then how many. So I >> Exactly. and and it doesn't say the ordinance doesn't say how many. >> What's your opinion? >> What what is my opinion? My opinion is the national register criteria requires you to meet all seven. And that is
referred to as we heard before in the ordinance. Now, this ordinance, as you've heard me say before, and I'm very frank about it, I think it's got holes in it. I think it's got things that are >> respectfully this application is not about whether or not you agree with the ordinance or not. It's presenting your
case. That's fine. I'm just I want the commission to know the opinion is not of whether or not you like the ordinance or think that it has holes in it or not. We are discussing the historic integrity of the application in front of us. >> Understand? And as I've said before and
you've heard me say before on other applications like when we did 440 Parkway, that industrial building that was the pump house and things like that that there are things that are self-contradictory in the ordinance. The ordinance needs work. I've never seen an
ordin a demolition ordinance that has this andor in it. >> So when you reviewed this ordinance and this particular property, >> but it is yours. >> You reviewed each of these uh seven criteria for integrity as a whole also.
>> Yes. >> And in doing so, you were able to analyze whether or not as a whole it met the location design um material setting. >> We did it both ways. We did it according to the way the National Register does it and then we did it according to the way
the ordinance does as is what's on the screen right now. And as uh Mr. Blazak and I have a disagreement >> and personally as a preservationist I think that four out of seven but depending on what they are I think but I
think you there should at least be a majority of these met um for there to be integrity. Um, obviously number seven is rare because there aren't a lot of properties that have had an important event or person
associated with it. So that's kind of, you know, we don't have maybe in Jersey City be Mayor Heg or some other, you know, >> and I can if you'd like I I'll I'll go down a list as long as my arm of buildings that exist in Jersey City that have a person, place, or event associated with them that makes them
significant. Primarily one is the Beacon, the former Jersey City Medical Center, which not only has architective significance, but has a period of significance associated with major events in the construction in that period of time and Major Heg and all the issues related to Major Heg. I mean,
Mayor Heg Major that was maybe that was Freud in um Mayor Heg uh and his control of how things got built. uh all the way to things like the Apple Tree House all the way things like there there are plenty of buildings in town that actually do have person events not the
majority certainly not the majority I don't I don't think that but there are plenty of buildings in this town that have a person place or event associated with it >> just in the interest of kind of getting comments on the record I also don't have any further questions I'll just note for the record that um I agree with Commissioner Blazak about the location
well I agree with both the applicant and Commissioner Blazak about um about whether or not the structure maintains the integrity of location. I think it does. Um I also think it maintains the integrity of setting um because when I look uh down the street and I see the
other structures beyond the immediately adjacent structures and I see the the roof line and I imagine what it would be like to remove um 32 Sherman from that streetscape. um I think that would actually um compromise uh the integrity
of of of the of the setting. Um and so in in my mind that seems to me at least um again just for me uh an indication that that this small structure as woefully compromised as it has been
which I agree with you it it really has suffered a lot um removing that small piece of the roof line um if if if that compromises the setting that means it's contributing to it currently. So, I I I do think it um I do think it contributes
to the setting of of of the of the street. Um and I will say I'm I'm less convinced about design and feeling, but at least at least in location and setting for me it seems quite clear that that it's contributing.
Commissioner, if I may uh speak to that, I think we're largely in agreement on the points you just made. Uh except the setting issue. I have a feeling if I owned a house on this block in Sherman
Place in 1928 and somebody said they were going to build those two buildings, I would have had a conipion >> because they were so out of character and so intrusive. And I think to call them the report act the most recent report actually calls them contributing.
