commission on November 17th. The time is 6:33. >> 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 sent to the Bergen
Record and Ellis Baselito on Thursday, November 13th, 2025. The same notice has been sent to the city clerk for posting on the bulletin board outside the city clerk's office in city hall and on the Jersey City website. I have proof of this evidence of this notice here in
evidence. Uh if we can mark this as B1. >> Thank you. And we will move on to a roll call attendance. Commissioner Gucciardo. >> Commissioner Samp here. >> Commissioner Gunther >> here.
Uh, Commissioner Blazak >> here. >> Commissioner Gordon >> present. >> Commissioner Edgecomb >> here. >> Commissioner Kay >> here. >> Commissioner Kbach >> here. >> Uh, Vice Chair Griga is absent and
Commissioner Sukong is absent. And then Chair Cronin >> here. >> Okay. We have eight or sorry, nine uh commissioners in attendance. Um, five commissioners are needed. Uh, five affirmative votes are required for a
certificate of appropriateness tonight. Uh, next up on the agenda is the approval of minutes from the October 20th, 2025 regular HPC meeting. Are there any questions or corrections to these minutes? Okay. Staff uh sees no corrections or
changes. Staff recommends uh making a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. >> Motion. Second. Uh, Commissioner Gutiardo >> staying. I believe I was absent from that meeting. >> Commissioner Sankamp, >> I. >> Commissioner Gunther,
>> I. >> Uh, Commissioner Blazak, >> abstain. >> Commissioner Gordon, >> I. >> Commissioner Edgecom, >> I. >> Commissioner K, >> I. >> Commissioner Kbach, >> I. >> And Chair Cerman,
>> abstain. So, we have six in favor, no against, three abstensions. Um, the motion to pass the minutes from October 20th, 2025 are approved. Uh, for correspondence, all copies of
correspondence and all application materials are linked on the agenda uh through their application numbers. And then, uh, for announcements, we have a few of them, so I'm just going to go through them real quickly. Item 8 A uh B-25-0166
300 Central A. Uh item 8 C B-25-10002 32 Sherman Place. Item 8 D H-24-000012. Uh that's 285 Grove Street. And item 8 F H-24-251 uh 515 Jersey Avenue Sweet 1. Those are
all under old business have all carried at the request of the applicant uh to the December 15th regular HPC meeting. And then lastly, item 8B B-25-1109149 Monttoello uh carried to a date unspecified.
And then uh Dan's if you would like to move into the uh next case. Oh, we have to do open public. >> Oh, sorry. Oh, yeah. Sorry, I forgot to update this. Um, thank you. Um, yes,
open public comment. Um, >> if there are any members of the public present who would like to speak regarding matters of historic preservation that are not on tonight's agenda, you can approach the, um, public comment mic. >> So, uh, just so we are for public
comment. Um, Chris, you have five minutes. Um, and uh just Iris has this where you >> welcome you begin. If we could have a motion to open public comment. >> I'll make a motion to open public comment. >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you. >> Commissioners here to share with you. >> I'm sorry to interrupt you again, Chris. Can you tap that microphone on? It's there's a button that says push. You tap it. Is a green light on? >> Okay. I got my certificate in tech now.
>> And I pro I promise that your time did not start yet, but it does right now. >> Awesome. >> Um, so good evening everyone. I'm here to share with you as president of the Jersey City Landmarks Conservancy some updates about the Powerhouse. Um, as you may know, the Powerhouse is the founding
effort that led to the formation of the JCLC. At our annual preservation awards uh this past September, we announced that we are advancing our efforts to save the powerhouse. It's a long time coming. As we approach what we hope to be the final year that the Port
Authority occupies this historic site as PATH infrastructure is transitioned across the street, it is time for us to galvanize around the preservation and future of the powerhouse. We welcome members of the public who want to be actively involved to go to the jclandmarks.org org website and visit
our powerhouse page where you can submit your contact information and also put a little bit of a note if you're interested in joining our Save the Powerhouse committee and any resources that you'd like to offer to help with this effort. Our Save the Powerhouse committee will be meeting with the JC to
get a comprehensive download on next steps with the project. Uh we will also be meeting uh with some team members responsible for preserving and adaptively reusing a similar site at the Guanas in Brooklyn. We're looking forward to that meeting um hoping to build our understanding of the journey
that we will embark on with the powerhouse here. Um and also build some confidence on the future of this project. Um it is very important for everyone to come together around this. This will be uh I think a monumental and model project that Jersey City embarks
on. um and a bit of a scary one at that. Um and this effort has been going on for about half of my lifetime, which is kind of crazy. So, just like the project with the Lowe's, we look forward to this coming to fruition. We would love your support in any way possible. We've put
together some Save the Powerhouse merch to also raise money for our efforts. And we are kicking off this Saturday um at 12:00 p.m. our first Save the Powerhouse tour, which will be touring the historic Powerhouse Arts District. We'll be doing these tours um every two weeks or so.
