WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=D3JB_UXjEhA

Part: 1

1
00:00:04.080 --> 00:00:32.880
Okay. Hi folks. We're just going to wait for the attendee room to populate. We'll give that a second before we call the meeting to order. Okay. All right. Corey, if you'd like to call the meeting

2
00:00:32.880 --> 00:00:49.039
to order. >> Okay. It is 6:33 p.m. and I now call this meeting to order. >> Great. Please be advised that in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, notice of the time, date, and place of this regularly scheduled meeting of the Jersey City Historic Preservation

3
00:00:49.039 --> 00:01:04.720
Commission was posted on the public notice page of the city Jersey City city clerk on Thursday, July 9th, and was also posted on the Jersey City calendar and the Jersey City data portal. I will do a roll call

4
00:01:04.720 --> 00:01:22.320
attendance. Commissioner Sanamp, I believe he's having tech issues, so we're going to mark him as absent. Um, when he returns, we will note his arrival for the record. Um, Commissioner Gunther >> here. >> Oh, J, I think you're muted.

5
00:01:22.320 --> 00:01:44.960
>> Here. >> Nice. Commissioner Sak >> here. >> Commissioner Blazak is absent. Commissioner Gordon, >> present. Robert, I think you're also muted. >> Present. >> Thank you.

6
00:01:44.960 --> 00:02:07.680
>> Commissioner Edgecom. >> Okay. Commissioner K >> here. >> Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Callback here. I said here.

7
00:02:07.680 --> 00:02:24.560
>> Oh, I think I don't know if everyone's is just not unmuting or not. >> I think it might be Maggie. >> Yeah, I can hear them. >> Okay, so it's definitely me. Excellent. Great news. All right, so Natalie is here. Commissioner Gucciardo is absent. Vice Chair Cronin

8
00:02:24.560 --> 00:02:39.760
>> here. >> Thank you. And Chairman Grigga >> here. >> Okay. three, four, five, six, seven, eight. There are eight members of the commission in attendance. Five affirmative votes are needed for a certificate of appropriateness.

9
00:02:39.760 --> 00:02:57.040
Next item is the approval of minutes for the June 15th meeting. Does anyone have any questions, comments, concerns? If not, staff recommends a motion to approve. >> Motion.

10
00:02:57.040 --> 00:03:18.959
>> Second. Okay, I'll do a roll call vote for this. Commissioner Gunther >> I. >> Thank you. Commissioner Sak >> abstain. >> Okay. Commissioner Blazak is absent. Commissioner Gordon >> I.

11
00:03:18.959 --> 00:03:38.560
>> Commissioner Edg >> I. Did you hear me? I did you hear it? >> Yes, I I got it then. Commissioner K. >> I I can vote I because I watch the >> Perfect. Thank you.

12
00:03:38.560 --> 00:03:54.400
>> Yes. Commissioner Callback >> I. >> Okay. Commissioner Gucciardo is absent. Commissioner Samamp is absent. Vice Chair Cronin >> abstain. >> Okay. And Chairman Grigo >> I.

13
00:03:54.400 --> 00:04:11.519
>> Okay. There are one, two, three, four, five, six votes in favor, two abstensions. The minutes for the June 15th meeting are approved. Correspondence. All copies of correspondence are available tonight and correspondence application materials are

14
00:04:11.519 --> 00:04:31.280
available tonight linked on the agenda. Um staff has two announcements at this time. Um we have two cases that have carried this evening. The first case that is carried is case 9B H-26-0136 which is 314 Pavonia A has chosen to

15
00:04:31.280 --> 00:04:52.479
carry to the um August HPC meeting and case 9 CH-26-0153281 York Street has also chosen to carry to the August HPC meeting. Okay. Um, we'll move on to open public comment if there are any members of the

16
00:04:52.479 --> 00:05:07.520
public in attendance who would like to speak regarding matters of historic preservation that are not listed on tonight's agenda. Again, this is for items not on tonight's agenda. Um, please use the raise hand function at the bottom of your screen. If you are calling in on the phone, you can also

17
00:05:07.520 --> 00:05:30.720
press star 9. Okay. Staff sees no hands raised and recommends a motion to open and close public comment. >> I think there's a hand raised. >> Oh, I think >> Yep. >> Uh, this is going to be a problem because I do not see the hand raised

18
00:05:30.720 --> 00:05:48.000
>> on the attendees. >> Yeah, >> Sharon, >> it just popped up for me. Okay, >> I'm working to get to you. All right, so let's make a motion to open public comment. >> Motion. >> Second. All in favor? >> I

19
00:05:48.000 --> 00:06:04.680
>> Okay, Sharon, I'm gonna promote you as a panelist so that you can have open public comment. >> And while we're doing that, just staff notes that uh Commissioner Sanamp has arrived. It is 6:39 p.m. >> Thank you.

20
00:06:05.520 --> 00:06:21.280
>> Hello. >> Hi, Sharon. >> Hi, Maggie. Hi, everyone. >> We're going to swear you in. Laura, typically um the court reporter swears in. Okay. Should I spell my name or

21
00:06:21.280 --> 00:06:36.880
>> should Laura's gonna unmute and take care help and swear you in? >> Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help you God. >> Yes. >> Thank you. If you could please state your name, spell it, and provide.

22
00:06:36.880 --> 00:06:53.360
>> Sure. Um, my name is Shireen McCormack. It's s h i r i n m a c o r m- a c k and my address is 1:30 Glenwood. >> Okay, thanks Sharon. Your time begins now. >> Thank you. Um hello everyone. I won't

23
00:06:53.360 --> 00:07:08.000
take the full time of the five minutes but thank you for offering that. Um, I just wanted to um briefly mention that I'm aware of the two items on the agenda, the two cousin or sister

24
00:07:08.000 --> 00:07:25.599
applications tonight. H240171 and um the the like sister or cousin application 0172 for six gford. And I know that uh for some of the people that participated in public comment at last

25
00:07:25.599 --> 00:07:43.280
month's meeting, it seemed to be a bit um like you know um problematic or challenging to look at one application um at a time when there's there's really like a a two for one sort of um package

26
00:07:43.280 --> 00:07:59.919
um of two applications here. So, I don't know if there is a way to um offer instead of three minutes public comment, six minutes in one session for both projects or um how to do that. But I

27
00:07:59.919 --> 00:08:15.680
just wanted to make sure that I raised the concern that um it just it it seemed to be a little bit of a an issue for some of the public commenters last time. >> Okay, thanks Sharon. We'll address questions once we close public comment,

28
00:08:15.680 --> 00:08:34.479
but I have them written. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Are there any other members of the public who would like to address the commission? >> Okay. Staff recommends staff does not see any

29
00:08:34.479 --> 00:08:51.760
additional hand raised and staff recommends a motion to close public comment. >> Motion. >> Second. All in favor? I >> I >> I let me just make sure Sharon, I'm just going to make sure that you populated back over in attendees before I answer.

30
00:08:51.760 --> 00:09:08.640
>> Um so the bylaws for the HPC permit um up to five minutes per application of public comment. Um if any votes are taken tonight on either of the applications in question um the public

31
00:09:08.640 --> 00:09:25.959
will be available to comment on each both individually. There will be two separate public comment sessions. So um we don't need to time or anything like that because there will be public comment for both of them.

32
00:09:26.080 --> 00:09:42.560
Okay. All right. If there are no um additional comments or anything from commissioners, we I think we can move on to old business. Cory, if you'd like to call the first case. >> Absolutely. Give me one second here. All

33
00:09:42.560 --> 00:10:01.680
right. Old business. We're going to call case H-25-000036. Applicant Eugene O'Connell, Esquire, on behalf of Reika Patel, owner. The address is 84 Cole Street. That's block 11213,

34
00:10:01.680 --> 00:10:17.600
lot 2.01, zone H, Carsus Cove Historic District, for the certificate of appropriateness for the proposed construction of a new fourstory, twounit residential building and associated work site in the Haramus

35
00:10:17.600 --> 00:10:33.839
Cove Historic District. This is a recommend uh a recommendation to the Jersey City Zoning Board of Adjustment carried from the regular HPC meeting of June 15, 2026 at the request of the applicant.

36
00:10:33.839 --> 00:10:54.440
>> Thanks. Um Jean, if you could just raise your hand. I don't see Gan Oonnell. I don't see you listed in the attendees. So, if you could use the raise hand.

37
00:11:03.519 --> 00:11:35.959
Oh, I found him. Thank you. All right. All right, Jean, there should be a promote to panelist popup for you that you need to accept. Great. >> Okay, >> okay. Hi, Jean.

38
00:11:39.360 --> 00:11:57.519
You're welcome to be uh Jean. We're gonna swear in Carolyn and Jensen. >> Okay. >> And then you guys can take it from there. Okay. >> Great. >> Uh Laura, if you don't mind, swear. We'll do um one at a time, I guess,

39
00:11:57.519 --> 00:12:11.839
starting with Carolyn. >> Okay. Uh Caroline, please raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So you got >> I do. >> Thank you. Please state your name, spell your name, and provide your business address.

40
00:12:11.839 --> 00:12:28.560
>> Sure. It's Carolyn Worstell. C A R O L Y N Worst W O R S T E L L. Business address is um 30 Montgomery Street, Sweet 510, Jersey City, New Jersey. >> Thank you. And the next witness, please raise your right hand. We're from the testimony about to give this proceeding

41
00:12:28.560 --> 00:12:45.120
as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I hope you got >> I do. >> Thank you. Please again lower your hands, state your name, spell your last name, and provide your business address. >> Jensen Vasil Jen Sen V is in Victor as Sil and business address is 702 Clinton

42
00:12:45.120 --> 00:13:01.200
Street in Hoboka, New Jersey. Okay. Staff notes that both Jensen and Carolyn have been um qualified as experts in their related field in front of this board before. Jean, feel free to take it away.

43
00:13:01.200 --> 00:13:15.360
>> Okay. Thanks so much, Maggie. So, uh, good evening, commissioners, uh, and thank you for the opportunity to present before tonight. The last case May 11

44
00:13:15.360 --> 00:13:34.880
and at that meeting both Jensen and um, um, meeting there is made by the commission um, which would make the application positive and

45
00:13:34.880 --> 00:13:56.800
>> sorry Mr. You're going in and out. I'm not your microphone. If uh you can check that, please. >> Yep, my microphone is see if I can check your I think my volume's up as far as we go. I'm sorry. Is that any better?

46
00:13:56.800 --> 00:14:14.800
>> Yes. Okay, great. Um, so we took those suggestions back to our architecture and um, while historic the historic commission in 2019 approved an application of building on this site which was higher and more and

47
00:14:14.800 --> 00:14:31.680
required six variances with the several modifications that we made. It's an ice presentation. Our building is smaller and only requires three variants. So with that to go through plans and to go over each

48
00:14:31.680 --> 00:14:52.480
of the modifications and improvements we have made to the application to make more appropriate for so if you could take it away. >> Good evening commissioners. Uh I'm going to just load this up here.

49
00:14:52.480 --> 00:15:08.639
Uh so as Mr. U Okonnell introduced we were here in in May. There were some um some very helpful um suggestions made by the board and ways to um to make this application uh improve the application.

50
00:15:08.639 --> 00:15:24.639
And I think we took we uh we included those in our in revisions um having to do with the you know the bulk on the street and the and the top floor um you know the top floor setting it back. Um

51
00:15:24.639 --> 00:15:40.079
so there were a couple comments made. Number one is um to to push back possibly one side of the because the building was his very long very long time ago it was two lots. um it's now one combined lot. So, the idea here was

52
00:15:40.079 --> 00:15:56.639
to um to shift back the top floor where there was an opportunity to maybe make that shift to make it look like two um separate separate uh more separate buildings. And um so out of that was a score line in the brick in the front. Um

53
00:15:56.639 --> 00:16:12.160
setting back one side more than the other, which we, you know, which we did. We set back one side 5'5, the other side remained the um 3'8. Um and we've changed, we had um Hardy panel siding that was board and batten that

54
00:16:12.160 --> 00:16:29.360
was modified to um to the horizontal clapboard which is more um appropriate with the context. Um just as a I'm going to just bring up the score line to detail just to show you um a photo of what that would look like. So

55
00:16:29.360 --> 00:16:45.040
the separation between the two buildings, this is the this is that same desert iron spot kind of brick. Um so it' be a control joint um between the two between the two pieces. Um and then also um

56
00:16:45.040 --> 00:16:59.600
we had originally we had the doors opposing so it was mirrored horizontally. Um, and then this is the now the doors have been switched back so that they are um so that it looks like two uh separate

57
00:16:59.600 --> 00:17:15.039
skinnier row houses. Um, we also added a made the door wider and added a little skylight uh side light next to it. Um, so that it's uh lets more lets more light in and differentiates the the door. It isn't so narrow from the from

58
00:17:15.039 --> 00:17:31.600
the uh from the um the facade above. Um I did adjust the at the top the curb. Um brought the curb down to a minimum curb of of 6 in. Um we reduce the forehead uh that was there before there was a offc

59
00:17:31.600 --> 00:17:47.360
center of the window um which is more centered on the top floor. So, um, we made some, I think, some positive adjustments to the building to make it, uh, to bring it more in line with, um, to bring it, uh, to make it more

60
00:17:47.360 --> 00:18:02.880
appropriate. Um, in addition to that, we had prepared some renderings, um, just to show the building, um, sort of in context. Um, so we have a kind of a front view here um with the the doors

61
00:18:02.880 --> 00:18:18.320
and the the two uh the the stairs, a side view showing its uh it's uh the building and the addition kind of in context from down the street from uh from the corner. And then um as Mr. u

62
00:18:18.320 --> 00:18:35.280
Mr. Okonnell introduced. We did kind of we took the old rendering that um was from the previous application and we just did them side by side slightly different camera angle uh apertures but the um but you can understand the effect by not having a by not having a parapit

63
00:18:35.280 --> 00:18:50.400
and reducing the floor to floor heights. I think we're significantly less um prominent on the street frontage. Um and while we still need a variance, a lot of that has to do with um the way the building height was measured and also

64
00:18:50.400 --> 00:19:07.120
the design flood elevation um our design flood elevation being um a solid uh uh 3 ft more uh or 2 ft more than what was 2 feet than uh than than the original uh than the previous uh application. So I

65
00:19:07.120 --> 00:19:23.679
think with these modifications um I think we've done we've we've tried to make this um I think we've taken the the comments to heart and I think we've we've uh we've bettered the uh your comments have bettered the the project and we appreciate that um the insight

66
00:19:23.679 --> 00:19:40.320
and we hope that that um is makes it uh that you appreciate that. And just to note, these are uh these need to be um entered as an exhibit. Um so Laura, if we could mark these as um

67
00:19:40.320 --> 00:19:56.080
A1, uh we'll mark it as like uh 84 coals rendering and that's three pages. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> Oh, there's one other exhibit. This is a line drawing um side by side of that same comparison

68
00:19:56.080 --> 00:20:11.919
just showing the the differences you know the the the measurement of design flood elevation BFE and the between the two. So we we are significantly lower um I think as a prominence um than than the

69
00:20:11.919 --> 00:20:38.320
expired application. >> We'll just mark that as A2 as well. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Jean. Uh Jensen, do you have any other further >> go on the staff memo? uh we feel like

70
00:20:38.320 --> 00:20:54.240
we've addressed um the issues and is there anything in the staff memo that you felt we addressed that maybe Michael thought we didn't >> um from the from the technical comments I I think we addressed the score line um

71
00:20:54.240 --> 00:21:09.600
the the oh the window the the the fascia board with the window being moved up um there was a there was a comment that there should be at least one brick between the top of the um the top of the um lintil and the bottom of the fascia

72
00:21:09.600 --> 00:21:26.720
which I did it is like almost it's a brick and change. Um we're happy to if that is if that needs to be modified and additionally we're happy to we're happy to make that happen. Um there was another additional comment about the height of the windows up top. Again I

73
00:21:26.720 --> 00:21:42.799
think we made it more centered um on the on that facade. Um but if the if the board felt that the windows at the top floor were too high um and more siding was you know would be better then we could make the windows slightly smaller.