>> They they they are not in any way what you just described. >> Excuse me. Could I ask that the commissioners be given a chance if they have comments to make their comments and >> and maybe you could hold your rebuttal to the end so that we could at least
hear from all the commissioners. I think >> I think that would be wise considering we have a strict deadline, a curfew of 10 p.m. >> Yeah, >> I think we keep butdding our heads up against the the somewhat ambiguous language of the demolition ordinance unfortunately, which is not clear about
how these I mean we have these different factors for considering historical integrity, but how those factors are weighed and what the what the tipping point is is very unclear. Um, but we do have factors to work with. Um and just
one observation based on the memo we have in this in this application that I found um contradictory. It it refers to um presently the building lacks integrity of materials and workmanship
but retains sufficient scale and architectural character particularly at the roof line to possess integrity of design feeling and association as a late 19th century dwelling with Queen Anne style influences. And then it goes on to say there's no significant historical associations. is looking at
the ordinance association specifically refers to as we discussed uh a link with a historic event or person which I think there's no dispute there that does not apply here so clearly there's no association although the memo refers to it in a more colloquial sense in that
sentence um I think the one where we there's no dispute is a location the building is where it is but I you know to me um there are some remaining characteristics where you know you can tell that there once was something there
but very little remains at this point. So um you know personally I'm not seeing I'm not getting any kind of a feeling. You know maybe there's a sense that there was something there but I wouldn't be able to tell what it was. Uh the setting has as the applicant noted
changed significantly and and there's a loss of significant material and workmanship. So, I personally I don't feel like this building would be losing this building would uh be much of a loss to the city. Um
that's my feeling at this time. I'd also like to add that while we may disagree uh on whether this factor of integrity is satisfied, this is also a seven factor test of a seven factor test of
which I have not seen any disagreement about the other six factors which all except one I think uh go towards uh demolition. So, I'm a guy that's um got a house that's a Victorian that was covered with
stucco before the 1937 photograph had stucco on it for 90 years. I started taking the stucco off and of course every ounce of the historic fabric was under it. And the only place where there was damage was wherever the stuckle had
cracked and had not been repaired. The good thing about this particular building, I can see, is that the stock was pretty solid. Looks like it's well well sealed up. So, it's probably preserved. Now, I can't tell, but I wouldn't be willing to vote to demolish
this building unless you did a little bit more extensive research into what's underneath that Stuckco. I'm going to I'm willing to almost guarantee that all the historic fabric's under there. And I'm willing to bet, Mr. Supreme ver that you would agree with that now. You can't
guarantee it unless you dig under there. But I'm >> Can I answer your question? >> You can, but let me finish what I'm saying. Um, and the reason I say that is because um, that's what happened with my building and every inch of it was like
that. And there were very few people that would strip a building of all its historic fabric and then cover it with Stuckco. They were just doing the simplest thing, which was covering it with Stuckco. They found cheap windows and they filled they infilled around the
the existing window frames. My original window frames, the original exact size of those frames was still there. All of it, every inch, and it's taken me many years to fix it >> and I'm and I'm almost done with it. But
um so I I don't see it as missing. Um it's um it's a a that that aspect. It's um workmanship. I see it like um if I covered your head with a bag, you would still be Mr.