The aim here is to enrich the community about the history of the powerhouse and the neighborhood and also get people on board with the project. Check out our website uh to participate in one of those tours. Thank you so much. Hope to see you soon. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
Any other members of the public here to speak during open public comment? Staff sees no additional members of the public present and recommends a motion to close public comment. Motion >> second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you. Okay. And uh now we will move
into cases. >> One sec. >> It's it's been brought to my attention that one of the officers has a something you'd like to bring up. >> Yes. Uh Mr. Chairman, um Mr. Mr. Chairman, we've had a request uh
if we could move new business H2509 598 Jersey Avenue to the head of the agenda to accommodate an attorney request for continuance to complete detail and material submissions for the December 15th meeting.
>> Okay. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Veronica, attorney for the applicant um from the law firm Connell Foley. As Mr. Reeden just indicated, uh we are here to request a continuance. Um we're in receipt of his memo, and we just have a few more open items that we need to
address before we're deemed complete. Um so for that, we would like to request a continuence to the December 15th meeting. >> Continuence granted. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. I think we should take a vote on probably a good idea
>> just just to be safe. Um so if we could have a motion to carry H-25-00009 to the December 15th, 2025 regular HBC meeting. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. >> You're welcome. >> Sorry, who seconded that? >> Okay, thank you. >> Have a good night, folks. You too. >> Okay. And now we can move back into old business. Um, and the first case, Dan,
if you would like to call it, is uh item 8E H-25-0147. >> Okay, we're bring calling that to order. Uh, the applicant is Stephen Joseph Esquire, applicant on behalf of 82 Sussex LLC, uh, owner. Uh this the
address is 77 Grand Street aka 82 Sussex. Uh it's in the Paulook Historic District. They are going for a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed construction of a new fourstory 2unit residential building and associated site work in the Paulus Hook Historic District. This is carried from
the October 20th, 2025 regular HPC meeting. >> Good evening everyone. Michael Higgins of Castano Quigley Tramy filling in for Steven this evening. Um so this is a continuation hearing. I won't rehash um the introduction that he made at the
last one. Um it's 82 Sussex. It's new construction on a vacant lot. Uh there were some uh questions from the board at the last meeting regarding sight lines and visibility of the rear of the building from the park located to the rear. Uh we went in, took some pictures,
submitted that exhibit to the board. Um, we looked for an angle where it would be visible and we found that there is some visibility from from certain angles from the park. Um, and our architect will uh be able to testify to that if if u we can have him sworn in and if we can get
the uh the tech in order. >> Just before we do that, uh we have a few commissioners that were not present for uh the October meeting. Um I sent them the uh transcript as well as the video. If you can just confirm on the record uh that you received those and reviewed
them. Uh Commissioner Cronin, >> I did. >> Uh Commissioner Blazak. >> Yes, I uh read the transcript. >> And Commissioner Gucciardo. >> Awesome. Thank you. Uh are you comfortable with them voting on this issue tonight? >> Yes, we're comfortable proceeding. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Sure. >> Sure. the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do state your full name for >> Joseph Steven >> with a p slla
t a r e l l a >> and staff notes that Mr. Terrella uh provided his qualifications last time uh and is recognized as an expert in the field of architecture. >> Okay.