74
00:21:42.799 --> 00:22:00.480
>> Okay. >> All right. Um thanks J. So Marilyn, do you have anything that you want to put on the record as far as uh this application? >> Sure. Um so I can just uh again sort of

75
00:22:00.480 --> 00:22:15.679
retouch on a couple of items. Um you know as this was previously uh presented um again you know this this particular property is atypical. It is under size. It's 1,500 square feet. Um and it is wider than it is deep which is sort of

76
00:22:15.679 --> 00:22:31.280
an atypical uh for lot um size or you know it's wider than than we're we used to see we're used to seeing. Um so it it does sort of lend itself to this design where we've sort of created the the the feel of having

77
00:22:31.280 --> 00:22:47.760
two smaller um developments. Um the lot has been empty, you know, for a significant period of time. I think you know the the staff memo mentioned 1960 and 1980. So it's well over 40 years that this the site has been vacant. Um

78
00:22:47.760 --> 00:23:02.559
and really, you know, the the work here has been done to really design this to present as the two sideby-side developments uh with the changes to the stair um the stairs moving so that we're continuing the rhythm and pattern of the stairs on the left side of the building.

79
00:23:02.559 --> 00:23:18.960
And so continuing that pattern that was um noted on the block. um you know the fourth floor was stepped back to sort of again re-emphasize the fact that this is you know typically is a three-story um block as it's in its current um iteration. Um

80
00:23:18.960 --> 00:23:35.360
you know there was some talk about you know the intention for you know the continuous height of the cornice lines and uh the f the windows. Um again as I mentioned previously this property is in a flood zone which requires that that first residential floor be raised up. Um

81
00:23:35.360 --> 00:23:50.559
and this leads to the fact that we do not align with the adjacent buildings. Um we cannot um occupy a ground floor at the sidewalk level, which is where um the existing first floors are on the adjacent uh buildings. It's not

82
00:23:50.559 --> 00:24:08.559
permitted under the state's flood hazard um rules. Um and um so that sort of really is the reason why we have this sort of character where we're not we're a little stepped up and that leads to this this issue. Um

83
00:24:08.559 --> 00:24:25.520
the fact um there's some comments about the height overwhelming the adjacent historic um context. Um you know I I you know the city is a living thing. You know the only constant in a city is that there is change. Um the zone that these lots are in does

84
00:24:25.520 --> 00:24:42.960
permit four stories. Um there is sort of this existing two to three story context. Um but um each of these uh individual properties um does have u the option and you know within the zoning to add an additional story. Um so the fact

85
00:24:42.960 --> 00:24:58.480
that this is a four-story building is still within the context of what the zoning calls for um on this. And then again, we with the way that it's been designed to create that step back and separation of that fourth floor. Again, it's the the intent was to um create the

86
00:24:58.480 --> 00:25:18.559
context so that it fits within that three-story context um even though it doesn't exactly align um again due because because we can't with the flood hazard. Um >> I think you know um there was I did note

87
00:25:18.559 --> 00:25:36.480
in the the city's 2024 historic preservation master plan element there are recommendations um action plan recommendation number 22 was to investigate the potential to allow for an increased and permitted height to account for base flood elevation for historic district properties. Um because right now the way

88
00:25:36.480 --> 00:25:51.679
that the city's ordinances read, um any other district um that is not a historic district anywhere else in the city, if you have a property that's in a flood hazard zone, you are permitted additional height to address the fact that you do have to elevate your

89
00:25:51.679 --> 00:26:07.679
structure um in order to um get that first residential floor out of the flood plane. Um if this uh site was to be treated like all of the other properties throughout the the city um in terms of flood hazard uh this the height would be

90
00:26:07.679 --> 00:26:23.600
conforming. Uh you would be permitted a height of 45 1/2 ft on this property um because you take the um you get you add the height that is the difference between your design flood elevation and your finished grade or or

91
00:26:23.600 --> 00:26:37.919
where the sidewalk is and you add that to your permitted height. So the difference is 5 1/2 ft. We'd add that to 45 or 40. We get the 45 1/2 ft. So the proposed height here of 43 ft 3 1/2 in would be conforming if this was to be

92
00:26:37.919 --> 00:26:53.600
treated as any other um site in in any other zone. Um and again, you know, uh when I was reading through again that the historic master, uh plan element, um you know, something there was some a statement in

93
00:26:53.600 --> 00:27:10.640
there, um I think it was on page 46 that really, you know, is sort of talked about and acknowledged um that sometimes the strict enforcement of um certain historic preservation standards and requirements

94
00:27:10.640 --> 00:27:26.159
um can be cost prohibitive. Um, and they uh get to a point where sometimes um they place an excessive burden upon a homeowner or developer. And when that happens, the cost of the the homeowner developer has to weigh those additional

95
00:27:26.159 --> 00:27:43.360
costs uh for development versus um just doing nothing. Um and so oftentimes, you know, when they have to choose between the cost and disinvestment, this investment uh usually triumphs. So, um, again, I think that this site, you know, you can see it's been it's been vacant

96
00:27:43.360 --> 00:27:59.679
for 40 years, over 40 years. Um, you know, that's continued disinvestment in this particular property. Um, and I think that this is an application where we're trying to find that, um, that middle ground where we meet the

97
00:27:59.679 --> 00:28:15.679
necessary, uh, like floods and, uh, you know, safety requirements. those those the the reason for the flood safety flood hazard um elevations is for safety. Um and so that's what we're trying to meet here with this design. Um so I think that that's really my direct

98
00:28:15.679 --> 00:28:32.640
testimony unless anyone has questions. I think there was one other comment. I think there's some question about the need for flood vents. Um I think I saw that in in one of the the comments. Uh flood vents are usually required for any so any space that is below designed

99
00:28:32.640 --> 00:28:48.559
flood elevation if it is enclosed as this is you are required to have flood vents. Um so that is a requirement under the flood hazard uh rules. Um you know I I think that there was some attempt to try to integrate them with the design.

100
00:28:48.559 --> 00:29:04.320
Um you know I'm sure that there could be some changes in colors. Uh but the flood vents are are a standard um uh feature for you know any new development within the flood hazard zone and they are would be required for this

101
00:29:04.320 --> 00:29:36.399
application. >> Thank you Caroline. Do any commissioners have questions for either Jensen or for Caroline? >> I mean, I guess I have a like a comment I guess for Jensen. It's maybe also a

102
00:29:36.399 --> 00:29:53.279
question about the um sort of score line between the two the two units to make it read more like two separate row houses. Um I just wonder if the proposal to do essentially you know something the thickness of a mortar joint is this I just don't know

103
00:29:53.279 --> 00:30:09.360
if that's sufficient. Um I can't remember which you know which commissioners had comments about this at the last meeting. Um, but you know, something like a a full stretcher. I mean, a full header brick recessed back, you know, where we could get some

104
00:30:09.360 --> 00:30:26.640
shadow. Maybe something like that. I don't know if a detail like that would be a possible here so that it reads a little bit more separate. You do get the shadow line in a little more depth. >> Great. Um, thank you, um, Commissioner Gunther. That would be possible. Um, and

105
00:30:26.640 --> 00:30:40.960
you could actually combine the two, too, and have the two um the two header courses set back on both sides because it is um that way you've got a a border if that helped reinforce it too. Um, but yeah, you could set back you could set

106
00:30:40.960 --> 00:30:58.880
the this the last um half brick back um and that would that would create that separation as well. Um, just trying to think of like because there's a because it's exactly the middle of the building. If you do the recess, you probably want to do it on maybe one side or just or um

107
00:30:58.880 --> 00:31:16.240
or both sides just to make it um because the front facade is is the is essentially in the same plane. So um but yes, you're you're right. There's there's other there could there's another there there's another um possibility there um that I could see.

108
00:31:16.240 --> 00:31:44.440
>> That might just be a detail to work out with staff if this does move forward. But um I just feel like this small score line maybe isn't sufficient. >> Fair enough. >> Any other questions or comments from any commissioners?

109
00:31:50.960 --> 00:32:06.720
Okay. >> I don't have anything. >> Should we move to open public comment then? >> That's Yep. Sounds good. Um, if there are any members of the public wishing to speak regarding this application, uh, just as we did before, if you could

110
00:32:06.720 --> 00:32:30.159
use the raise hand function at the bottom of your screen. >> Staff sees no members of the public raising their hands and recommends a motion to open and close public comment. Motion to open and close public comment. Second.

111
00:32:30.159 --> 00:32:47.600
>> All in favor? I >> thank you. Okay. Uh Jensen, if you could just stop sharing your screen for a moment. Thank you. Um and we will move into staff comments and

112
00:32:47.600 --> 00:33:19.120
I am just going to try to share my screen. Can everyone see my screen? >> I can see it. >> Okay, great. So, I'm just going to move down into the staff comments. Um, I did provide some staff comments on this. I

113
00:33:19.120 --> 00:33:36.880
think the first time we met um since uh I met and spoke regarding this application. Uh since they have made some updates, I have revised my staff report. Um so I think a lot of the things that they have done have been successful in making

114
00:33:36.880 --> 00:33:52.159
this building slightly more appropriate for uh the surrounding context. But I do think that uh there it's to a varying level and I think there are still a few issues that need to be worked out. Um, I understand uh Caroline's point about uh

115
00:33:52.159 --> 00:34:08.879
the the vents needing to be there. Um, I am admittedly a little confused if the area is not going to be used, right? If it's below flood elevation and I believe a majority of that area is being filled in. Um, I don't think the previous

116
00:34:08.879 --> 00:34:24.560
presentation had the uh floodprints on the front. Um, so their addition seems to be out of place and uh I know there was a suggestion from the HBC commissioners that uh you know kind of blind windows be uh used on that first

117
00:34:24.560 --> 00:34:42.560
floor. Um I think if that was the attempt for the flood vents, I think there uh could be more successful iterations of that. um if there is a requirement as far as that that area being used for something and then being required um that that's a separate thing

118
00:34:42.560 --> 00:34:59.839
but uh staff was under the assumption that that area was being filled um and not being used. Um, I think the alterations to the fenestration patterns, um, definitely help to create a more uniform, um,

119
00:34:59.839 --> 00:35:18.160
pattern within the block, um, and pick up on that continuity that's existing. Um, uh, Jensen addressed some of them as far as the upper cornis levels and the fourth floor windows. I do think that uh like shortening the window, the fourth floor windows uh could help just make

120
00:35:18.160 --> 00:35:33.119
that upper portion look a little less tall. Um there is also um staff believes that the Florida height ceiling the Florida ceiling heights on um the floors above

121
00:35:33.119 --> 00:35:48.960
base flight elevation could be reduced slightly uh further um reducing the building by additional foot. Um and then uh as far as the rendering and the vertical score line, those were both addressed uh with testimony tonight. Um

122
00:35:48.960 --> 00:36:07.040
overall uh staff still finds that um the proposal uh presented and the requested variances um would amount to an adverse effect just due to the um uh items that have have not been

123
00:36:07.040 --> 00:36:22.480
addressed as well as the height that is still staff believes could be further reduced. Um and staff's recommendation would be a motion to deny the application um and not recommend the approval to the zoning board under the

124
00:36:22.480 --> 00:36:39.359
following items. Alternatively, if the staff if HBC finds that the project as proposed will not cause an adverse effect on the character and integrity of the historic district, um they can uh issue an approval for the certificate of appropriateness and recommendation to

125
00:36:39.359 --> 00:36:53.359
the Jersey City Zoning Board of Adjustment. um with the uh conditions listed out in the staff report. Um based on Commissioner Gun Gunther's comment, uh staff would then also recommend a um

126
00:36:53.359 --> 00:37:13.680
condition that they address the store score line uh to provide a further width to it. Could I ask the um could I ask Jensen to just uh provide some testimony on the on the

127
00:37:13.680 --> 00:37:29.839
flood vents whether they're code driven code driven best practice driven um >> yes >> or otherwise >> we were discussing the blank wall at the hearing what happened is there was a discussion about the blank wall at the bottom floor being out of context and

128
00:37:29.839 --> 00:37:45.599
not having life and then when we were sitting down Carolyn and I were discussing it and we said I said, "Oh, it needs flood vents." Anyways, so if I can show you my screen again, we it's a um there's a crawl space there that extends there's a slab that happens at

129
00:37:45.599 --> 00:38:01.280
grade level and then there's the first floor. So there's about a 30 like um I can show you uh if that helps. But um >> and and could you clarify when you say we need flood vents? Um can you just site the is it IBC? Is it what what is

130
00:38:01.280 --> 00:38:18.480
the driving um regulatory framework? >> It's the it's um >> D. >> Yeah, D. It's D. It's anything below. And it happened to us. So it happened to us at another job which is not far from here which is 46, you know, 46 coals um

131
00:38:18.480 --> 00:38:35.040
outside of the district, but it also had needed flood vents. Um so that is um it that also was you know went through but it was picked up. So this all came out of those discussions. Um that's why it wasn't on the first iteration. It just happened like we we started discussing

132
00:38:35.040 --> 00:38:51.839
it and we caught it. So the um so the crawl space is 3'8 and 1/2. There is a small as you on the plan you saw there's like a sprinkler meter pit um that's just it's not the entire portion. It's just this little front room. Um, that's

133
00:38:51.839 --> 00:39:09.839
for the sprinkler stuff that's allowed to be submersible and the gas meters and water meters that are allowed to be submersible. The rest of it is all crawl space. So, it's open and if it's open, it needs to you need to you need to relieve the hydrostatic pressure somehow. So, the flood vents which we added um would be are the way.

134
00:39:09.839 --> 00:39:28.400
>> And can you um provide a little bit of detail on what drives the the area? Um, it looks like the area on the rear facade, there's three of them, adds up to more than what's on the front facade.

135
00:39:28.400 --> 00:39:44.240
It is is area driven by code. >> Yeah, it's one it's one per one flood vent per 200 f feet. We have 953 feet. So, technically we need five. So, it's an odd number. Um, and then also when it when you did the elevation,

136
00:39:44.240 --> 00:39:59.920
um, because we had the two windows open, um, we we put them here and then my client actually said this that they wanted to do they that the window was mentioned, so we put a window over it. It's not in the rendering because it came in so the

137
00:39:59.920 --> 00:40:16.400
comment came in late, but we could certainly add a window up above it um above the above the flood vent if that's if that makes it more palatable and it would you know it would be a taller opening. Um but it just was it was uh it wasn't we didn't see it the first time and it was part of the discussion when

138
00:40:16.400 --> 00:40:45.320
after at the hearing. It's why it wasn't on the first first uh iteration. >> Thank you for the clarifications. >> Sure. Any further questions or comments from any commissioners? I can

139
00:40:47.359 --> 00:41:09.440
>> share my screen again. >> So, zoom in a little bit in the >> Yes, there we go. Thanks. >> I wanted to go on record and say I'm confu I'm a little confused about or

140
00:41:09.440 --> 00:41:27.839
conflicted about the top of the structure this like the entire floor. I understand that it's within uh given the variance it would be within um the standard uh set but

141
00:41:27.839 --> 00:41:43.520
I don't think it fits with the rest of the character of the building. I don't think it fits with the rest of the character of the neighborhood. As you said you you uh you said it's a little overpowering. Um, I understand

142
00:41:43.520 --> 00:41:59.440
the um there can't be a lineup uh because of the fl the new flood vents, but I would have trouble voting for this to be approved if there's that extra floor.