Prima. You wouldn't suddenly be >> You don't know that. Do you know what a cat is? If you know physics and shiners cat, you would not know whether I'm alive or dead under that fact. >> Yeah. >> But I appreciate the sentiment that I still would be. But you I I think you
would be even if it was, you know, a picture that was taken 10 years ago and then I saw the same bag on your head 10 years later. >> I got you. >> Okay. So that's the way I feel about it. And um uh you know what I look at I look at that and I look at it and I think of
my house because I think um the roof forms are there and they were there on my house. Um the chimney is this the original chimney but the cap is missing. It's it was probably terracotta the original portion. Um you know there's parts that are missing. Um somebody took
the took the um the uh you know the the porch off and and somebody spent a lot of money to pave over the garden. Um and those are all something that an owner that I don't know how long this owner has had this building. You said he's a
new owner but um from my records he's he's had it since 1987. >> Yeah. So, I mean, he's had it almost 40 years. Um, so he had ample opportunity to do good things to this building. Um, I'm going to say he's probably the guy that
put those um shutters on that you uh seem to call um >> shingles. >> Shingles. Those shutters. >> Did I call them shingles? >> Yeah. >> Sorry. Shutters. >> But the shutters were probably put on by somebody since 1987. Um those those
vinyl windows were also done by somebody since 1987. So, I'm going to say um a lot of the things were probably done by him. I now I'm not it doesn't make any difference to me who did it, but I'm going to tell you that you would you would agree if you were working on the
other side of this for someone who is trying to restore a building as opposed to trying to get someone who's someone who's paying you to to designate it as something that should be demoed. You would say that there's a lot of historic fabric underneath that stuckle. >> Can I answer your question? >> Yes, you go ahead. With all due respect
and uh with all deference to your experience in the city and with your house, I would say exactly the opposite from what you just said. I would say this house has 28 missing character definfining elements on that picture you
see in front of you right now. Those aren't under the stuckco stucco. The windows that were long and tall are not under the stucco. In fact, in the city's memo, it says the window pattern still exists. It doesn't. I just showed
you two built two photographs right there where there's two windows that don't even exist anymore that are under the stuckco. Now, even talking about the primary facade that's parallel to the street, >> right? >> They're referring to the locations of those windows. That pattern is still in existence that three three windows over
two in the door. I mean, if you disagree with that, I'm going to say I'm going to say we have different eyesight, >> but I'm I will say also I I would say >> I will I will bet you >> I'm saying do you see a B guys don't talk over each other, please? >> I haven't I haven't finished, >> Mr. Pa. If you want to make a bet right
now, I'm willing to bet if we walked over there right now and I I took a hammer and hammered out some of that stucco. I'm going to guarantee that that frame of those windows, the original tall frame is still behind there. >> I don't bet. I deal in historical facts. >> Okay. Well, that's why I'm not saying
it's there. I'm just betting. I'm I'm saying to you that and I also do I also do custom woodwork. And so many many many buildings that I've worked on in Jersey City have the same condition if they've been stuck. If they were a wooden building and they've been stucked.
>> I don't have that information. I can't respond to that. >> Okay. Then you don't work with wood buildings then. I work with work buildings for 45 years. >> Guys, I I in the interest of time, >> I think we should keep the comments directed to this building.
>> Well, and this is pro maybe a question for staff or for council, but I mean, in this case, the the memo we have actually conceded that the building lacks integrity of materials and workmanship. And I assume that's because we're basing our review on what we can actually see.
the applicant has not taken itself upon themselves to do any kind of exploratory demolition or peak under the hood. So, how far can we speculate about what's go like can we base our assumptions on what we've seen in similar properties,
professional experience, or do we really just have to work with what we see on the screen? >> Staff doesn't like the memo says, we are in we agree with the applicant that the integrity of materiality and workmanship has been compromised. I don't necessarily know how much we have to speculate further on that. We're all in
agreement. >> So then if I want to demo my building, all I need to do is stuckco it and say there's no historic integrity under it. >> As we are not talking about hypotheticals, we're talking about the application in front of us. I >> I'm not looking to rush anyone through this, but we have
>> Can I ask a question? >> 22 minutes before we get kicked out of the building and we still have items that we have to do. >> If there can I ask a question? If I might really quickly just to finish that and not to make it any further debate. >> Nobody stuck over the front porch.
Nobody stucked over the long windows. Nobody stucked over other architectural features like the row iron fence. Nobody stucked over the original ballastrait on the front porch. Nobody stucked over the front door.