Um, how we doing? >> It's plugged in, but after anyone >> Yeah, it's not showing up as a >> Okay, so um we can start by talking a little bit about it. So, um, Commissioner Gunther, I believe last time asked us
to, um, do a little bit more work on, uh, determining whether you could see the back of the building from anywhere in the rear or the park area. And uh she was correct that you can um we did we we
took uh we went we took photos we've created some drawings um and we've we've done it sort of with and without trees um so that you can see but here we go. So, um,
so the park and in the area on is the area on the left and the red the red uh something or other represents the site that we have. Yeah. And oh, I can you can and um so
this this view on the upper left and then the lower left are the views from the park looking towards the back of the the the buildings uh over here and
the building the white building on the end is the building on the end and then we're beyond that. And um so we took we took the the trees out and we put the trees in. Um and you know mostly you see
trees but if there were no trees as we were instructed that trees are not counted as permanent obstacles. Um you do see a bit of the back of our building. We have another slide from there. Okay. And so we've we've uh photoshopped
it into the to this photo. And if there were no trees, you would see this amount of the back of the building as well as the backs of some of the other buildings. And um it's the back of the building that we presented previously, which is a more
modern view of the uh having to do with the renovation or the the creation of the new building. Um, but basically that's what you would see. >> Joe, that concludes your testimony. >> I'm happy to talk about it, but I think
that that that's at least what we have to present. >> There's any questions for sure. We're happy to answer it at this point. >> Um Um, hi. Since I wasn't here the last time um and but I did watch the video of
um the um hearing, I had a question about the front of the building. Um, and given that it's an infill, um, what are the distinguishing features on the front of the building that let
you know that this is not a historic structure, but it is indeed a modern infill. Good. So, it is a new building, but we went to pretty great lengths to try and uh uh recognize the block that it was on.
>> And we took um strong lines of the window lines, the stoop, the surround of the door, um the cornice, the overall height, and um number of windows, etc. The type of
brick we chose. Um, and yet it it will be recognizable as not as being not old, but at the same time, we think it fits very well with the with the streetscape. And uh it is an infill building. So, we're not trying to stand out or or be
the end the book end of something or anything else. And um we think it it provides a nice nice piece that's missing from the this block that has, you know, a tooth out. So, >> right. So, what what distinguishes it as modern?
>> Um, I think the the style of the pieces themselves, it's a little bit um different than a a like the cornice is a little bit different than a classic cornice, even though we've taken elements from similar types of cornises.
Uh the the window heads are a little bit cleaner um type thing. the same with the head of the, you know, the door surround is not quite as elaborate as as 100 year something that's 100 years old. Um, the
fencing and everything is more straightforward. Um, everything is in the same places that it would be in a historic building, but it's not um it's not trying to pretend it's Williamsburg or something. >> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it.
And could you show the rear facade um just so we can Yeah. Again, >> sure. Yeah. The building on the left is the house next door >> that's also being renovated now. >> And this and this facade is all in one
plane. There's no there's no uh setback or anything. It's >> all on one plane. Okay. >> It's three floors in a basement. >> And how does the top floor compare to like I know the building on the left I think that might be an addition. So the
top floor is not doesn't protrude as far as the the bottom floors. How does how does the top floor compare to the rest of the row or the rest of the block? Well, there top floor sets back some. Um
like that. So that's a side view. Um and uh you know the the heights of the buildings are the same. The the floor levels from all we can tell the buildings was slightly different on
either side. But we think we struck a reasonable compromise between but It's relative. It's relatively at the same level heightwise. Any further questions for the applicant? Any comments? Anything?