143
00:41:59.440 --> 00:42:19.359
If it's e if it's economically necessary, I I'd say I'd like some testimony on that because otherwise it's just it's not something I can vote for. >> Um I'd also like to agree mostly with

144
00:42:19.359 --> 00:42:34.960
what Jonathan just stated. Um you I think we all understand the requirement for raising the building um let's say a half off story um due to the flood requirements um but the additional core on top it's now a fourstory building

145
00:42:34.960 --> 00:42:51.680
that is not the paradigm at the block even if it didn't um bump up a half floor for flooding and it's it's a little bit out of out of it overwhelms the block the rendering where you see it from the corner like sort of emphasizes that even more you I don't know that the

146
00:42:51.680 --> 00:43:07.599
little changes that are recommended by staff to make it slightly shorter are going to help all that much. Um, and you know, regarding like investment and disinvestment, you know, that's sort of not our purview and how the project is financed, you

147
00:43:07.599 --> 00:43:34.240
know, we're really looking at this only in terms of its appropriateness in in its context and and I don't think think as it's currently presented it's appropriate with the extra floor. I guess if we're

148
00:43:34.240 --> 00:43:51.920
sort of deliberating um prior to voting, uh I I would personally be comfortable voting to approve the project um as shown. Um, I I take the points and uh listen in the staff report. Um,

149
00:43:51.920 --> 00:44:07.520
and and with great respect, I I you know, I I think they're they're valid points, but I don't I don't know. The the height doesn't bother me. I I I appreciate the way that it's bolded in the thought

150
00:44:07.520 --> 00:44:30.960
requirements. I appreciate the articulation of top is different from the lower three stories. Um, I I find it I find the application appropriate. >> I agree with Austin. Uh while I can see that there's quite a few

151
00:44:30.960 --> 00:44:46.240
buildings that are threetory on the block, if um when I look at street view, there's two fourstory buildings facing this lot on the same block. And they're not trying to mitigate that

152
00:44:46.240 --> 00:45:03.359
top story either. appreciate the the work that the architect did to um try and minimize the impact of that fourth story, but I would have actually found it acceptable. Um my building on in Vanvor's neighborhood has

153
00:45:03.359 --> 00:45:20.040
two fourstory buildings on either side of it and it's a three-story building. Um I think it adds to the texture of the neighborhood. I know that while some people disagree, I I find it too um

154
00:45:31.359 --> 00:45:55.480
>> any other comments from commissioners? I'd like to make a motion to approve the application. Um, actually with with the addition uh with the additional condition that Commissioner Gunther outlined regarding the articulation of the score line,

155
00:45:55.599 --> 00:46:13.440
but I I'd like to make a motion to approve. >> I'll second it. >> Who Who was that that seconded it? Sorry. Uh >> uh chairman Griga. >> GG. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Okay.

156
00:46:13.440 --> 00:46:28.800
>> I'll take a roll call vote. Um again, this is to approve with the conditions in the staff report and recommend to the Jersey City Zoning Board of Adjustment along with that additional condition uh regarding the score line. Um Commissioner Sanamp,

157
00:46:28.800 --> 00:46:45.520
>> I vote I. Commissioner Gunther. >> Uh, I'm going to vote no citing section 345-71 H2B and H2I for building height and scale of buildings.

158
00:46:45.520 --> 00:47:05.960
>> Thank you. Commissioner Sakal I. Commissioner Corgan. >> I vote nay. Um, as with Commissioner Gunther citing uh B for building height and uh scale.

159
00:47:06.079 --> 00:47:20.800
>> Thank you, Commissioner Edgecom. >> Um, can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh, I I vote I in favor. I agree with uh Commissioner Sukong on all the things he mentioned to me. >> Thank you. Commissioner K.

160
00:47:20.800 --> 00:47:38.720
>> Uh, I vote no. Um, referring back to my previous comments aligning with 345 uh stash um uh the previously cited um section in

161
00:47:38.720 --> 00:47:55.520
our >> Thank you. Commissioner Kbach. >> I vote nay. uh also citing um also on basis of the beforehand cited um reasons the building height and the

162
00:47:55.520 --> 00:48:16.480
scale. >> Thank you vice chair Cronin. I want I >> and Cherica. >> Sorry. Uh I'm going to vote uh I um it's

163
00:48:16.480 --> 00:48:31.680
it's been vacant way too long. Um and I'm going to take into consideration the uh the flood zone. >> Thank you. So we have five against 54. No against.

164
00:48:31.680 --> 00:48:48.160
Sorry, let me start that over. Five in favor, four against, no abstensions. Uh, the certificate of appropriateness and recommendation to the Jersey City Board of Adjustment is approved. >> Thank you. >> Have a great night. >> Thank you.

165
00:48:48.160 --> 00:49:07.280
>> Thank you. We appreciate everybody's hard work on this. Thank you very much, old commission. You also, Mike, >> thank you. Thank you. All right. If we want to go ahead and call the next case,

166
00:49:07.280 --> 00:49:25.839
>> um, that's going to be case H-24. Sorry guys, H-24-0171. Applicant Stephen Joseph Esquire on behalf of 6GFford LLC owner. Address 577 Bergen Aka

167
00:49:25.839 --> 00:49:44.400
6 Gford A. Block 17801, lot 36, zone R3, West Bergen, East Lincoln Park Historic District, for the certificate of certificate of appropriateness for the proposed subdivision of lot 36

168
00:49:44.400 --> 00:50:01.440
into two lots and the rehabilitation of the existing altered contributing 2 and a halftory 4 bay colonial revival style brick dwelling built circa 1915 in the West Bergen in East Lincoln Park Historic District. Recommendation to the

169
00:50:01.440 --> 00:50:18.720
Jury City Planning Board carried from the regular HPC meeting of June 15th, 2026 at the request of the applicant. >> Great. Good evening everyone. Stephen Joseph for the applicant here. Uh we do have two experts this evening. Um if we

170
00:50:18.720 --> 00:50:36.079
can get them promoted as well. We have uh Ahmedra and Carolyn Worstelle. Okay, working on that. While

171
00:50:36.079 --> 00:50:52.559
we are working on promoting panelists, um Michael, do you want to go through the eligible the commissioner eligibility and get that squared away? >> Yes. Uh Stephen, I apologize. I forgot

172
00:50:52.559 --> 00:51:09.359
to send um the commissioners that were absent last meeting uh the recording uh and the transcript, but >> you never have to say sorry to me ever. >> You you do enough. >> I still apologize. Uh but uh

173
00:51:09.359 --> 00:51:27.359
Commissioner K was on top of it and read and watched the video of his own accord. Um, so if you feel comfortable with him voting, um, he will be eligible to vote on on it tonight. Uh, one of the commissioners that was not here that was here last time was Commissioner Guiardo,

174
00:51:27.359 --> 00:51:43.200
who is not here tonight. Um, and then, uh, I believe the other two, uh, commissioners that were not here last time that are here tonight, um, were Commissioner Sukong as well as,

175
00:51:43.200 --> 00:51:58.160
uh, Commissioner Cronin and Commissioner Sank. Okay. Um, >> um, sorry. No, I Yeah, I have eligible voters as Commissioner Gunther, Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner Edgecomb, Commissioner K, Commissioner

176
00:51:58.160 --> 00:52:14.720
Callback, um, and Commissioner Gera. So, we have six eligible voters on this. Um, I I can't tell if I'm having a tech issue or if Carolyn is not populating in

177
00:52:14.720 --> 00:52:30.480
attendees. >> She should. >> I never left the panel. I'm still here. explains that here >> so much easier. Okay. And explains a lot. Perfect. In that case, um Ahmed, let me give you the ability to share

178
00:52:30.480 --> 00:52:49.440
your screen. >> And I should swear in Carolyn again. >> I think Carolyn is going to be going first. Is that correct? >> Carolyn is going to be going first. That's right. That's right. So >> swear her in please. Um Caroline, raise your right hand, please. Do you swear

179
00:52:49.440 --> 00:53:05.760
affirm the testimony you give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Thank you. If you could state your name again, spell your name, and provide your address. >> Sure. Uh Carolyn Worst, last name, W L. Uh address is 30 Montgomery Street,

180
00:53:05.760 --> 00:53:21.760
Sweet 510, Jersey City, New Jersey. >> And if Ahmed, can you please raise your right hand now so I can swear you in also. Do you swear affirm the testimony about given this proceeding is the truth, all truth, and nothing but the truth. So >> I do. If you that you can lower your hand, please state your name, spell your last name, and provide your business address.

181
00:53:21.760 --> 00:53:37.599
>> Sure. My name is Ahmed Amara. Last first name is Ahm D. Last name is E M A R A Griel Architects 1050 Wall Street West, Lindhurst, New Jersey. >> Thank you.

182
00:53:37.599 --> 00:53:54.960
>> All right. Great. So, I I think what we're going to do for the for the first part of this is Caroline's going to walk us through the subdivision component of of this project. We um we did a whole bunch of research on on the history of

183
00:53:54.960 --> 00:54:12.880
this area with a whole lot of help uh from historic staff. And I think it will be helpful for the commission to understand how how this area has developed over time, how some of the recent zoning changes impact uh what can

184
00:54:12.880 --> 00:54:29.920
be developed in this in this area and to to understand what we are actually asking for in terms of the subdivision. Caroline has some uh some exhibits to show, so we we could mark them, but most

185
00:54:29.920 --> 00:54:46.160
of this is either historic maps or zoning maps, um aerial maps. It's things that are generally available. So, um Caroline, if you want to kind of take it away from there and then we could regroup when you finish your piece of it.

186
00:54:46.160 --> 00:55:06.160
>> Sure. Um hold on just one moment. Trying to organize my screen so I can see what I need to see. Um, okay. And let me see. Share. All right. Can everyone Oh, hold on. I had to share. There we go. Can everyone

187
00:55:06.160 --> 00:55:23.280
see my screen? >> Yes, >> it's Yes. >> Okay. >> So, um, so I'm sorry, Carol. Just before we jump into this, let's uh let's mark this. Um yeah, let's let's mark this for the for

188
00:55:23.280 --> 00:55:37.920
the record. I think we're on A1. I don't think we've marked anything previously. >> I think so. >> Yeah. So, and if you don't mind, Caroline, just describing uh each one of

189
00:55:37.920 --> 00:55:53.359
the the exhibits, how many pages it is, >> guys? The date on it. >> This is actually A2. >> This is A2. >> In the May meeting, we had marked the renders as A1. >> Got it. The renderings. Okay. I

190
00:55:53.359 --> 00:56:11.920
apologize. Uh, so A, so A2. Uh, yeah. And again, Caroline, just describe what it is, number of pages, and date on it if there's date. >> Sure. Um, so it is a two-page exhibit uh dated uh July 13th of 2026. Um, the first page

191
00:56:11.920 --> 00:56:30.160
includes historic maps uh versus existing current zoning map um to show the sort of the evolution of the lot structure on this block. And then the second one is a zoning map uh comparing uh zoning in 2023 versus the current

192
00:56:30.160 --> 00:56:48.400
zoning um which was a result of you know the most recent zoning changes that the city has been uh working its way through. >> Great. >> Okay. So I guess I'll start with the first page. Um so again uh you know this

193
00:56:48.400 --> 00:57:04.799
uh project is looking at the subdivision of the existing lot. Um it is sort of an irregular shaped um corner flag lot where you have um a deeper portion off of uh Gford Avenue. Um and then you have

194
00:57:04.799 --> 00:57:19.520
sort of a larger portion here at the corner of Gford and Bergen Avenue. Um, historically you can see um, this is a 1911 Sanborn map. Um, and you can sort of see and it embedded it's I think it's actually outlined in the one directly

195
00:57:19.520 --> 00:57:37.760
adjacent to it as well. Um, it went from one lot here at the corner with that sort of the the rear portion of the flag lot was actually part of a lot over here on Belmont Belmont Avenue. Um at some point in the last 100 years, I'm not

196
00:57:37.760 --> 00:57:53.040
exactly sure when, but uh sometime between uh 1911 and today, um there was some significant changes in the subdivision and development here at the um end of this block. Um you know, where

197
00:57:53.040 --> 00:58:08.720
once upon a time there was a very large um home with probably maybe stables or an outbuilding of some kind in the rear. Um it was subdivided into these smaller homes uh here on um Gford Avenue. Um I believe developed probably sometime in

198
00:58:08.720 --> 00:58:25.520
the 60s so so midcentury. Um and then uh with a large lot here um as well as at the corner um you know this this uh these two lots were sort of subsumed within two lots on either side. Um there

199
00:58:25.520 --> 00:58:41.920
are two larger um apartment buildings here at the corner um uh that did sort of uh utilize those larger lots. Um so that just sort of gives you a little bit of history about um the context of this this lot. Um you know it

200
00:58:41.920 --> 00:58:58.160
was not always one lot as it is in today's um you know configuration. Uh it was part of the changing history of this uh end of the block. Um, moving on to the second page.

201
00:58:58.160 --> 00:59:14.799
Um, this talks about the zoning um, in the surrounding neighborhood. Um, so the brown outline here is the outline of um, the Westber and East Lincoln Park Historic District. So that is that brown outline that uh, snakes through this

202
00:59:14.799 --> 00:59:31.920
sort of section of the page. And as you can see, uh, prior to the reasonzoning change in 2023, um, there were a number of different zoning districts within that, um, uh, his, uh, you know, a historic district. Um, there was, oh, here, I

203
00:59:31.920 --> 00:59:48.559
think this is like around U Bergen, you know, it's the R3, uh, but you had significant, um, sections of R1, R1A, um, and and whatnot. So, so there was some different zones throughout um with the most recent zoning change um here

204
00:59:48.559 --> 01:00:04.799
coming into look at what's here in um 2025. Um there was that zoning change um in the 2021 master plan which recommended the creation of the R1 RH1 and RH2 districts to replace the R1A

205
01:00:04.799 --> 01:00:20.720
district. Um and you can see, you know, that it did replace R1A. Uh but there are sections here that were R1 um that were um also reszoned and placed into the RH2 and RH1 zones um here within uh

206
01:00:20.720 --> 01:00:36.000
the historic district. Um our particular lot that is uh here as part of this application right here is right here at this corner. um throughout this zoning change. Um even with you know all these changes and and

207
01:00:36.000 --> 01:00:53.280
looking at the city looking at how they wanted to address um these zones um this lot did not change zoning. It is and always was in the R3 u between 2023 and today. Um so the zoning itself did not change um as part of this overall master

208
01:00:53.280 --> 01:01:10.480
planning efforts um within the the historic district. >> And uh Caroline um what what's the biggest difference I I'd say from going from the R1 to the RH2 or any of the RH

209
01:01:10.480 --> 01:01:27.599
districts, >> right? You know, obviously um historically R1 was that one and two family homes. Today it's now the R1 is the um neighborhood housing. Um so it's uh not limited to one and two family homes. The RH1 and the R the RH zones

210
01:01:27.599 --> 01:01:43.760
both one and two are really designed to maintain those sort of larger lot um patterns of development in certain areas. Um so RH1 uh residential housing district is specifically large lots. um intent was to preserve the pattern

211
01:01:43.760 --> 01:01:59.680
quality and architectural individuality of existing detach one and two unit structures and discourage subdivision and demolition. Um RH2 which was typical lots was again um to preserve that pattern and to discourage subdivision and demolition.