>> That's my point. >> Okay. So um porches, gardens etc. can be put back. So um but my question is about um your point that the um historic preservation district is not yet formed
but it is mentioned and the report is mentioned in the historic preservation master plan. Am I correct about that? >> Yes. And that should be sufficient for um the ordinance when it's mentioned I assume right that's what we have talked
about before >> it's different it's different to be mentioned in the historic element of the master plan and be designated by the council or the governing body. So that's where we're at right now is the district is not designated by the governing body
but it is listed in the historic element of the master plan. And I I will say being mentioned in the master plan is one of the elements that is looked for. It's in it's one of the criteria under the uh demolition ordinance. Um so as
far as that goes, it does satisfy that criteria. It just is not locally designated. Um but it is mentioned in both the historic preservation master plan and the land use element of the master plan. The Sherman Place historic district is mentioned both. I can add to
that as Maggie said before there is a shipo opinion of eligibility which we we want to take into account everybody who's looked into the district good or bad. >> I understand but um I want to go back to that we have looked at other demolition um demolitions before and we have
actually considered them because they were mentioned in the historic preservation master plan uh even if they weren't part of an historic preservation district. So I just want to point that out. I think that is very important as
well as another criteria. >> I would just like to go on the record agreeing with everybody including the applicant that there is integrity of location for this building. Agree with previous comments about integrity of setting. I do agree there's integrity of
design um for the roof roof line and also the roof volumes. I think if we can go to a photo of the current condition. >> Sure. >> Um, you know, as we always see in Jersey City, often see, you know, there's this
curiosity under the, I guess, eve of, you know, the gable and the tower that was stuckcoed over and boxed out. There's likely brackets beneath there. Um, we have the projecting volume of the tower form so we can see where the porch
would go back if if you know an owner so chose. Um, I do see the fenestration pattern on the uh the pair of windows at the parlor floor even though they've been shortened and the two windows above obviously the third window on the second
floor has been modified down to a stock size. And the same with the Palladian window. You can kind of tell by comparing this photo to the tax card photo that the left jam and head of those windows is very similar to the Palladian window assembly. They've just
smooshed two windows that were stock sized together and didn't, you know, care about the centering. So, and you know, and the chimney like everyone's like that has been mentioned before, the chimney is still there. Although it's been modified that can be built back. Um, you know, just because the garden
has been torn out and paved over doesn't mean it can't go back. Iron work often goes missing, it can go back. We even have photographic evidence for what it looked like. Um, and same with the porch. So, you know, while things have been altered and there are unsympathetic, you know, renovations
over time, like I think integrity of design is still there. And we're talking three of seven, you know, factors and the seventh is the rarity. So maybe we're really more often than not only looking for of the six factors and I
don't think I can support voting recommen recommending to demolish this building. >> Any further comments from any commissioner questions? Anything? >> I would only have one other whenever you're ready.
>> Yeah, feel free. There's nothing in the ordinance about restoraability. >> Okay. All right. Um >> if that concludes your testimony, we can move on to public comment and then we can get into staff comments. Um >> the public all went home.
>> Yes. Um so staff recommends a motion to open and close public comment. >> Motion to open and close public comment. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. Thank you. So, moving into staff comments. Um, I
think we've talked a lot tonight about uh kind of where the commission lies. Um, you know, the report that uh staff prepared um was mentioned a few times. Uh, as we stated, this is mentioned as a particular subject. So, it is actually in the inventory at the
bottom. it's listed um as well as it's located in the eligible Sherman Place residential historic district which is discussed both in the historic preservation element of the master plan as well as in the land use element of the master plan. Um so some significance it was built in 1890. Um I do want to
touch on something that actually Commissioner Kay brought up. Um so we've talked a lot about the integrity of this building. Um and all of those factors, the seven factors are kind of in the ordinance subsumed under the seventh factor. Um so there are six other things
that are within the ordinance. We talked a little bit about the age. Um we talked about it being listed in the master plan. Um and then we have based off of the national register criteria, right? We have the four items. Architectural significance, association with a person,
association with an event, and then archaeological data. Um, generally professionally you do not see a building that maintains all four of those or matches all four of those. Uh, generally you're looking for one or two out of
that. Um, so speaking to the integrity of the building, right? We are looking at the architectural integrity. So it matches that criteria C for the uh national register um in ours. idea that uh it embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a type period and method of construction most especially if none or very few buildings or structures with the similar association has survived. Um that is what we are looking at uh in staff's opinion it does meet that and the reason that it meets that is because of the factors of its
integrity that it matches. Um so you have the integrity of for from staff's perspective location design setting and feeling. Um so staff feels that it matches four. Um as was discussed uh the materials and the
workmanship have both been altered. Um it does it has diminished those uh those both but the location is intact. Um the design as a queen an style. Um albeit a vernacular queen an style. Um not quite
as ornate as the one on the left. Um it does meet that design. Um, I think if you showed that to somebody, they would recognize it as a Queen Anne. It has the asymmetrical facade. It has like a dominant front gable. It has the square
like turret or tower. Um, and then you have the setting. Um, as Mr. Prima noted, uh, both of the buildings on either side are both contributing to the national reg uh, the eligible district. Um, that is in the works. Um, those are
both contributing buildings. Uh, one's collegiate Gothic. I think the other one's like tutor revival. Um, uh, they were built in 1929, so the later end of the district, but they they do contribute to the setting of the particularly the block. Um, and then the
feeling again as that Queen Anne style building. Um, so from staff's perspective, staff would recommend a motion to prepare a resolution recommending denial of the demolition application to the zoning officer. I don't know if Maggie has anything other to add.