Can and can you go to the block plan maybe? I just I'll just I know I wasn't here last time so I I did. This used to be a a lot that went through to Grand Street and was subdivided. So it it it did a sort of
thing like that. The only thing I would say and is that I I do think it protrudes the full floor or three stories and basement is a little bit more than what you else you see immediately adjacent to it. Um, I
don't know if the buildings to the east, lots 10 through five are also full height. Um, but this is a little bit disconnected from that as well. So, I do have a little concern with the the height and the depth and the the lack of
a step down uh towards the rear. Um, I don't know if anyone else I I know I reviewed the transcript, but know if there was any concern with that last time. I don't recall at the top of my head if that came up. >> Perhaps um I should have mentioned to in
the introduction um and it's it's certainly a valid concern that we're we're considering, but it's also um it is it there's no uh variance for the rear yard. It does appear to protrude on the site plan because of the setting of
the adjacent buildings, but it is a fully compliant project, just to note. Um, >> and so I'm guessing that there's definitely the 30 foot rear yard, but this is set back a little bit from the front um lot line. >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> Same as all other >> the same as everything else. Okay. >> It's also a tough site. It's a little It's narrow and um both both of our neighbors have things that protrude into our property on uh chimneys and other
things. So, um you know, getting getting a a workable floor plan inside is a little has been a little bit tough. So, we're using what we can. >> I mean, I I am going to echo Commissioner Blazak that I appreciate
this doesn't require any variances and that it's as of right. However, I don't know that that necessarily makes it appropriate just because it conforms with zoning um especially at the upper floor. Um especially since it's visible and it's very visible. And I also have
concerns about the design of the rear facade now, especially seeing it's much more visible than even I was expecting that the solid to void ratio is there's almost no solid, right? It's almost completely void, which is very atypical for row houses. And it doesn't mean it
can't be modern. It just means that there's not enough solidity, especially like the peers on the side of the building and the spandrels are very thin. >> Understood. Um, Joe, are you able to speak to where the picture was taken from? I don't know if
that would help alleviate the concern or not, but it might help clarify. >> Uh, I think I think they're they're spotted the ABC D. Um, >> so is this one? >> So that would be off of the path in the
park and onto I guess that grass area or >> Yes. >> Is that correct? >> Yes. So this is taken right here. >> Sorry. >> Oh. Oh, sorry. >> No, I I guess I get you. So yes, it's off the path and and from the grassy area in the park.
>> Yeah. So I >> it's it's a fairly narrow cone of view that those those four shots are pretty much the same angle >> just further away and closer up. >> A question for staff on a new infill.
Are there any different uh guidelines for what can be seen from the rear versus um restoration or an addition on a existing structure? The only guidelines we have for visibility for
rear yard um additions or new construction or anything um simply state that it shouldn't detract from any uh character defining architectural features that are on the rear of the facade. Um it's new construction so the building
itself obviously doesn't have any um so it would just be if it detracts from the adjacent uh architecture defining architectural features Should we move into staff comments or >> if the commission has no further questions or >> doesn't appear we do.
>> Yeah. Yeah. We can move into public comment and then go back to staff comments. >> Okay. Uh does that conclude your testimony? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Okay. We'll move into public comment if there are any members of the public present uh wishing to speak regarding this application. Please
approach the public comment mic. Staff sees no members of the public present um and recommends a motion to open and close public. >> Motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> I >> thank you. Uh as far as staff comments
goes, um I think I had kind of touched on them in the last meeting, but I can kind of just go back into it. Um I do, you know, I think that this is a very unique case in the sense that we don't often see as of right projects that
don't even meet uh minimum uh minor site plan threshold. Uh so this is right, it will not go to planning board or zoning board. this is just an HPC decision and then they will go to the division of zoning afterwards. I think that's a fairly unique case for new construction anywhere within Jersey City, but
especially in the historic districts. Um, which is refreshing to see. And, uh, from staff's perspective, uh, I think they did a really nice job on the front facade incorporating it into it. Uh, they're using a fiberglass cornice. I think like that as well as the
simplified steps um and railings really kind of distinguish it along with the more modern mortar color uh and bricks uh really distinguishes it from the historic properties uh adjacent to it. Um as far as the rear facade goes uh my
professional opinion um I think that this is you know keeping in line with what we see uh typical for new construction within the historic district. It's not as common that we see uh something visible. Um I was walking around the neighborhood yesterday trying
to get a feel for everything and and really feeling it. I think some similar uh situations are 203 Warren Street that was approved recently. Um that's now almost complete construction. Uh their side facade facade has a very large void
uh where it's all windows. Um you can also very visibly see their rear facade. Um, and they have quite a bit of glazing on the rear facade as well. Um, so I don't think that this is uh necessarily uncommon, particularly
speaking that it's visible from within the park, not necessarily from uh the street. Um, but I also understand the commission's concern. Um, and I think that uh, you know, the the comments made are also very valid. Um staff's
recommendation uh is to approve uh the certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. Um and they are mostly our standard conditions except for the first one uh which is our franchise ordinance. Uh the front area way extends a little bit into the public
right of way. Uh so that condition just says the applicant shall seek approval of a franchise ordinance for the construction of the front yard railing and areaway as it extends beyond the property line. If any component of that um approval alters this proposal, the applicant shall submit a deviation
request in writing to the HPC staff and provide plans for review showing the existing approved and revised conditions. If necessary, the applicant will reappear in front of the HPC to seek approval of changes. And then the remaining of them are just our standard conditions. Uh if the commission has any
further questions for staff, I'd be happy to answer. So, I I think I had said the last time that we were here that I didn't have a problem with the modern appearance and the glazing on the rear of the building. So, my position on that hasn't moved.