212
01:01:59.680 --> 01:02:15.920
Um so that was intent of the those two RH zones was to discourage um subdivision um where uh this property is in the R3 zone um which does not have any sort of um prohibition or or um

213
01:02:15.920 --> 01:02:32.400
intent uh to to prevent subdivision. um the R3 multi-unit mid-rise district. Its purpose is to provide for a broad range of multi-unit housing in areas served by Artugo streets, mass transit, neighborhood commercial uses, and

214
01:02:32.400 --> 01:02:48.640
community facilities. The purpose of the zone is to relate the building to the street and not to create the type of development that centers a tower and a sea of parking disconnected from the building and street. um mid multi-unit mid-rise district contains mid-rise buildings of 3 to eight stories and

215
01:02:48.640 --> 01:03:02.720
regulates height and density value lot size. Um so you know a minimum lot width within the R3 zone is 20 ft. There is no minimum lot depth uh but you have a minimum lot area of 2,000 square ft. Um

216
01:03:02.720 --> 01:03:19.520
so that's what the R3 zone uh is intended to uh intended for. And and both of the lots that we're creating here exceed the minimum requirements in terms of lot area, lot width. >> Yeah. Do you want me to pull up the

217
01:03:19.520 --> 01:03:35.119
subdivision plan, Stephen? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. Um, so I don't believe this needs to be marked. It is the subdivision. Um, so, um, again, this, uh, to reorient,

218
01:03:35.119 --> 01:03:50.559
this is Bergen Avenue. This is Gford. Um, so this is sort of the flag portion and this is sort of like the pole that goes um to the the deep uh end. Um, the proposed subdivision essentially uh takes that rear lot line back here and

219
01:03:50.559 --> 01:04:06.079
it just brings it forward to the street. Uh, it creates a lot that is 25 ft wide uh approximately 25 ft wide um with a lot area of 3,215 square ft. Um so that is uh it actually

220
01:04:06.079 --> 01:04:22.079
exceeds the minimum uh standards for the R3 zone. Um and then obviously the larger portion of the lot uh would uh remain um here at the corner that would be 7,290

221
01:04:22.079 --> 01:04:37.039
square ft. Um and that would have looks like they it maintains a width on Bergen Avenue of 73.24 ft. um and would have a a length along Gford Avenue of 96.61

222
01:04:37.039 --> 01:04:54.200
ft. Um so again, it's it it it is exceeding the minimum standards for the R3 zone. Um and was really designed to to site and house uh the existing structure that is there on. >> Right.

223
01:04:55.280 --> 01:05:10.000
And I think that's uh the end of my direct testimony unless Stephen is there anything else that you wanted me to hit on or address or if there's anything >> No, I think I think you I think you hit on that. Um does the does the commission have any questions for Caroline before

224
01:05:10.000 --> 01:05:32.240
we move into Ahmed? >> No. Okay. All right. So, we've uh we've just heard how how this area and this and this lot in particular has kind of developed over time. We've heard how the zoning changed to um protect some of the existing properties from from

225
01:05:32.240 --> 01:05:48.720
subdivision in the area um not within the within the R3 zone within the R1 zones in the surrounding area. I think we'd like to have Ahmed now walk through some of the modifications um that we

226
01:05:48.720 --> 01:06:05.440
made in response to the board's comments on the on the existing building that's there and and talk about how that that fits in. >> I'm happy to share my screen. So, I'm just going to

227
01:06:05.440 --> 01:06:28.000
go ahead and do that. Please let me know once you see it. Believe you see it now. Um so good evening uh commissioners. I uh presented to you this project uh I believe last month and you had a few comments for us and we took those comments went back and

228
01:06:28.000 --> 01:06:44.319
studied the design a little bit more and did uh some more research. I also walked the area a couple of times actually and looked at many of the surrounding buildings. and uh and also met with uh staff, specifically Michael, to talk about this

229
01:06:44.319 --> 01:07:01.440
and uh and what what updates, restoration moves can we make to bring this uh to its as close as possible to what originally was. And um we did we all did look at the photo document last time that uh was floating on the

230
01:07:01.440 --> 01:07:19.599
internet and um we we had that already and looked at it. uh but also went and checked out the um West Bergen East Lincoln um document which is the I want to bring it up. um I'll I'll bring up in

231
01:07:19.599 --> 01:07:35.920
a second which basically it's it's not it's not a it's not a document part of zoning but it also talks about um recommended um ways of restoring buildings and what the area is uh you know what it used to be and what recommendations to would

232
01:07:35.920 --> 01:07:51.760
make to restore buildings or reconstruct. Uh so we looked at all of that and uh one of the things that we decided to do and and I want to talk to you about the drawing first but then we do have a presentation and we would label that I guess A3. Um and I want to

233
01:07:51.760 --> 01:08:07.839
talk to you about a few things and then I'll go into detail about what we did exactly. Uh the first thing we did was we re um designed basically all the windows here to go as again as closely as possible to what it was originally was based on photographic evidence but

234
01:08:07.839 --> 01:08:24.880
also the study into colonial revival style in the late 20th century. And then we also looked at the door and what the door was and what we think um uh you know would bring it back to what originally was. And we looked at that

235
01:08:24.880 --> 01:08:41.359
too and I'll show that uh uh design in a few minutes. And then the third thing we did was also look at all the lighting around the property. There was a comment made about that about you know don't put too much lighting on historic buildings and and we agree um

236
01:08:41.359 --> 01:08:58.640
and we studied what we could do to meet the egress requirements but also don't add too many lights too many anything honestly on the building. So keep it as preserved as possible. So those were three main elements we discussed and I'm going to u ask that we uh look at this

237
01:08:58.640 --> 01:09:14.159
uh presentation that we prepared just to show some of the um uh work that we did here and and this would be A3 Stephen Maggie I don't know if you're the one >> can you just uh just say how many pages pages it is presented

238
01:09:14.159 --> 01:09:29.040
>> it's it's uh 12 pages >> 12 pages and this is a presentation set uh made up mostly of of information that's already within your plans. >> Correct. Yes. With with some information from East uh um the West Bergen East

239
01:09:29.040 --> 01:09:45.040
Lincoln document and also um uh a couple of images uh that we uh were able to find for the building itself. Um, so going through this and I'll try to be uh precise and and u and short with this so

240
01:09:45.040 --> 01:10:02.480
I don't take too much time because I know we discussed this before but I want to do I do want to focus on the changes and why they were made. The first change I discussed with the windows and I'm going to go down to the slide here um with the windows and the windows what we found in um in the in the picture were

241
01:10:02.480 --> 01:10:18.719
the uh six over a large pane of glass. And there's three types or four types that you could look at which is the 6 over 6, the 8 over 8, and then the the six over a pane of glass. And that's something that we discussed with also staff. And we believe that this was the

242
01:10:18.719 --> 01:10:33.760
closest to what the house once looked like. Uh even though in this image, and if I can just click on this so I can zoom in a little bit. In this image, you'll see that they have it here, here, but not on top. And we don't believe that these were the original windows on

243
01:10:33.760 --> 01:10:50.480
top, but these were probably very close, if not the original windows on the house. So, that being said, this is just a blowup of what that is. Uh it breaks it up exactly. Uh and then that you know the idea that new windows must match the historic windows in terms of

244
01:10:50.480 --> 01:11:07.360
configuration, operation, detail, material and finish. So it would they would be wood. They would be white as um uh the image shows. But also historically speaking colonial revival most of the windows on on a on a bu building like this would have been

245
01:11:07.360 --> 01:11:24.159
white. Uh they're wood windows. Um also no uh tracks in the in the glass. So, you know, the thinner basically sashes I should say, not the wider ones that are more modern right now. And um this this is sort of the drawing that we take out

246
01:11:24.159 --> 01:11:40.400
of this document. This is the image and this is the final um elevation with the windows here. Uh next step was the door and again we went down the the same sort of uh route

247
01:11:40.400 --> 01:11:55.040
of of research and looked at many different types of doors from the colon revival era and the ones that made the most sense also looking at the image and we believe along with um

248
01:11:55.040 --> 01:12:11.199
uh staff that this door in this image was not the original door. Um, so we went back and again um discussed what would be the closest to what originally was. And we have some photo ev photo u

249
01:12:11.199 --> 01:12:27.440
examples here of what we think it was. One full pane of glass on top that's broken into uh sections here, but it's one there's no there's no corner, you know, here is going up and there's no like the verticals did not cut the horizontal. The horizontal was on top

250
01:12:27.440 --> 01:12:42.400
and then the two verticals on the sides. Um this again is the moment here and then this is a blow up of what we did with the window uh with the door I'm sorry. We would basically go back to this transom idea that is one horizontal

251
01:12:42.400 --> 01:12:58.800
the two verticals on the side um aside outside of the jam would also be broken up. The wi the door itself would have uh wood panel the wood itself in the door would be inside. These would not be painted on or added on to it. Um, and

252
01:12:58.800 --> 01:13:16.080
then two pieces of glass uh on top as well. The this style we believe was the closest to what was there. Uh, the threshold is not a thicker one as the newer one would show. Uh, and there's no change in color at the bottom. So, we

253
01:13:16.080 --> 01:13:33.199
would want to use the same material at the bottom as well. Um, these this was the second change that we had uh looked at, discussed, and did a bunch of research to arrive at this. Um, I do want to I do want to mention what was mentioned what was written in the

254
01:13:33.199 --> 01:13:51.040
in this uh uh in the uh Westber and East Lincoln Park historic district which is the replacement doors should match the original design, size, proportion, material, color, texture, profile and configuration. And this is exactly what we attempt to do uh with using the

255
01:13:51.040 --> 01:14:07.760
historic uh photographs that we were able to find. Then also studying this era as u recommended by staff. Uh the third thing that we did was the were the uh lights and I want to share the um

256
01:14:07.760 --> 01:14:23.840
civil drawings that were also updated to reflect this so we can show uh the changes. Uh previously we had two lights in the front above the stair, two lights in the front here to illuminate this and two lights here. two lights here and

257
01:14:23.840 --> 01:14:39.520
then this light, this light and two lights along this and two lights in the back. What we've done is we've actually eliminated the light along this facade completely just to orient everybody. This is Gford Bergen. So along Gford, which is the main entrance of the the

258
01:14:39.520 --> 01:14:56.719
house, we don't have any lights on this wall anymore. This light is actually lower by the stair and it's going to shine towards the stair. So we that's one way to resolve this egress line here. This here we basically looked at

259
01:14:56.719 --> 01:15:11.840
if you're coming out and wrapping to the exterior soon as you get here there's also street lights. Uh so this light is sufficient on this side instead of two here we're able to get one which is also going to be sufficient. One under the

260
01:15:11.840 --> 01:15:29.520
stair one along this wall and one in the back uh facing Bergen. Uh on the other side we have also just one where the entrance of the back of the building is and one where the stair is and I want to show you this also on the elevations. So

261
01:15:29.520 --> 01:15:47.120
it is clear what I am describing. There is nothing on this facade anymore. the one it's here. And while there was an existing um currently existing light, but the current existing light is not a is not the historic fixture that was

262
01:15:47.120 --> 01:16:03.040
there and it doesn't resemble it. And in discussions with staff also, we did mention that we would want to uh we would use a simpler light that sort of just disappears on the facade, that white color um and small enough so it does not bring attention to itself. And

263
01:16:03.040 --> 01:16:18.080
so this is the one we're talking about here. Again, no lights on this side, one on this elevation here. So on this basically the front facade, there's only one that's behind the rails here and one along this.

264
01:16:18.080 --> 01:16:37.360
I want to go down to this is the thing. And then on this elevation again, there's the one here by the stairs and one along this which lights up around this door also. on the stairs here. Um, and then

265
01:16:37.360 --> 01:17:03.600
the other side, the east elevation is one here and then one here where we have the bottom stair here that's below grade. And finally, the um Oh, this this is the rear. Yes, the rear

266
01:17:03.600 --> 01:17:21.040
elevation is the one here by the No, yeah, the real elevation here by the west side. Uh the the the east side, I'm sorry, is here by the stairs that's at the bottom. So those those were the changes to the um elevations that we did. Um as discussed last time, the

267
01:17:21.040 --> 01:17:36.880
brick is uh repaired as needed and only as needed. The um windows would be replaced in the same exact rough openings. We would not be changing these openings. Lights have been eliminated. The door um most of the lights I should say been

268
01:17:36.880 --> 01:17:53.280
eliminated. The door uh proposed now is a door that we believe fits the uh the style of the house and also the era in which it was uh originally built. Um and then the uh final thing was the uh uh

269
01:17:53.280 --> 01:18:11.120
the there was a question about the the graffiti or the mural that's on this side that would be uh removed. Um those are the changes that we uh done based on uh the basically our our research and

270
01:18:11.120 --> 01:18:41.280
the uh historic im image that we were able to find. I'm happy to take any questions. Anyone? Guys are making me nervous. No questions. >> Any commission? >> Okay.

271
01:18:41.280 --> 01:19:03.199
>> Question. >> All right. And I I think that concludes our uh our direct testimony here. Um I I think you heard from Carolyn. um about the subdivision. There's no variances. It's not in a a zone that's

272
01:19:03.199 --> 01:19:20.560
designed to prevent subdivisions and the lots will be more than conforming or oversized. In fact, um and did quite a bit of of research into the history of the property on that and uh Ahmed and Michael did a a ton of research on what

273
01:19:20.560 --> 01:19:34.880
would be appropriate in terms of door and the windows and work together on the lighting. And I I think we've refined this together uh over the last several several months. So that that does

274
01:19:34.880 --> 01:19:54.239
conclude our direct presentation here. >> Thank you. Uh if that concludes then we will move into uh public comment. >> If there are any members of the public >> move into public comment. >> I think you're behind me for a minute,

275
01:19:54.239 --> 01:20:12.320
Maggie. As always, it evening. All right. If there are any members of the public who are present who would like to speak regarding this application, uh, please use the raise hand function at the bottom of your screen. If you are calling in on the phone, you can use

276
01:20:12.320 --> 01:20:29.840
star 9. I do see some hands raised. So, um, Ahmed, if you wouldn't mind removing your screen share, >> I'll just quickly review um just the how we handle public comment. Um, so we will

277
01:20:29.840 --> 01:20:47.199
promote you to panelist. We will swear you in. Um, and then you will get five minutes to address the commission. I will um let you know when you have one minute remaining and then at the end of your five minutes you may finish the

278
01:20:47.199 --> 01:21:03.440
sentence that you are on and then um we do cut you off. Um all questions that you have should be addressed to our board chair. Um staff so myself and Michael will be writing down all of these questions. Um these can be questions for staff. These can be

279
01:21:03.440 --> 01:21:18.880
questions for um the professionals who provided testimony this evening. Um but we will write all of them down and we will go through them at the end of public comment. We will not answer them in real time. We will go through them dur uh once we close public comment. Um

280
01:21:18.880 --> 01:21:34.560
so that being said, staff sees seven hands raised. So why don't we make a motion to open public comment? >> I'll make the motion to open public comment. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? Hi. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> Okay. Um Charlene, I see your hand

281
01:21:34.560 --> 01:21:52.560
raised first, so I'm going to promote you. >> Right. One more note as well. Um you will have to accept the promotion to panelist um when we reach you for public comment. All right, Charlene, let us know when

282
01:21:52.560 --> 01:22:13.920
you can um see yourself, unmute yourself, things like that. Okay. Um, Maggie, I had emailed a map that I asked would be >> Charlene. Can you >> There we go.