>> I think you covered most of it. >> I will make that motion. >> May I second? >> So, may I provide a summation? >> Do we want I would recommend we let the council speak in response. >> Of course. >> Thank you, commissioners, for your time this evening. And I know that the hour
is late and I certainly appreciate everything that you guys do on a monthly basis to ensure that preservation is done properly within the city. The reason why we have these ordinances in place, why the municipal land use law provides for these types of ordinances is to ensure that there is appropriate
preservation where appropriate. In this particular instance, we have seen that preservation of this building which completely lacks its original composition is not appropriate. um for preservation. In fact, it's the opposite. It is appropriate and
consistent to dem demolish this property. As Mr. Primava had uh noted to some of the comments, there is no requirement within the ordinance that requires an applicant of a property that has been there for 50 years to go and
rip up, you know, whatever has been existing and to peak behind the walls and to see what's there and to further to restore it to what existed in 1897. that is completely inappropriate. It is contrary to the ordinance. It's contrary to the municipal land use law.
We've gone through the various criteria that are referenced here and I appreciate that staff has noted that it has been referenced as an eligible item um within the Hunter research. It has been identified along with maybe 2,000
properties as those which may be contributing to the overall feeling. Um, I would like to highlight that the it is only the Sherman Place is only listed within the master plan in a map. Um, there is actually no other reference to
it. I I don't believe within the master plan. >> I will correct you on that. It is actually in the written portion. There's a whole section on eligible historic districts and there is that and it's listed as a recommendation that the city completes uh designation of it. >> Correct. I'm sorry. The particular property I apologize. And then in the
historic plan element that was referenced um it references the survey that was conducted the for phase one uh for hunter research which identifies uh the various properties like I mentioned I think there were over 1,600
something properties that were identified and specifically a Sherman property did not have an asterk next to it. It did not have two asterisks next to it and that's because this particular property has not been identified as a landmark property. It has not been designated in a historic district.