Um, and I just wanted to um state that I I am looking at the historic design standards and I think Commissioner Gunther is is completely right that just because something doesn't require variance doesn't mean that, you know, we we are in any way
mandated to issue a certificate of appropriateness. Just looking at the historic design standards, we're supposed to consider compatibility between the old and the new, which requires that we consider height, width, mass, and proportion.
Um the relationship of vacant land to buildings and structures. Um as well as the scale of the buildings. Um the scale of the buildings and structures should be in scale with the buildings and structures of historic
significance. So the fact that it protrudes quite far into the donut at least as far as I mean it seems just about as far as any of its the neighboring properties and it is full height. I I I'm not going to take a position on it but I think it's fair game for uh our consideration and you
know maybe stepping back the top floor is a potential resolution. >> As I always tell applicants uh yeah the bulk standards are maximums. Uh so yes I I completely agree. Um if the commission
feels that uh it protrudes too far then I I think that that is yeah >> Stephen your mic. >> Is there any way that the the applicant can accommodate some of the concerns that commissioners have raised? Yeah.
Um, my client's present in the back of the room. If I may confer with him very briefly. >> Sure. Does anyone call the new design construction? >> The new construction
>> is it 34578? >> I'm not sure. the bulk standards. >> I was just asking where the design standards are again under the >> It is 34571. It is 34571.
>> And just to read the new construction design standard uh states that should be guided by new construction need not replicate historic older buildings or structures but may reflect contemporary design standards so long as the design and
construction is compatible with surrounding historic structures. Building height, width, mass, and proportion affect the degree of compatibility between the old and the new. request. Okay. >> Okay. I think um we might just take a quick recess.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. May maybe a just a quick fivem minute recess while unless they are conferred. >> Oh, here we go. >> I'll take that all back. >> We're we're we're all set. Um I I've conferred with my client and we're
willing to revisit this um look at the the fourth floor. Uh I and you know, we've heard the concerns of the of the commission this evening. So, we'll take another look at it and hopefully come back at um what would the next uh meeting date be? >> December 15th. December 15th.