283
01:22:13.920 --> 01:22:28.960
>> I I need to swear you in, please. >> Oh, sure. >> Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear affirm the testimony about to give this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you, God? >> Yes. >> Thank you. You can lower your hand. Please state your name, spell it, and provide your address.

284
01:22:28.960 --> 01:22:49.040
Charlene Burke, C H A R L E N E B U R K E 56 Duncan Avenue. Okay. Staff notes. Um Charlene had provided a map to be used and shared during public comment this evening. Um,

285
01:22:49.040 --> 01:23:05.760
we are going to mark this map as B1 and the title of this map is 1919 GM Hopkins Atlas 46 Gford A. >> I can >> I'm going to share that on my screen once we confirm that everyone can see

286
01:23:05.760 --> 01:23:23.800
it. Charlene, I'll start your time. Is that acceptable? >> Yes, of course. >> Great. Just probably going to take me a minute to share my screen. >> Take your time. I >> I could share I could share mine, Maggie, and then >> let's let's uh

287
01:23:24.400 --> 01:23:43.440
Yeah, Michael, actually, I think you're gonna have to because >> I have I have it up, so we're good. >> Thank you. >> No problem. Uh can everyone see it? >> Good. >> Right. And can you just focus on that the the lot that is the one we're

288
01:23:43.440 --> 01:24:01.520
discussing? >> That is the best that I can. >> The pink, right? The pink one on the corner. Thank you very much. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay, Charlene. Your time begins now. >> Okay. Good evening, commissioners, and thank you. Um, the introduction to the

289
01:24:01.520 --> 01:24:18.320
official design guidelines for the Westber and East Lincoln Park Historic District overlay describes the district as quote having a distinguished architectural character and represents important aspects of the social history

290
01:24:18.320 --> 01:24:34.719
of Jersey City. As a whole, the historic district maintains a high degree of integrity of setting and design since the spatial relationships among the individual buildings, streetscapes, and layout of the streets have been

291
01:24:34.719 --> 01:24:50.480
maintained." unquote. The historic district guidelines explicitly address landscaping because the district consists predominantly of freestanding homes with prominent front yards and yards that

292
01:24:50.480 --> 01:25:07.360
and yards are viewed as a core component of the district's historic streetscape character corresponding to the early 1660s Dutch colonial pattern of landholding. These large, deep residential parcels allowed for

293
01:25:07.360 --> 01:25:24.080
expansive historic houses and accompanying landscaping that define the upscale street scar street car suburb. They consistently exceed Jersey City's standard 25 by 100 property footprint.

294
01:25:24.080 --> 01:25:39.600
Six Gford Avenue is a contributing historic resource to this district. It is defined in the historic district guidelines glossery as a building structure or object that adds to the historical integrity or architectural

295
01:25:39.600 --> 01:25:55.920
qualities that make this historic district sign significant. The building faces Gford and has a frontage of 121 ft confirmed by the 1919 platbook of Jersey City. This setting is integral to

296
01:25:55.920 --> 01:26:12.800
the historic structure and removing the sideyard with a subdivision negatively impacts the integrity of the individual resource and the district's character. I would urge the commissioners to deny the subdivision. The historic district

297
01:26:12.800 --> 01:26:28.560
overlay explicitly protects against subdivision of an original historic resource listed as contributing through protection. Sorry, my cat's involved here. Uh, contributing through protection means

298
01:26:28.560 --> 01:26:45.600
mandating a strict review process by you, the commissioners. Under Jersey City's Land Development Ordinance and the rules of the Historic Preservation Commission, a contributing historic resource receives maximum legal

299
01:26:45.600 --> 01:27:01.280
safeguards. The overlay protects more than just the physical walls of a house. It protects it actively protects the historic lot pattern and the spatial context for a contributing property. The plot

300
01:27:01.280 --> 01:27:17.520
boundaries, the lawns, the setbacks are legally viewed as part of the overall historic asset. To divide a lot containing a contributing resource, you must act with a strong presumption against actions that compromise the

301
01:27:17.520 --> 01:27:34.960
historic integrity by asking these questions. Does cutting up the lot alter the original context or architectural setting of the main building? Does the subdivision trigger an encroachment or pave the way for a visually intrusive

302
01:27:34.960 --> 01:27:52.639
modern infill? And lastly, Secretary of Interior's standard guidelines dictate that disting distinguishing original quality qualities, landscape, layout, and overall environment of a contributing

303
01:27:52.639 --> 01:28:06.880
structure structure must not be destroyed. That is why this subdivision should be denied. Thank you. I'm sorry, my cat was getting involved in the the enthusiasm of my commentary,

304
01:28:06.880 --> 01:28:21.679
but you can see based upon this lot that yes, that little flag was not included originally, but that frontage, that 121 ft was there when the house was built

305
01:28:21.679 --> 01:28:37.840
1915. This is a 1919 map. So, please understand that that context is very important to our historic district and our overlay. Certainly, as far as all of us who were involved in getting that overlay

306
01:28:37.840 --> 01:28:57.120
installed, we're believing that this was going to prevent actions like this. Thank you. >> Thanks, Charlene. >> Okay. Michael, if you want to pull back the

307
01:28:57.120 --> 01:29:42.639
screen share. All right. The next hand I see raised is Colin. Colin, I'm going to go ahead and promote you. and column hair. Perfect. There you go. All right, we'll swear you in raising my right hand.

308
01:29:42.639 --> 01:29:56.880
>> Do you swear affirm the testimony about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you God? >> I do. >> Thank you. Please state your name, spell your name, and provide your address. >> It's Colin Egan. That's c o l i n. Last

309
01:29:56.880 --> 01:30:13.760
name eaggan e v an at 35 Sherman Place in Jersey City. >> Thank you. >> All right, Colin, your t time starts now. >> Um, I want to thank the architect for uh the revisions to the renovate to the work of the renovating the existing

310
01:30:13.760 --> 01:30:30.800
house. Um, I would add a couple quick explanations. The reason that the photos they have don't show um the multi-light upper sash windows in the dormer is because the dormer was not original to the house. It was added by the Bergen School as far as I know when they bought

311
01:30:30.800 --> 01:30:48.400
it around 1960. I have found several other photos which I'll share with the office that just confirmed the multi-light upper sash on all the original windows on all sides. And I guess that's just one thing I wanted to clarify that that was being done on all s all sides or all elevations because

312
01:30:48.400 --> 01:31:03.600
the drawing we saw tonight was just just uh one. I'm assuming it is. I just wanted to double check about that. Um, and the um I wanted to mention if it would be nice if when they're doing the renovation on

313
01:31:03.600 --> 01:31:19.360
the inside of the building if they check to see if a couple of the I believe there were at least two original fireplace mantles still exist and perhaps they could be uh preserved. But generally speaking, I thank them very much for the attention they paid to our concerns and that the commission had

314
01:31:19.360 --> 01:31:34.880
last uh last week. As to uh the subdivision, really not much more I think anyone needs to say other than what Charlene said. If you look at the 1919 map, that open space, the most of it, certainly the part fronting off of

315
01:31:34.880 --> 01:31:50.800
Gford was there. It was there as part of the design of the original the original design of the house and it's been how the house has been seen and affected or or set the set a look to the neighborhood ever since. Um, I

316
01:31:50.800 --> 01:32:07.600
understand about R3, but that's what I thought the historic district was intended to address. If this was R3 elsewhere, I think they might have an argument. It's R3 in a historic district overlay. If the overlay doesn't then make you look back and at the

317
01:32:07.600 --> 01:32:22.719
requirements of the historic district which is Charlene said is to maintain the existing historic open spaces and the relationship of historic structures to other structures and to open space. I don't know what the purpose of the

318
01:32:22.719 --> 01:32:40.159
overlay is. If you build a large the building that's proposed on that lot, you're going to fundamentally change the view plane for that h that the house is seen by, you're going to wind up putting a large blank wall overbearing it all along behind, if you will, that building

319
01:32:40.159 --> 01:32:57.840
from Bergen Avenue. Um, I got out my coloring, my crayons, and colored in the open line drawings that the developer provided of his building. And if you do that, you see you've got quite a scale. and massing going on behind this historic structure. It's not original

320
01:32:57.840 --> 01:33:16.159
and I just I can't see how that is acceptable in the historic district and um that's all I have to say. Thank you. >> Thank you, Colin. >> Okay, the let's see, next hand I see raised is Chris. Chris, I'm going to go ahead and

321
01:33:16.159 --> 01:33:40.480
promote you. And Chris, just let us know when you're able to unmute. >> Hello. >> So we can swear you in. >> Please raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm the testimony about given this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help me be God. >> I do.

322
01:33:40.480 --> 01:33:54.960
>> Thank you. If you state your name, please spell your name and provide your address. >> Sure. It's Christopher Pettis. P E R E Z 185 Carter Red Avenue. >> All right, Chris, your time begins now.

323
01:33:54.960 --> 01:34:12.080
>> I'll be short and sweet. Um, so one of the questions that I had uh was with regard to the windows. Um, I appreciate uh the the project team working to dig into the history and try to find the

324
01:34:12.080 --> 01:34:28.560
best um references to uh bring this property back to its uh original state. Um, but the I was a little confused about the windows and what kind of windows we're using. Are they going to be wood? Um, are they going to be single

325
01:34:28.560 --> 01:34:44.560
pane with the mountains over the glass? Are they going to be true divided lights? I'd like to learn a little bit more about the windows. I was also a little concerned about the roof ballastrade design. I'm wondering if that is exactly what it should look

326
01:34:44.560 --> 01:35:00.320
like. Um, and if staff or the commission had any thoughts about that. Um, it just seems a little m I don't know what something seems a little off there. Um, so I wanted to bring some attention there. Um, and then finally, the most

327
01:35:00.320 --> 01:35:15.600
concerning part, uh, is the subdivision. Um, as Charlene, uh, expressed far better than I could this evening. Um, one of the key, uh, characteristics of, uh, historic property is setting. And

328
01:35:15.600 --> 01:35:32.400
this property was built on a lot, um, that is very close to the lot dimensions that we see today. Uh it has been altered slightly in the back uh northwest corner um which is not original. It was extended uh as uh the

329
01:35:32.400 --> 01:35:47.440
expert had explained earlier but the frontage is the same and by subdividing this lot and then putting a site so close to the historic asset it's going to disrupt the sight lines um of the of

330
01:35:47.440 --> 01:36:05.120
the property. Uh so I urged the commission to not approve the subdivision because I think it comes at great consequence um to the setting of the site. And that's all I have. Thank you. >> Thanks Chris.

331
01:36:05.120 --> 01:36:45.520
Okay, the next hand I see raised is Sharon. I will promote you. And again, once you're able to join and unmute yourself. Hello. Uh, do I need to swear in again?

332
01:36:46.480 --> 01:37:03.760
I think so. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony about given this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So, if you got >> Yes. Thank you. You don't have to restate your address. I have it from before. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh so, I was at the Sorry, I was

333
01:37:03.760 --> 01:37:20.480
at the uh June meeting uh regarding this application and the rest that night as well. And um I have to say um that from what I see with the treatment of the doors and the windows and the

334
01:37:20.480 --> 01:37:38.320
lighting being looked at closer and from a more historic lens, I was pleased to see those changes. I do agree with Chris Perez that um those uh materials could be further um you know elaborated upon and discussed um

335
01:37:38.320 --> 01:37:53.360
just so we know what's what what exactly is happening there. Um, but I also wanted to say that right after the meeting last month, I was so inspired by this application that I walked up there with my husband and um, just to feel the space because, you know, it's so

336
01:37:53.360 --> 01:38:09.840
different from Google and one thing that I noticed is there are these beautiful tiles on the exterior on the um, chimney and um, they are so beautiful that I'm very concerned that with a subdivision

337
01:38:09.840 --> 01:38:25.679
and a property that would be right on the property line that those sight lines will be completely gone and that um some of what contributed to making this a contributing property to the HD 11 years ago when the HD was created um will be

338
01:38:25.679 --> 01:38:41.760
diminished or um basically made invisible. So we don't we don't want our history invisible whether it's cultural or architectural and that is concerning. Um, the other thing that I noticed is that um, there are some 1950s

339
01:38:41.760 --> 01:38:57.360
apartments, you know, down Gford and there are also some uh, very large apartments that were added um, at some point in between the, you know, when this building was created in 1911 or 1915 and 1950s.

340
01:38:57.360 --> 01:39:13.520
And the subdivision, you know, it is hard to talk about this application when there's a co-lication for subdivision. Um, and basically with what's proposed as part of the subdivision application, it would create a wall. And I I think

341
01:39:13.520 --> 01:39:29.679
that's what Colin was referring to if I'm not mistaken. But it would basically be isolating this property within the HD and sort of its own island walled off from the rest of the HD where it makes less visual and cultural sense and architectural sense. And it would be on

342
01:39:29.679 --> 01:39:45.760
an island with the white Victorian across the street from it on Bergen. So that is a concern. I also wanted to ask if there have been any meetings with the neighborhood groups in this area because I am part of a neighborhood group, the

343
01:39:45.760 --> 01:40:01.920
Mcinley Square Community Board and we basically started 3 years ago because there was no neighborhood group in this pocket um where I live and there's always a need for more discussions with community and community voice. Um, I

344
01:40:01.920 --> 01:40:17.119
also wanted to um talk about um some of the testimony that was provided by the planner was along the lines of at some point many decades ago there was a partial subdivision of what the original law

345
01:40:17.119 --> 01:40:33.280
encompassed. Um almost like suggesting that implicitly perhaps that it's been done before and it could be done now and that would be appropriate. However, it's important to note that there was no historic district yet at that point. So,

346
01:40:33.280 --> 01:40:50.639
and there is now. There is today. So, I think that that's um a really critical piece to take note of. In the the prior application, it was mentioned that X, Y, and Z would be permittable um or allowable if it wasn't a HD, but it was an HD. And again, here it's saying that

347
01:40:50.639 --> 01:41:06.960
subdivisions were allowed before an HD. And um that was before the HD. It is now in fact an HD. Um, let's see what else. Um, the subdivision affects what was deemed

348
01:41:06.960 --> 01:41:26.320
historically relevant and defining and valuable and what made this a contributing property. And furthermore, um, I also think that, you know, the interior um, building more housing into the area is valuable. And so the

349
01:41:26.320 --> 01:41:42.800
creating seven units inside the interior is um a a a thoughtful move. And if not subdivided, the people, the seven families or seven households that move into this property once it's, you know, thoughtfully restored would probably

350
01:41:42.800 --> 01:42:00.560
really appreciate having that extra green space and a shared communal space outdoors. um similar to what is expressed throughout the rest of the architectural district. Thank you. >> Thank you, Sharon. Okay, the next hand I

351
01:42:00.560 --> 01:42:33.199
see raised is Esther. I'm going to promote you as a panelist. Okay, I'm here. Do you see me? >> All right, Esther, let's get you in. >> Uh, please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony about this

352
01:42:33.199 --> 01:42:47.920
proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth help you. God, >> I do. >> Can you please state your name, spell your name, and provide your business? I'm sorry. Provide your address. >> My name is Esther Whitner. E S T H E R

353
01:42:47.920 --> 01:43:06.400
last name W I N T N E R 91 Bentley Avenue in Jersey City. >> Okay, Esther, your time begins now. >> Um good evening, commissioners. Thank you for um for your meeting. Um, I am a

354
01:43:06.400 --> 01:43:24.080
resident of the Lincoln Park Historic District and I would like to say that when the historic district was being implemented in our community, it nearly ripped this community apart. And, you know, for those who didn't want

355
01:43:24.080 --> 01:43:41.760
it and those that wanted it, it was a very difficult um exercise. However, it has been years since it's gone, since it's happened. And I think the residents of the community understand the importance of that. And um

356
01:43:41.760 --> 01:43:58.080
we've we've come to really understand what that means to our community when we see all this big development and big development, small development, all these things going on around us. And there's something that I believe that we feel living in an historic district and that's the feeling of safety. We feel

357
01:43:58.080 --> 01:44:14.719
that our that our neighborhood is safe, that we will not be impacted in the same way that we see the things going on around us. And then to hear that this is, you know, a possibility on the table

358
01:44:14.719 --> 01:44:32.000
that this property could be peeled off of the house. Um, so that a structure that sounds like it will be out of scale with the neighborhood out to the the sidewalk. And I apologize, I'm not as technically savvy about all

359
01:44:32.000 --> 01:44:47.679
these things that maybe some of the other speakers are or the commission. Um, but I know what I see and I know what I feel and I just think that that's so wrong. Leaving that space open allows us to appre I know that building. I've known that building for years. There was

360
01:44:47.679 --> 01:45:03.760
a nursery school there. And having that space there allows It's one of those corner spots where you drive by and it it tells you you're home and it tells you you're safe. And I don't want to see this happen. It's happen all over the

361
01:45:03.760 --> 01:45:18.560
city. We want to keep our neighborhoods safe. We want to keep our historic district the way it was intended after all that was said and done. And you know the basic question is what's the point of having an historic district if

362
01:45:18.560 --> 01:45:34.080
someone can come in and just say I'd like to do this and we hand it over. And so I feel very opposed to this and I hope the commissioners understand how we as residents of the community feel, how we feel about our neighborhood, how we

363
01:45:34.080 --> 01:45:49.280
feel about our historic district, how we feel about this particular project. and we'd like to stay safe and we hope that you as stewards of our community will help us to feel that way. Thank you.