Mr. Prima Vera went through he gave you a summation of his report his very lengthy report um which also summarized the findings of Mr. Robert Weise. They went through these seven criteria here and not only do we not meet them with
respect to section E1 which is the ordinance that is applicable to the applicant at this time but he also referenced based on the national register criteria or the state criteria. This similarly would not meet the criteria. It is not eligible would not
be eligible. And that's because location yes we can look at any property that was constructed in 1975. Is that property historic? No. Why? We have to look at all of the other surrounding evidence that we have for the particular property. In this one, we've seen the
design. It's not there. The setting, I understand, you know, the feeling it's a smaller size home in scale next to these two massive structures, but that doesn't make it fall within the setting of the remaining portion of the property, which
must be uh majority of the Queen Anne style, Victorian style. Um staff I believe agrees with us that there are no materials here that are um remaining. The workmanship is similarly not there. The feeling you have the roof line which
has existed but the roof line has also been replaced. With respect to integrity um as we've seen here it's not necessarily a sliding scale. Either the building maintains its integrity or it does not. In this particular instance,
the building fails to maintain its integrity, and that's because of all of the modifications that we've heard to date. Um, when you look at this particular property, which to be quite frank is really an eyesore, it's not contributing to the beautiful setting of
Sherman Place at all. The front porch has been eliminated, the second roof, the beautiful windows, and I not that it is relevant or important, but I would like to note for this commission that the property was purchased in this particular instance in
1987. This is what it looked like. The modifications have not been made to establish the stock or whatnot. that happened sometime between as we've seen 1974 and when the property was purchased in 1987. So as we've mentioned the integrity is
not a sliding scale here and we do not we cannot establish or qualify um under that provision. Um, I just would like to urge for this board that
demolition is completely appropriate in this instance and in fact it provides an opportunity to bring a property more in line with the character of the neighborhood. Um whereas today it's offering nothing. It's not not
contributing um to the environment. It has existed. it's in a state of disrepair and it can um we have opportunity to put something that the city would be proud of in this particular location. So with that, I
would respectfully request a favorable vote and I would urge the board to specifically reference the ordinance provision section 345-30e1, which is what this board has to review in order to determine whether or not
demol demolition would be appropriate in this instance. And based on the evidence that we have presented this evening, the reports which have been submitted, and the testimony that has been provided, I would offer that it certainly does.
Thank you for your time. >> So, we had a motion on the floor. I believe >> I would reiterate her request for you to set your specific reasons for making your decision based on the extensive testimony and evidence. >> Okay. Well, I did not find the testimony compelling and I think the building has
integrity as of >> can we Okay. I was about to say I we had a motion. I don't know if there was a second if it was recorded. >> I seconded it. >> All right. So, if we have a motion on the floor to prepare a resolution to recommend denial of the demolition
permit and we have a second, I will do a roll call vote. Um and we can begin with Commissioner Blazak. >> All right. And uh again I vote I and again I find that the building does have integrity and I did not find the uh
testimony compelling enough that it does not have integrity. >> Thank you. >> And also that it is on um as Commissioner Colbach said has been identified as a contributing building in a potential historic district. >> And what what elements of integrity are
you citing? Uh I mentioned it earlier but again I think it has integrity of location design setting and feeling. >> Okay. Commissioner Gutarda. >> Yes. I vote I to deny as well. Um I
would agree. Um that has the integrity of setting and location uh feeling and um I I just uh the the form of the building is there. I can identify it immediately as a Victorian structure. Um, and for
those reasons, I don't believe it should be demolished. >> Okay. Um, sorry, going in order here. Commissioner Sankamp, >> I also vote I to the motion to deny um based on uh the feeling of integrity
that I believe it has um its location, design, setting and um also that it's listed as a contributing structure. Um and I believe by the next within the next 12 months, this will be a historic district and
this will be um a contributing structure in that new district. Okay, Commissioner Gordon, >> I'm going to vote nay. And um I'll I'll mention that I noted with some concern that some commissioners had spoken about
the um availability of restoring the build the building to its grandeur during the period of significance. And I would say that um you know, if you throw enough money at these projects um and you have a photo of the building, you can restore it to to some degree or
another. I think that our what we're charged with under the demolition ordinance is to consider how much there is of the remaining of the original integrity, how far we would have to go to restore it to its original grandeur during the period of significance. And
in my mind, um there's not enough of the original um building's integrity left uh that it warrants preservation. So that's the rationale. >> Thank you, Commissioner Gunther. I also vote I.