>> Okay. >> So, the word of the day is tabled. >> Um before could we just be on a record for what we're looking for so that they don't come back again and we they still haven't hit the mark, you know? >> Sure. >> Um it sounds like the issue one of the
issues is the fourth the the top floor which is unusual for it to be extended that far. I think the other issue that was raised is how far the building comes out. It protrudes beyond the other structures, right? Were those the two main issues? >> Yes. I I would also say um it's hard to
tell on the the block plan, but I think there's a case where maybe the buildings towards the eastern end of the block may all be full height and full full story. So, you want to show that if that's accurate, even though it is a little
further down from the block, I think that would help your case, but I still think it it should be brought in a little bit. Um, I don't know if the dimension of how far, um, I know we had the side elevation and I don't know what it is on the other side. I I think we
just want to know how far protrudes past the buildings on either side. And I think also cutting down the top story might help that if it even if the rest of the stories below aren't brought in. So, I think there's a couple things to look at there. >> Well, we do have that drawing of the
other side as well. And I I again I'd like to make the point >> if you could just speak into the mic. Sorry. >> I'd like to make the point that because of the narrowness of the site that um you know the middle of the building is
taken up with stairs and and elevator and and bathrooms and whatever and they the more we cut it back the the less workable those rooms become. Um it's so to to go to all this the trouble if we're within the world even even five
feet out of that room. >> Sure. >> Um makes it not much of a room. >> 20 22 feet is one of the larger um houses in the downtown. >> I understand. Although after you once you build walls and everything else it's not 22 feet. And once we go around the chimneys of our neighbors that are in
our property it's even less than that. >> Understood. And that you can see if if you cut five feet off the the upper floor to make that notch, it doesn't actually make that big a difference to to my mind to the uh to the neighbors or
the feeling of the building. So, I'm not, you know, I mean, we can we can do this, but it doesn't it, you know, it appears to be I'm not I'm not really sure what's the exact word to say, but it seems like a fairly minimal change and that is going
to impact the way the rooms work more more so than it's going to make a difference to anybody neighbors or anybody seeing the building from the park. So, >> well, I think also I don't I don't know if that dimension is here. Um, but on
the on the plan, is there a dimension that shows how far past the neighboring building this goes? I think you can maybe see it here. I don't know if that dimension is exactly there, but it would be, you
know, is this 10 feet? Is it six? Is it 12? You know, what's that? >> What's that dimension on either side? >> It's about five. It's five feet. that this from that dotted line there to the back is five feet. >> I think we want to allow for development
but maintain the compatibility with the existing historic structures and you know also bearing in mind that I'm I would wager most of those historic structures don't have elevators so they you know that's not a consideration.
I'm going to guess that I'm alone in the very modern rear facade with almost no solid. That is out of context with the typical rear yard facads that are also visible and it has more in common with the glass towers that are visible in the
background of the photos than its adjacent buildings. Yeah, I think I'm struggling with that because we could have easily in this infill gotten a design like that on the front facade. You know, you could do a
modern building in that row. Um, so given that it's a brand new construction, I'm not certain if it I I need it to uh conform in the way that you're suggesting. I think that's my concern. I'm I'm speaking less to the
contemporary nature and more that it's almost a curtain wall. >> Gotcha. Yeah. >> And I think I think this does is very successful in the front. Um and so I think that's buying a lot of buyin for me on on the back. Um and I think also
if if it is I don't know if it's brought in a little or if if the fourth floor is reduced a little that could also change the proportioness of the rear facade as well. So, um I think that's part of it, too. >> So, I actually wanted to second uh
Commissioner Gunther's point. Um the whole reason that this kind of came to this meeting, uh this month is because we were concerned about how the rear facade was going to look um sticking out and whether that was visible or not. I
said that I didn't think it was visible. Clearly was. I apologize for that. Um, but considering that that was the main contention last month, um, I personally don't have a problem
with it jutting out. I more have a problem in the same way Commissioner Gunther does with the I think it was called uh, business in the front, party in the back last week, last month uh, style. I think
>> that would be mullet style. >> I think it should when it's visible be business in the front and business in the back. Gotcha. >> We're never going to get away from this saying, are we?
>> Business casual. >> That's okay. Okay. Uh any further comments or anything for the applicant this way? they can work on them simultaneously and then hopefully reappear in December.
>> Great. >> Okay. If I'm not hearing any other further comment, um then uh I guess recommend a motion to carry this to the December 15th meeting. >> Motion. >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> I >> Thank you. Thank you. See you in December. >> Okay. I believe the demolition review is the >> Yeah. So, I think we only have uh one more thing on the agenda tonight.
>> Um >> Okay. >> Just to go through the the tabled case, uh 10 10A 172 Belmont. I do not believe we have any update on that. Uh then, uh we'll go into demolition review.
>> Okay. We're calling uh it's 82 Prospect Street and it's a B-25- 1524. I'm going to make my way over there, plug in this way you guys have something to look at. Um
and uh we can go through the demo. Just confirming that no one is here for that application, right? Okay. So, I think it's pulling up right now. And we have a photo of the front facade. Feel free to uh
have any conversations on the record. Again, this is the front facade of the building slightly obscured by that tree. And then we have the 1938 tax card photo. Just for reference, this is 82 prospect. I did
not mention that in the beginning. Um, so this is up in the heights. We have just for a side by side. Thank you. That is always helpful. Even even the uh So yeah, this is
remarkably intact. Even the um >> what's the word? The um at the basement level there, the painted wood, >> lattice, >> lattice work still seems to be there.