364
01:45:49.280 --> 01:46:22.960
>> Thank you. Okay, the next hand I see raised is labeled Wolf M4 Pro. So, I'm going to promote you to panelist. Sorry about the designation. >> It's okay. Go ahead and swear again.

365
01:46:22.960 --> 01:46:39.280
>> Sir, please state your name for the record. >> My name is Scott Franklin. >> Please raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm the testimony about to give in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to help you God. >> I so affirm. >> Thank you sir. If you can uh lower your hand, spell your name and provide your

366
01:46:39.280 --> 01:47:00.560
address. >> Scott Franklin. S O T T Franklin. F R A N K L I N. I live at 18 Gford Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey. 07304-904. Okay, your time begins now.

367
01:47:00.560 --> 01:47:15.920
>> Thank you. Um, I find it interesting that except for a casual conversation with one of my neighbors, I did not know about this. And this lot has been a

368
01:47:15.920 --> 01:47:34.239
roughly four doors down from me for 25 years. and I did not know that uh a lot of this was happening. So uh I was curious about the outreach because I don't recall seeing anything in the mail or anything like that. Second portions

369
01:47:34.239 --> 01:47:57.119
uh I understand and I'm minus a lot of detail so pardon me for being ignorant here. Uh they want to make two buildings in this lot. Anybody? Two buildings. Um wow.

370
01:47:57.119 --> 01:48:14.000
Uh not very happy with that idea. I actually like the look of the building and I'm accustomed to it. I live here and I pass it by pretty much every day. I like the open space that it offers. I do not like the uh portable housing they

371
01:48:14.000 --> 01:48:30.480
stuck back there, but I assume that that's a temporary issue after many decades. Um, and I'm curious as to what the texture of the housing will be. I understand that they want to internally make seven units there. I

372
01:48:30.480 --> 01:48:48.880
also heard some sort of I don't want to use the word insanity. uh they want to put another building right next door to it, which is what I'm gathering from my neighbors and from this conversation. Uh I do apologize for not being part of it earlier. Um are we

373
01:48:48.880 --> 01:49:06.960
talking about things that are open to Airbnb uh things like that or are we talking strictly family homes? That's the end of the conversation, which is something I would prefer. Um any special taxation on it one way or the other? Um, and

374
01:49:06.960 --> 01:49:25.679
my question is concerning my existing ignorance. Uh, how do I get more information as this has been in process for months if not years? Uh, I'm curious to this Ms. Burke and Miss Mr. Egan,

375
01:49:25.679 --> 01:49:41.600
I'm sure, can offer information um if I contact them, but what does the city have available to it? And these are essentially the questions I have going forward on this piece of property. I'm uh I'm a little stranged out about

376
01:49:41.600 --> 01:49:57.920
it. I thought that if nothing else, they were simply going to renovate it, bring it back into compliance and code, and that was the end of it, but I'm told that's not the case. Those are the most of my commentary right there.

377
01:49:57.920 --> 01:50:13.920
>> Okay, great. Just as a reminder, we answer all of the questions at the end of public comment. So, if you have any more questions, I know you said this is most of your questions. If you have any more, >> you have another two minutes. >> I anticipate that somebody's going to bring up something. I go, "Oh, yeah. I

378
01:50:13.920 --> 01:50:30.960
never even thought of that." >> Okay. So, we do hold public comment once during the application unless it goes further more. Um so we will do a >> yes this sub this subdivision is is is concerning me greatly among other

379
01:50:30.960 --> 01:50:45.520
things. >> Okay great. So the okay anything built the there's two applications for this. So if the there are questions about what's built on the subdivision and we review that this evening um we get to that application that will also public comment. So >> that would be nice to know and whether

380
01:50:45.520 --> 01:51:00.400
it's the the same developer etc etc. >> Yeah. So, what I'm saying is there will be a second that some of those subdivision questions can also be addressed on that public comment. >> Understood. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. All right. The next hand I see raised is

381
01:51:00.400 --> 01:51:33.520
Ryan. I'm going to promote you, Ryan. Hello everyone. Are you able to hear me? Okay. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Perfect. >> Please raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. >> I do.

382
01:51:33.520 --> 01:51:48.480
>> Thank you, sir. If you state your full name, spell it, and provide your address. >> My name is Ryan Vidiello. Uh, R Y A N V I T I E D L O. My address is 20 Gford Avenue.

383
01:51:48.480 --> 01:52:04.159
>> Okay, Ryan, your time begins now. >> Okay. I spent earlier today walking around the neighborhood and I also looked over the plans for this planned subdivision. And

384
01:52:04.159 --> 01:52:20.719
the thing I noticed walking throughout the neighborhood is every building, regardless of size or age, seems to take into context the lot it's on, as well as its neighbors. And the house on the corner is listed in the

385
01:52:20.719 --> 01:52:35.599
application to become a historic district as a key contributing property. Today you guys showed historic maps that also showed the frontage of the lot on which this property is placed as part of

386
01:52:35.599 --> 01:52:52.880
the original lot. Even though the lot has added a little flag section on the back, overall the frontage has not changed on this property. The property is following a consistent historic characteristic of this neighborhood of being plopped in

387
01:52:52.880 --> 01:53:10.080
the center of the lot with a grand lawn around it. Now, have there been newer buildings developed over the years? Yes, there are. But when those buildings were built, even if they appear to be lot line to lot line along the frontage of

388
01:53:10.080 --> 01:53:25.920
the property, all of them pull back after the first 10 to 20 ft on the lot about 10 ft. And all of the smaller houses maintain a fairly large way between them so that

389
01:53:25.920 --> 01:53:42.639
your neighbors on neighboring lots maintain that context on the lot. Everyone is centered on the lot. Everyone has space around it. By cutting this section of the lot off is kind of ignoring that historic

390
01:53:42.639 --> 01:53:58.800
context. It's ignoring that the placement on the lot matters and it's ignoring that how you relate to the rest of the neighborhood matters too. Even though that house is in a district that is zoned for higher construction, that's

391
01:53:58.800 --> 01:54:17.520
not extra land. That's not space. that was just needlessly tacked on to the property. It's part of the character of the property. I have photos from the vantage point that would be completely cut off that have a beautiful view of

392
01:54:17.520 --> 01:54:32.400
the World Trade Center lights lining up with the chimney that's going to be permanently blocked if this property is subdivided. And that's one of the things that you see and get used to in a neighborhood that has historic character. And there's little moments

393
01:54:32.400 --> 01:54:49.360
like that that you're kind of ignoring. As other people have mentioned, this is previously a a prek facility daycare. And people in this neighborhood when I was out looking around today made comments of their

394
01:54:49.360 --> 01:55:05.119
memories of kids playing there because that is part of the historic fabric of the neighborhood. So, I am glad to see there's action happening on this property and I would love to see the original properly

395
01:55:05.119 --> 01:55:23.119
restored and return to service in the city and return to housing for people that need it. But I think that needs to be balanced with considering the fact that this is a historic district with a historic property in one of the more prominent locations right at the corner.

396
01:55:23.119 --> 01:55:40.000
and they basically want to split this property off and build a wall completely separating it from the the rest of the neighborhood, ignoring the context on the lot on which it's placed and severing it from the rest of the street. That's to say nothing of ignoring your

397
01:55:40.000 --> 01:55:57.280
neighbors. Um, the plans that I saw slams the new lot so narrow that anything built on that is going to push right up against neighboring properties. And my neighbors don't deserve to be buried in shadows

398
01:55:57.280 --> 01:56:13.040
because you crammed a lot in where it wasn't meant to be. Um, I also have some questions. Uh, I've seen the plans and a lot of renderings on the exterior of the building. Um, but my understanding is it's historically

399
01:56:13.040 --> 01:56:28.639
listed inside and out. I would love to see photographs of the condition of the inside of the property and as other people have mentioned, there may be historic mantels and historic elements inside as well as out. And I would like to see care given to that as well to

400
01:56:28.639 --> 01:56:48.639
make sure that even if it's divided up into other units, there's care taken within the property as well as the outside and as well as the placement on the lot. Okay, great. Does that some uh end your

401
01:56:48.639 --> 01:57:27.280
public comment? >> Yeah. >> Okay, great. Thanks, Ryan. All right. The next hand I see raised is labeled as neighbor. I'm going to go ahead and promote you. Hello. >> I'm sorry, sir. Please state your name

402
01:57:27.280 --> 01:57:43.760
for the record. >> My name is Leroy Lindsay. >> Uh, raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm the testimony about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, help you God. >> I do. >> Okay. Please uh spell your spell your full name and provide your address,

403
01:57:43.760 --> 01:57:58.639
please. My name is Leroy Lindsay. L E R O Y L I N D S A Y. I live in 12 Gford Avenue. I am neighbor to the property immediate

404
01:57:58.639 --> 01:58:13.760
adjacent. >> Okay, your time begins now. >> Hello all. And uh I'd first like to really thank our neighbors uh this neighborhood uh that and the people that

405
01:58:13.760 --> 01:58:29.040
care so much about this space, this place uh and the ones that informed us that this was happening. Uh we did not get any sort of notification. Uh when I b when I purchased this property,

406
01:58:29.040 --> 01:58:44.719
I had previously rented in this area and had always loved the historic district uh for exactly what you've heard, the character, the ways in which it did not feel like other aspects or other parts

407
01:58:44.719 --> 01:59:02.800
of the city. I chose to purchase here uh to raise my son here for exactly those reasons that he would have a place that felt like home that he places and people he would know uh and also you know we purchased this particular lot uh because

408
01:59:02.800 --> 01:59:19.040
I I wanted to have space uh space to see to park uh and to enjoy just the history and the characteristics of the buildings that

409
01:59:19.040 --> 01:59:37.199
that are here. Uh I'm here today because I am concerned as well. Uh one of the reasons that I purchased uh this particular uh piece of property was I did actually appreciate uh the space in between my home and what is six Gford.

410
01:59:37.199 --> 01:59:52.800
Uh while I have been anxiously awaiting its restoration, um I have also become aware of the request to subdivide it and potentially add another structure

411
01:59:52.800 --> 02:00:11.280
just adjacent to to my property line. Uh and that is not something that I had ever interested been interested in uh or wanted. Uh I do think it disrupts everything about the way in which this uh street flows uh from home to home. Uh

412
02:00:11.280 --> 02:00:26.880
so I just wanted to bring that to the forefront and mention I would love to hear more about how uh it will be preserved internally as well. Uh I would love to hear if there was any effort or attempt at talking with uh the

413
02:00:26.880 --> 02:00:44.159
neighborhood uh and getting some perspective. I would also really like uh to have more understanding of what would be planned if this subdivision were to go through. Uh but I understand that that will be

414
02:00:44.159 --> 02:01:01.920
potentially in the next block or at another meeting. Uh, but I I want to raise my concerns about this subdivision and if it actually needs to happen given what we are describing as this historic space, its pacing and structure in

415
02:01:01.920 --> 02:01:20.719
regard to the block and the neighborhood and how that uh is done and if it really needs to be done uh in consideration for what is already here and the people who live here. Does that conclude your public comment?

416
02:01:20.719 --> 02:01:38.000
>> That does for the subdivision. >> Okay, great. Thank you so much. And the restoration too. I'm sorry for this component of the application. >> Restoration and this question about subdivision of this lot as a historic property. Yes, >> understood. Perfect. Thank you so much.

417
02:01:38.000 --> 02:01:53.119
Are there any additional members of the public who would like to speak regarding this application? If so, um, please use the raise hand function to speak. You can also press star nine if you're on your phone and

418
02:01:53.119 --> 02:02:14.800
would like to address the commission. Um, staff sees no hands raised and recommends a motion to close public comment. >> Motion to close public comment. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. Great.

419
02:02:14.800 --> 02:02:30.320
All right. I Michael, I'm assuming you also wrote down some questions that were asked. Um, just quickly, I will there I think there are two that I can just address. Two, maybe two or three that I can just address quickly. Um, regarding noticing

420
02:02:30.320 --> 02:02:45.679
for historic preservation. Oh, I'm sorry. I do see one. Um, Esther, I do see your hand raised. However, we uh the public comment portion is closed and also you had previously addressed the commission.

421
02:02:45.679 --> 02:03:04.639
Um so we can't reopen public comment and also um the time has reached on it. So I appreciate though. Okay. Um for historic preservation

422
02:03:04.639 --> 02:03:20.400
applications, um we there is no notice requirement. Um planning board and zoning board as property, sorry, properties um within 200 feet will typically receive a notice in the mail notifying them of um a public hearing.

423
02:03:20.400 --> 02:03:35.599
Um that is not legally permitted for historic commissions. Um it exceeds what is permitted in the state law for noticing for preservation commissions. So we cannot do it. Um, objectively we would like to, but um, we cannot legally

424
02:03:35.599 --> 02:03:53.119
mail notices to uh, residents for certificate of appropriateness applications. Um, we do publish our agendas on the data portal. Um, all application materials are available online for the public to review um, 72

425
02:03:53.119 --> 02:04:10.239
hours in advance of the meeting. Usually earlier, but guaranteed 72 hours in advance of the meeting. on the agenda. All of the case numbers have hyperlinks and that's how you can find those items. Um and then regarding meetings with the

426
02:04:10.239 --> 02:04:26.560
neighborhood group, I can allow Stephen to um jump in there. Um however, uh there is no legal requirement to meet with a neighborhood association. Um we always as staff recommend that applicants do, but there is no uh requirement for applicants to meet with

427
02:04:26.560 --> 02:04:44.960
neighborhood groups. Um, with that, Michael, you can go through the rest of the questions. Stephen, I don't know if you want to jump in on that on opining more on that neighborhood group question. >> Yeah, I could jump in on that at uh at the end. I guess let's summarize all the

428
02:04:44.960 --> 02:05:01.520
questions first. I tried to take >> Okay, then we'll go through the rest of the questions. Yeah, >> the first question I had down was uh if the windows are being changed on all of the elevations and if they were all matched that 6 over1 pattern.