I als I'm going to vote I. Um I believe the building has integrity of location, setting, and design. Um and noting that also it is part of the master plan element and is a cont has been identified as a contributing building in in an
identified um eligible historic district or district eligible to be designated as a historic district. Thank you, Commissioner Callback. >> I vote I. Um the building for me has integrity because of um its setting and
location as well as the feeling and design. Someone from um that time period put back into that location would um do recognize this building as a building from the 1890s. uh just about the shape
and roof line and it also uh is mentioned in the historic preservation um master plan. That's the name of it. Commissioner Sukong, >> I think this um
I think this property retains the integrity of its location and setting. And I was preparing to vote nay because I was debating with myself if that was
sufficient, if that met enough of the criteria. I will I have to note though, it was the applicant's concluding comments that convinced me to vote I because of your insistence on the binary. It either has
integrity or does not. And according to your metrics then I have to vote I because I think it has some um and I I leave it to the clarification of the ordinance to to say you know uh
what's the what the thresholds we should be debating but at least in the context of this conversation I I was looking for some acknowledgement of the nuances and of the complexity um and and the acknowledgement of of
um what we were trying to protect. And in the absence of that acknowledgement and in the context of the need for that black and white, I I vote I. >> Thank you, Commissioner Kay.
>> Uh I'll vote nay. Um I think that the while it's true the form of the structure maintains its queen an influences with the roof line uh it's being completely engulfed um I don't
think even if we were to deny demolition which it seems that we have um it would be restored Um, and
especially with it becoming a his an historic district soon, um, we would probably have, not that we're considering other structures in its place, but um, I don't think that would have been a concern of mine. So,
>> okay. Thank you. and acting chair Gera. Um, I'm going to vote I um against the the demolition uh based on the integrity of location setting and
and feeling um you know and in terms of um consistency. We voted on not demolit uh demolishing a building that was just four walls, right? and and
I was someone who was going to vote um for the demolition of that property, right? And then it was it was this commission here that brought up the integrity of the location and the setting and keeping with that consistency, I'm I'm
voting affirmative to not demolish in in this matter. >> Thank you. Okay, there are 1 2 3 4 five six seven votes in favor of deny of preparing a resolution to deny the demolition permit and two against and
there are no abstensions. The motion carries. >> Thank you very much. Have a good evening. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for the great debate too. >> Thanks. >> Not too many historic preservation commissions we can have this high level discussion. >> Thank you. in uh New Jersey and I
prepare I've been in front of all of them besides New York, Philadelphia, Washington, but in New Jersey, >> this is an extraordinary example of not only do you have terrific professional staff, but you have a lot of commissioners who uh put a lot of fine
tooth combs to these considerations and uh I disagree. >> Thank you. >> I but I respect I respect how you came to your conclusion. Thank you. >> Thank you. We do have a few items that we have to finish up tonight. So, if I could just ask everybody's patience for just a few minutes longer. Thank you.
>> Okay. To close out old business, case 8A 300 Central A B-25-0166 will be carried to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the HPC. Specific date to be voted on in just a moment. Um, I'm going to skip over new business
for now just to address the table cases so we can get out of here when we're done. There is no update to H-24-0316. There is no update to H-24-0012. There is no update to H-24-0251. However, they should be coming to the
January 2026 meeting. And we um H-25-01477 Grand Street. They are also anticipated to come to the January HPC meeting as well. So hopefully we will be seeing those two back for demolition review. All cases um not pre with the exception of 20 Sherman Place which has been
carried to March of 2026 252 Central Lab 507 summit will be carried to the January HPC meeting. The table we there is no update on any of the table demolition review cases. Okay, going back to new business. We have the 2026 calendar. Does anyone have any
questions? Does anyone want to make a motion to approve? Motion to adopt the 2026 calendar as laid forth by staff. >> I'm second. >> Okay. >> Still. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I >> I >> Okay. And then we have the um
stenographic services agreement. So, this is Bridget's contract. Anyone have any questions? >> No. >> Anyone want to make a motion to approve? >> Motion to approve Bridget's contract. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Going back to the back side of the agenda, we have no resolutions to
introduce or discuss. No resolutions to memorialize. We do not need an executive session. And that just leaves us with adjournment. >> Make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Okay. It is 10:04 p.m. All in favor? I >> I >> I. Thanks, Iris.