So this building was built uh circa 18651 1870. It's a second empire style building. The cornice is still intact. The the doors appear to be the same. Yeah, I would agree. The doors are
potentially original. The window opening sizes haven't changed except maybe at the dormers, but that could easily be restored. Maybe some elements of the cornice were um altered, but those could easily go back.
>> The only thing I'm seeing that's changed is maybe the the uh stoop looks like that's a modern >> replacement and um the chainlink fence in the front. >> So, this has a lot of integrity.
The profile of the mansard seems like it's almost exactly as it was when it was built, which is really unique. >> Just the siding has changed and the uh the framing of the siding is no longer there, but that's easily corrected.
>> Could also be under it. >> Yeah, could also be under it. Yeah, >> we have no way of confirming that, but just, you know, history of woodframe buildings in Jersey City. >> Okay. If we don't have any further comments, we can open up for public comment and then continue on with uh the
staff memo. Okay. If there are any members of the public wishing to speak regarding this application, please approach the public comment mic. And these are the same rules as uh for open public comment. Well, no, this is different because if you have questions, Chris, direct them to Dan, the chair,
and we'll answer at the close of public comment. >> Excellent. Um, I would object to this building being demolished. It's got a lot of integrity. Uh, one of the interesting, um, things, uh, I'm not
super perfect at this stuff, but I'll use the words that I know. um sort of the cornice that defines between the mansered roof and the siding. A lot of times that piece is rotten off on buildings and this is incredibly intact. Um and I love the current owner's
ingenious idea of piping the water in several places to get it out of there and keep it from rotting. Um I think it would be a travesty for this building to be altered or demolished. It's incredibly intact. Um and we don't have many of these uh in this kind of condition. That's all I have to say.
Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other members of the public wishing to speak tonight? Okay. Thank you. Uh we forgot the motion to open public comment, but if we could have a motion to to close public comment at least.
>> Motion. >> Motion to close public comment. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you. Okay. Uh and I'll pull up the staff report or the memo. Um so, yep. This was mentioned in the MA Jersey City master plan uh for 2024, the historic
preservation element. Um it's a three-story woodframe dwelling, manered roof, wraparound porch. Um and this is as was noted by the commission in pretty incredible uh shape. Um the exterior alterations have been very very minimal.
Um, so it really does retain most of the uh um uh pieces of integrity. Uh the only thing that has slightly been diminished is uh the setting. Um there are a few newer dwellings on this block um that have
replaced their historic counterpart points. Um but the uh location, the design, the materials, the workmanship uh and the feeling and association are all maintained uh in staff's opinion. Um
as such, staff recommends a motion to prepare a resolution recommending denial of the demolition application to the zoning officer. >> I'll make that motion. Okay. I have Tony and I have Natalie. Okay, we'll do a roll call vote. Commissioner Gunther. I
>> Commissioner Blazak. >> I >> Commissioner Gordon. >> I >> Commissioner Edcom. >> I >> Commissioner K. >> I >> Commissioner Colbeck. >> I >> Commissioner Guchiarda. >> I >> Commissioner Sankham. >> I. >> And Chairman Gordon.
>> I'm sorry. >> There's no one here by that name. So, >> Chairman Cronin >> I. >> All right. There are nine votes in favor, none against. No abstensions. >> Just think of it like Batman. It's Commissioner Gordon. There you go. Clearly that has become so second nature
to me over time that I am still adjusting either way. All right. Motion carries with nine in favor, none against, no abstensions. Okay. >> All right. And for the remainder of the agenda, 384 commun. I'm working on it, guys. They are they
they say it's still an active application. We were this close on that. it. We will either hear from them by January or I yeah we're going to hear from them by January. Um 37 van ripen carried to the December meeting. We have no
resolutions to introduce or discuss. No resolutions to memorialize. No executive session is needed. So all that leaves is adjournment. >> Motion second. >> Right. It is 7:22. All in favor? I I