429
02:05:01.520 --> 02:05:18.080
>> Um should we jump in to answer these as we go through them? I think so. Right. So, yes. So, uh Ahmed, if you have answers to these, let's let's uh knock some of these out. >> The answer is yes. Uh the material I mean should I just answer that question, Michael? Do you want me to

430
02:05:18.080 --> 02:05:35.000
also answer the question about the material on the glass? >> Yeah, you could do them both at the same time. >> Yeah. So, the answer is yes. It's being changed on all the elevations. Uh it is wood windows. Um the top is the six panel and the bottom is a single piece of glass.

431
02:05:35.360 --> 02:05:52.159
>> Okay. Um, and I think the other question, uh, we had twice, uh, the fireplaces on the interior, um, if any of those are being retained, um, or if any of the other, uh, historic material

432
02:05:52.159 --> 02:06:10.320
on the interior of the property is being salvaged. >> Um, this is actually a conversation that we had with the project team. Um, and and I'll give you the same answer I'll give the team and we've done several of these at this point. Um, we will attempt

433
02:06:10.320 --> 02:06:28.040
definitely to keep everything. I personally love these details in them. Um, however, it's not as easy to to be able to always maintain them and keep them. Um, if any if we can, we will 100% do it.

434
02:06:30.480 --> 02:06:46.320
And then the only other question I believe I had written down, Stephen, you can correct me if you have any other ones, um, was just regarding the housing that's proposed there. Um, I know that's generally outside of the scope of the historic preservation commission. Um,

435
02:06:46.320 --> 02:07:02.079
but I don't know if the team has any. >> Um, >> yeah, I think the question of rentals versus condos, I I think the there hasn't been a decision made on

436
02:07:02.079 --> 02:07:18.800
that that I'm aware of. Uh, Ahmed might be able to say something too, but it, you know, I think the size of the units probably lends itself well to to rentals, but um, some of these old buildings also work well. The decision hasn't been made on that yet. Ahmed, do

437
02:07:18.800 --> 02:07:34.679
you have anything further there? >> No, that's that No, that's exactly it. This is still something that we're we're seeing. Uh, I know I know the owner is looking at this and thinking about how exactly they're going to market this. There's not decision been made yet.

438
02:07:34.880 --> 02:07:52.639
Okay. Uh, those were the questions that I had written down unless Stephen or Maggie had any others that I missed. >> Um, >> uh, >> I had on there was a question about the tiles on the western facade chimney.

439
02:07:52.639 --> 02:08:09.360
>> Um, Ahmed, we're not proposing anything with regard to those tiles, right? You're on mute. >> Sorry. The question was I and correct me if I'm wrong. What I wrote down, Maggie, was not necessarily a question about the tiles themselves, but it's but it's

440
02:08:09.360 --> 02:08:26.480
about a sight line to the tiles. >> Correct. Yes. >> Yeah. So, the tiles themselves, just like the rest of the building, because there's also tiles on the front, um they're being repaired as needed. I prefer not to do too much with them because they're not in in great shape.

441
02:08:26.480 --> 02:08:43.760
just when it comes to the the structural integrity of the tile itself, they're they're actually kind of um soft right now, but I think they're they're fine in there. In terms of a sight line, um I don't believe that the sighteline would be affected uh from what we're talking

442
02:08:43.760 --> 02:08:59.520
about right now. the subdivision. I'm trying to stick to this application, not to jump around in this, >> but Ahmed, the uh the the same I mean those same tiles are also on the front and the other side of the building as well. >> Yes. >> Again,

443
02:08:59.520 --> 02:09:14.960
>> correct. Yeah, that's what I was saying. Yes, it's it's on they're on those sides as well. Yes. >> Okay. >> Um yeah, I mean there were some there were some other questions and and comments. I'll address the the community group

444
02:09:14.960 --> 02:09:32.560
portion of it as well. >> Wow. >> I think I think the at the first meeting uh back in back in May, Charlene and I did have a a conversation and there were some follow-up emails with that. um conversation ended I I think fairly

445
02:09:32.560 --> 02:09:50.560
quickly um because it seems like the community group is just opposed to the to the subdivision and it's hard to kind of work something out with that if there's no subdivision. There's there's no there's no way to move forward. Um, it's

446
02:09:50.560 --> 02:10:06.880
not a question of h how much of the subdivision or changing something with the subdivision. You you're either able to do a subdivision or or you're not. Um, certainly there can be discussions about um

447
02:10:06.880 --> 02:10:22.960
whatever is going to happen with the new lot that's that's created and design features and and setbacks and things like that. But we never really got that far because um this subdivision just really I think ended ended the

448
02:10:22.960 --> 02:10:39.760
conversation. Um there were there were some other I think I think comments I think a lot of the comments were related to to the other application. Um and there was some discussion about about the guidelines and about the

449
02:10:39.760 --> 02:10:56.719
zoning. I I am going to ask Carolyn just to kind of repeat a little bit again and address some of those comments um about what about how the the historic overlay interacts with underlining zoning when

450
02:10:56.719 --> 02:11:12.159
when you have a situation like this because it's it this is not purely in a historic district. It's it's the historic overlay on top of the underlining zoning. Um, I'll also note that when we reviewed the the guidelines, we didn't see any mention of

451
02:11:12.159 --> 02:11:28.639
of a subdivision within there a at all. Um, and there was a lot of talk of the purpose of of the district here to be preventing subdivisions. That's it's not something we came across in in any of our any of

452
02:11:28.639 --> 02:11:42.719
our research. Um, and I think someone also said that this was a key contributing building. I I didn't see that in our research either. I think it was just a contributing building, but uh Maggie or Michael can on that as as well. But I would like Caroline to just

453
02:11:42.719 --> 02:12:00.560
kind of repeat refresh again on on where we stand zoning wise with the with the property. >> Sure. Um so um there was mentioned that the the subject property is in the historic district overlay that is

454
02:12:00.560 --> 02:12:18.960
section 349-59.6. Um, and just reading directly from it, it says, "Historic district overlays as delineated on the zoning map shall retain the underlying zoning for use, bulk, and density standards." Um, and so the underlying zoning here is R3 and

455
02:12:18.960 --> 02:12:34.639
that is what we are applying to the subdivision um in terms of you know the the size of the lots um and you know the the uh uh dimensions of the lot and the overall lot area. Um so that is the

456
02:12:34.639 --> 02:12:51.119
underlying zoning which is the R3. Um it then continues design standards dictated through individual design guidelines tailored for each historic district shall be utilized for all purposes or for all proposals in historic district overlays in addition to the standards found in section 345-71

457
02:12:51.119 --> 02:13:08.000
which is um the the city's uh general historic you know historic guidelines. Um, these historic guideline design guidelines assist HPC staff, homeowners, and design professionals in retaining the historic integrity of individual properties, landscapes, design features,

458
02:13:08.000 --> 02:13:24.400
and historic districts as a whole. Um, and then it does reference specifically the Westber and East Lincoln Park historic design guidelines. Um, you know, and again, we did go through them. There is not any specific language that seems to indicate that uh subdivisions are prohibited in the uh Westber and

459
02:13:24.400 --> 02:13:42.800
East Lincoln Park Historic District. Um so again we we were applying that underlying zoning which is the R3. >> Yeah. And and and again some of the new zoning or relatively new zoning at this point in the area does specifically

460
02:13:42.800 --> 02:13:58.560
uh prohibit either through bulk regulations or explicitly state that that the purpose is to discourage subdivision and demolition. But that is not the his function of the historic overlay. That's a function of the

461
02:13:58.560 --> 02:14:19.000
underlying zoning in in those zones and the the R3 zone is not those zones. Um so if there's anything else specifically that the commission would like us to address, we're happy to happy to do that.

462
02:14:22.960 --> 02:14:38.960
Okay. Uh if there are no comments from the commissioners, we could move into staff comments. I provided a majority of my comments um at the last meeting and uh I think on the whole um these changes

463
02:14:38.960 --> 02:14:54.159
have only made it more conducive. Sorry, I'm just sharing my screen. There we go. uh and more um consistent with the historic uh design guidelines uh and historic design standards. Um

464
02:14:54.159 --> 02:15:09.440
I still hold uh the conditions on the staff report uh that throughout the course of construction site and photographic evidence shop pre over the approved drawings. Um I think the applicant uh did a better job with

465
02:15:09.440 --> 02:15:25.760
creating a more historically appropriate front door entryway. Uh but on the off chance that we find something uh pink ghosts or any sort of you know um information or per chance a door inside um that could provide us more

466
02:15:25.760 --> 02:15:41.440
information. Uh I want to make sure that that is our top priority. Uh otherwise um the uh proposed subdivision creates two conforming lots um and uh the restoration work conforms with the

467
02:15:41.440 --> 02:15:57.920
historic design standards. Uh so in staff's opinion uh the project as proposed will not cause an adverse effect on the character and/or integrity of the historic resources or the West Bergen East Lincoln Park Historic District and recommends approval of the certificate of appropriateness and a recommendation to the Jersey City

468
02:15:57.920 --> 02:16:11.599
Planning Board with the following conditions and those are the conditions that are laid out in the staff report. Um there is one additional one that's not uh typical that is the applicant shall forfeit the curb cut at the property. Currently there is a driveway

469
02:16:11.599 --> 02:16:39.160
there. um and that will be uh given up. >> Yes, the the applicant the applicant would agree to those conditions if should the application be recommended for approval. Are there any questions from commissioners for staff?

470
02:16:39.920 --> 02:16:56.800
>> I have a question. Um I read the same sent maps that Caroline showed us in the beginning. Um actually the opposite way. The two lot condition predates uh the house. So it seems like

471
02:16:56.800 --> 02:17:12.399
rather that the lots were combined to build it and the house sat there on that larger parcel um with its yard for over a century. So splitting it now doesn't seem to restore

472
02:17:12.399 --> 02:17:29.840
history. It it creates a vacant land condition from before the house actually um existed which I think creates a false historical uh appearance um that the standards actually caution against. So

473
02:17:29.840 --> 02:17:46.080
what is the staff's uh take on that? So from my research, the uh back portion of that flag lot um like it had the same frontage that it has today, but the back portion of the flag lot beyond that uh

474
02:17:46.080 --> 02:18:02.800
was added sometime in likely the '9s um the 1990s. uh long after the building was built. Uh the two lots likely had shared ownership and were combined which is also a form of subdivision and created the current flag lot that they

475
02:18:02.800 --> 02:18:19.599
have today. Um this proposed subdivision will alter that frontage. Uh the frontage is currently be being used as parking which is not historically appropriate for this property either. Um it is not a open space or a garden. Um

476
02:18:19.599 --> 02:18:34.800
so in staff's point of view uh we are trading one nonconformity uh to another one. Um I think that you know looking at the West Bergen nomination um you have areas that are

477
02:18:34.800 --> 02:18:49.920
specifically called out as being you know w you know large open space with a single family home specifically uh placed in that lot in a specific orientation. Um, this one does not have

478
02:18:49.920 --> 02:19:04.719
any of those notations. Uh, the Gford Avenue description uh in the beginning of the nomination actually specifically talks about how uh the the buildings at this portion of Gford are closely spaced. Um, so I think that this

479
02:19:04.719 --> 02:19:26.399
property uh being subdivided um just just creates a a condition that actually aligns with the the rest of the the historic street. Um, >> I have a followup to that, Michael. Um, because you're talking about, you know,

480
02:19:26.399 --> 02:19:43.280
what the designation report says about Gford Avenue or that specific part of Gford Avenue. However, you know, another thing that the designation report says about this district in general is that, you know, there are only a handful of

481
02:19:43.280 --> 02:19:57.600
vacant lots at the time that this was designated this district and that there are very few, you know, relatively few modern incursions. Um and sort of like uh you know we're looking at application that's proposing

482
02:19:57.600 --> 02:20:13.840
to first create a vacant lot and second no this lot may or may not receive a modern incursion. Um, and both those things seem, you know, antithetical to the sort of character of the district and sort of

483
02:20:13.840 --> 02:20:31.680
like the overarching sort of, you know, paradigm for which it was partly designated, right? The solid and the void, the the position of the buildings on the land. And I think that there was some very interesting public testimony um, you

484
02:20:31.680 --> 02:20:46.960
know, about that. Um, one of the other things that was written about in the historic um, in the designation report was sort of like as part of the development of this neighborhood, it was people leaving the crowded sort of downtown setting and um, I think it was

485
02:20:46.960 --> 02:21:04.560
Shireen had a had an interesting observation that you know this this historic home will be renovated and that's creating housing something about I think they're creating seven units and that that space might be appreciated by those residents and that's very much in line with the his the historic

486
02:21:04.560 --> 02:21:20.479
development of this neighborhood, right? The settlement patterns that that's what people moved here for um historically. And um and then I guess you know also I thought another piece of testimony that was very interesting was

487
02:21:20.479 --> 02:21:37.359
Mr. Didello's observation that, you know, the house has a position on the property and that the subdivision disregards that completely and and changes the context. And I just I guess I'm confused about sort of

488
02:21:37.359 --> 02:21:52.880
the staff report seeming to be so accepting of this subdivision and not when we've heard so much public testimony sort of in the opposite direction. I speaking from my professional opinion,

489
02:21:52.880 --> 02:22:08.720
right? I think a lot of this seems to come down to a question of like whether historic districts permit um subdivision of properties. Um we have seen this commission has seen and approved subdivisions throughout the historic

490
02:22:08.720 --> 02:22:26.240
districts. Um so in my professional opinion uh yes while certain properties are defined by their you know spatial relationships on their lot um that is not a condition that is um specifically

491
02:22:26.240 --> 02:22:42.880
enforced by a historic district. Um and due to the lack of specific um standards or any or or anything to review um any underlying zoning that um

492
02:22:42.880 --> 02:22:59.840
negates the proper the applicant's you know uh ability to subdivide a property that this does not interfere with the historic condition of the historic property. Um they will still have a

493
02:22:59.840 --> 02:23:17.680
large setback uh between the property and um Bergen Avenue. Uh they will also have a pretty sizable rear yard uh relative to what we see downtown and throughout much of the rest of the city. Um yeah,

494
02:23:17.680 --> 02:23:35.439
I see Natalie, you have your hand raised. >> Yeah, sorry. I have more to say. I want to um barge in onto what um Miss Gunter said. So I want to make sure that we're comparing the right things. So um when

495
02:23:35.439 --> 02:23:52.880
we talk about our standards or when staff says uh that they are compatible with the adjacent buildings, I'm really having a hard time seeing how that new building which is about 41 uh foot tall fits into that. And if I read the

496
02:23:52.880 --> 02:24:07.920
designation report, it calls those buildings um that are adjacent, those apartment buildings and the ones that are further down the block and as well on Bergen. Then um with a little bit of space next to it, it really calls those

497
02:24:07.920 --> 02:24:23.600
um uh the perhaps the least visually appealing in the district. It also says that they create a canyon-like effect and quote overshadowing the few detached houses

498
02:24:23.600 --> 02:24:39.359
on the intervening lots. So, I'm really having a hard time seeing how the applicant can use what the designation report calls the district's uh biggest eyesore as the standard of what belongs

499
02:24:39.359 --> 02:24:56.479
there. So, um I feel like the staff is measuring um the the staff report is measuring against the wrong buildings. Can we can you elaborate a little bit on that? >> So I I I not to

500
02:24:56.479 --> 02:25:11.840
disregard your question. I I I don't want but I I want to keep it to only the proposed subdivision, not the new construction. Um the propos the the commission could approve the subdivision and then not propose approve the new construction um and not recommend the

501
02:25:11.840 --> 02:25:31.120
new construction. Uh so to to me I I am only reviewing them as as staff as two separate applications. Um >> and I think that's a >> um I agree. Yeah, I think we understand

502
02:25:31.120 --> 02:25:50.880
that. Um but then also, you know, couldn't the we approve the restorative work to the building and not approve the subdivision? It's it's confusing that these two are combined in a single application because they're sort of unrelated to each other. >> I think that's a a question for

503
02:25:50.880 --> 02:26:10.439
Jonathan. I don't >> if you're just making a recommendation on the whole thing, could you recommend the changes to the building and not recommend >> does without the subdivision? this wouldn't go to the planning board.

504
02:26:10.800 --> 02:26:36.160
And I guess that answers. So, in the past, just to jump in here, the board has um if we all remember um the Temple Bethl around the corner from here, um we the

505
02:26:36.160 --> 02:26:53.680
board did approve certificates while making conditions to remove parts of the application. Um we generally as staff do not recommend that approach. um just because it muddies up the

506
02:26:53.680 --> 02:27:11.600
application record. Um if the commission feels that it's in a place this evening that it can't move forward with this application because of the subdivision attached, um perhaps there's a and we and we can take a a straw pull of that as we've

507
02:27:11.600 --> 02:27:34.120
done in the past. Um I don't necessarily know if I would recommend a condition to remove that. Um perhaps we need to gauge levels of support before we proceed with anything.

508
02:27:52.960 --> 02:28:09.520
Is that something we want to do? Is does the commission feel like it has enough information to make a decision tonight if we do that? Do we want to keep talking through the staff report? >> Jonathan, I'm not a voting member on

509
02:28:09.520 --> 02:28:24.960
this application. Can I ask questions or make comments? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yeah. You're the the recommendation for staff from staff will be if you were not at the last meeting to abstain. That does not prevent you from asking

510
02:28:24.960 --> 02:28:42.000
questions or making >> and your comments and questions are always appreciated, Commissioner. >> Okay. Um my feeling is that I think we could probably bifurcate the application and

511
02:28:42.000 --> 02:29:04.520
the portion that deals with historic structure. I think we could go to a vote if the application was bifurcated. >> That is certainly the less controversial portion of the of this application.

512
02:29:09.120 --> 02:29:26.319
I think on the uh on the applicant's end, right, it's how do we move forward with with a with a subdivision? Um because I'm I'm not sure I've heard any proposed

513
02:29:26.319 --> 02:29:42.000
modifications to the subdivision itself about how to move move that application forward. And I don't I do not believe the applicant would want to move forward with the the restoration project the building without without also the the

514
02:29:42.000 --> 02:30:00.000
subdivision. Um if there's suggestions about the subdivision, absolutely. But we've, you know, the subdivision was designed in a way to uh intentionally provide larger lot sizes for for each of the each of the

515
02:30:00.000 --> 02:30:16.880
new lots. Um, so I I think the applicant would want to vote on the application as a whole if there's not not anything that we can do about the

516
02:30:16.880 --> 02:30:34.479
subdivision to change anyone's mind. I I understand that the applicant would like us to treat the subdivision poorly as a lot line and set the building aside, but um it does create a buildable lot for the new construction.

517
02:30:34.479 --> 02:30:49.120
Um and the secretary of interior standards asked us to evaluate the effect on the resources site and environment not just the footprint um the size and the conf configuration of the lot we are carving off as part of

518
02:30:49.120 --> 02:31:04.720
that setting analysis and I'm personally not willing to evaluate it as if the building we're in the whole point of it. It's not drawn the the property line is not drawn in

519
02:31:04.720 --> 02:31:24.399
vacum, right? Like its entire purpose is to create a spot a spot to build >> and I can't pretend that I don't know that when I'm voting on this. >> That's extremely well said and I agree.

520
02:31:24.399 --> 02:31:39.439
I think I would also remind my fellow commissioners that a subdivision of a property of this type will create a precedent that could affect many many many other

521
02:31:39.439 --> 02:32:10.319
properties that are contributing in historic districts. Okay. Does anyone have any further comments on specifically the subdivision or for staff? Okay. So, hearing none, Stephen, it's

522
02:32:10.319 --> 02:32:24.960
your request that the commission, if they have no substantive comments on improvements to the application regarding the subdivision that you would like a vote on this. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right.

523
02:32:24.960 --> 02:32:41.760
So, unless anyone has anything, I believe that the board has enough information to make a motion on this application. And again, if you are the the applicants request that we vote on this as a whole. So if

524
02:32:41.760 --> 02:33:19.200
the feeling of the board is that they can't support the subdivision, someone should make a motion in that regard. And if there are any commissioners who would like to support the application in terms of the subdivision who would like to make a motion to that effect,

525
02:33:19.200 --> 02:33:36.080
this is also the time and space to do that as well. >> Motion to deny certificate of appropriateness to the subdivision. >> Okay. It would be the subdivision. It would just be to deny the application and

526
02:33:36.080 --> 02:33:52.800
recommend against approval to the planning board. Just to clarify, that's your intention. Correct. >> Yes. >> All right. >> I'll second unless somebody already did that. >> I will mark you down. All right. >> Remember, if we're making a motion to

527
02:33:52.800 --> 02:34:09.280
deny, we have to give specific reasons. >> Yes. The I my presumption is that the commissioners will put that on the record. um at the time of their vote, right? >> Okay. >> Yes.

528
02:34:09.280 --> 02:34:24.319
>> Um just to clarify for the record before I take a roll call vote on this, um the eligible commissioners to vote are Commissioner Gunther, Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner Edgecomb, Commissioner Kay, Commissioner Callback,

529
02:34:24.319 --> 02:34:40.399
and Chair Gera. Um, Vice Chair Cronin, Commissioner Sakong, and Commissioner Sanamp, since you were not present at the last meeting, um, staff recommendation is that you abstain from this vote. So, we'll still call on you,

530
02:34:40.399 --> 02:34:55.760
but the staff recommendation is that you abstain. Okay. All right. We'll do a roll call vote. Uh, Commissioner Gordon, >> I vote I. And I'm not sure because the focus uh is the basis of the denial

531
02:34:55.760 --> 02:35:12.479
would be the proposed subdivision and I don't know which standards would apply here but uh essentially the rationale is the um the site and setting that this subdivision would create the buildable plot that is incompatible with the

532
02:35:12.479 --> 02:35:33.840
character of this historic neighborhood. >> Okay. 345-71H2B is the citation for sight and setting. Are you comfortable with that citation? >> I am. Thank you. >> Okay, Commissioner Gunther.

533
02:35:33.840 --> 02:35:50.080
Um I vote I with the same citation um as the subdivision I believe dramatically affects the site and setting of the historic resource and diminishes the resource. >> Commissioner Edgecom,

534
02:35:50.080 --> 02:36:06.960
>> I vote I for the same reason as sight and setting and also as if the risk that it would set a precedent for other uh sites to be subject to the same. staff would caution against that as a reason because we cannot tie it to a specific

535
02:36:06.960 --> 02:36:20.800
standard. Is there a standard that you can tie that to or do we want to remove that as a reason? >> I can remove that. >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner K. >> I vote I for

536
02:36:20.800 --> 02:36:38.560
the same citation 34571 H2E. >> Great. Commissioner callback >> I would I um under the secretary of the interior standards which govern here have to weigh the effect on the

537
02:36:38.560 --> 02:36:52.960
resources site and environment and not just the lot line. Um so I find an adverse effect on the setting of the contributing resource on and on the character of the district.

538
02:36:52.960 --> 02:37:09.040
>> Thank you. Okay. Um, Commissioner Sanamp, >> I abstain. >> Okay. Commissioner Sak, >> I will abstain as well. >> Okay. For the record, Commissioners

539
02:37:09.040 --> 02:37:24.319
Gucciardo and Commissioners Blazak are absent. Vice Chair Cronin, >> I will abstain as well. >> Great. Thank you. And Chair Grega, >> I'm going to vote I on the citations as my basis.

540
02:37:24.319 --> 02:37:40.880
>> Okay. So that's the site and set the same standard the site and setting. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. There are one, two, three, four, five, six votes in favor of denial of the application. There are none against and there are

541
02:37:40.880 --> 02:37:58.720
three abstensions. The motion to deny the application and recommend denial to the planning board is approved. >> Okay. >> Thank you. and uh and Maggie will obviously uh adjourn the the next item on the agenda.

542
02:37:58.720 --> 02:38:18.160
>> That sounds good. We'll do that too. Yeah, that item is adjourned. Okay. And for the record, that application number that is adjourned is H-24-0172. >> And then I wanted to ask you about timing for uh the rest of the evening.

543
02:38:18.160 --> 02:38:34.560
>> I So we do need to take a break. Yeah, definitely. >> However, I do the meeting uh curfew is 10 p.m. I do think it would be prudent to once we return from a break um to get some testimony on the record for Third Street.

544
02:38:34.560 --> 02:38:52.319
>> Yeah, absolutely. I appreciate that. >> Okay, so that being said, >> um I Let's go ahead and take a break. It's 9:12. Um much later than we usually take a break. So, we let's do let's come back at 9:25. Okay,

545
02:38:52.319 --> 02:39:15.280
>> thank you everybody. >> All right, we'll see you all shortly. >> Okay, it is 9:26. We have returned from our break. Laura, I just want to make sure you're good to go before we officially go back on the record. >> Yes,

546
02:39:15.280 --> 02:39:33.280
>> I'm ready. >> Great. All right. Corey, if you would like to call the next case. >> All right, we're going to go to new business. Case A H-25-0494. Applicant Steven Joseph, Esquire,

547
02:39:33.280 --> 02:39:49.520
on behalf of downtown Jersey City LLC. owner. The address is 285.53rd Street, block 11108, lot 6, zone H, Haramus Cove Historic

548
02:39:49.520 --> 02:40:05.680
District for the certificate of appropriateness for the proposed construction of a new threestory single family residential building and associated site work in the Hearthmus Cove Historic District. recommendation to the Jersey

549
02:40:05.680 --> 02:40:22.560
City Zoning Board of Adjustment. >> Good evening everyone. Uh Stephen Joseph for the applicant. Um we do have Mr. Anthony Vander Mark here this evening. We don't have a lot of time. I'm going to uh fast, but I I do want to just give

550
02:40:22.560 --> 02:40:38.399
you the benefit of uh of some of the history here. So I previously represented um the the adjacent property owner who was also this property owner and many years ago there were uh

551
02:40:38.399 --> 02:40:53.439
applications that came before this board and ultimately went to the zoning board for both this property and and the adjacent property. And the the proposal for this site at the time is very similar to what you're going to see tonight. Um that has since expired.

552
02:40:53.439 --> 02:41:09.359
Those are not valid as of this evening, but the property was sold. New owner came in, purchased the property, and decided to keep uh essentially the the same building that that was there that

553
02:41:09.359 --> 02:41:25.600
was previously approved, reduce the unit count from two units to one unit. It's a that's a substantial enough change in the application going from two units to one unit to trigger a new application anyway. So the thought from the applicant was give the building a

554
02:41:25.600 --> 02:41:41.439
facelift, reduce the unit count, get new approvals, um, and and build build the building finally, which the prior owner had had failed to do. Um, we're we got a lot of feedback from from staff and we

555
02:41:41.439 --> 02:41:56.800
think we made some improvements to the to the property. Uh, but I'll let Anthony kind of run run through that. I I just want to be very clear because if I'm not very clear, Maggie will make it very very clear that there's no there's

556
02:41:56.800 --> 02:42:12.720
no uh there was a prior approval. Those are expired. Those are not valid as of this evening. This is a a brand new application. Just trying to give you the context of what the intentions of the of the applicant were for for this particular site. So, let's get um let's get Anthony Sworn in and he'll he'll

557
02:42:12.720 --> 02:42:28.240
walk you through um he'll walk you through the building. Please uh raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony about given about the troops to help you God?

558
02:42:28.240 --> 02:42:45.040
>> I do. >> If you could please state your name for this record, spell your name and provide your business address. >> Sure. That is Anthony C. Vandermark Jr. Uh Vandermark VZ Invicttor an D M A R K. I am a principal of MVMK architecture

559
02:42:45.040 --> 02:43:06.240
and we are located at 36014th Street, Moboka, New Jersey. >> All right, great. You should be able to Oh, staff notes for the record, Anthony has previously been qualified in front of this board as an expert in the field of architecture. >> Thank you very much, Maggie.

560
02:43:06.240 --> 02:43:33.040
>> You should be able to share your screen if that's um >> very good. And I just want to thank the commission for hanging in there tonight at least for 30 more minutes. I appreciate everyone's time. Okay. Can everyone see my screen? >> Yes. >> Yes.

561
02:43:33.040 --> 02:43:49.040
>> Okay. Great. Um uh once again, as Stephen had mentioned, we're here this evening to propose a single family town home uh on a unique undersized lot. Um but it would be considered a pre-existing conforming lot uh under the eyes of the current

562
02:43:49.040 --> 02:44:05.040
zoning. Let me just quickly walk you through uh the existing conditions in the existing neighborhood. Top lefthand corner, the side aerial view. Uh the lot size is 14.2 2 ft wide by 52 feet deep which is

563
02:44:05.040 --> 02:44:20.880
only 738 square ft in actual lot area. This is not considered a subdivision. This is an individual tax lot. Um pre-existing uh site location is six lots down from Cole Street which is here

564
02:44:20.880 --> 02:44:38.720
to the west. Uh the eastern most perpendicular street uh here to Third Street would also be Jersey Avenue. top right hand corner. Uh again, uh there's a hole in the street wall. Um I'll get into two adjacent properties in a couple of minutes. Um majority of the

565
02:44:38.720 --> 02:44:55.520
uh uh uh structures on this block are uh woodframe uh construction in nature. As you can see in this graphic uh in the immediate foreground of of site aerial view number two directly across the street we have a a larger fivetory uh

566
02:44:55.520 --> 02:45:12.240
masonry uh multif family structure. Directly to the west of that we have a four-story uh masonry structure. But then again across the street uh working your way east you have more of the appropriate uh lower scale residential woodframe construction.

567
02:45:12.240 --> 02:45:30.080
Aerial view number three. Um, as you can see here in the foreground at at the corner intersection of Cole Street and Third Street, uh, the majority of the structures, uh, from the corner leading its way into our property, other than the adjacent one to the west is, uh, a

568
02:45:30.080 --> 02:45:46.399
two and threetory woodframe construction. The majority of the roofs are flat, uh, leading up to sort of a double gable, which is adjacent to us. Center graphic number four, uh, Third Street, uh, looking west. Um, as you can see here, there's a kind of a hole here,

569
02:45:46.399 --> 02:46:04.080
a a tooth hole uh in the street wall. Immediately to our uh to our east is a yellow aluminum sided uh uh threetory uh kind of town home structure, single family in nature. Um it has a basement

570
02:46:04.080 --> 02:46:19.359
space, but under the eyes of zoning would be considered third story. Um, you know, obviously these these uh structures were constructed, you know, late 1800s, early 1900s, uh, the adjacent property immediately to the west. As you can see, it's a it's a

571
02:46:19.359 --> 02:46:35.920
blue shade is a, uh, more of a gabled double gabled roof, um, with a painted, uh, wood clapboard. Project sits in the flood plane. Uh, as you guys had previously, uh, uh, heard uh, from another application I was on

572
02:46:35.920 --> 02:46:51.840
earlier this evening. Um, this structure can no longer be sitting on the ground. Uh, the first residential floor or the first floor of the proposed structure has to be elevated at 3 foot2 off of the sidewalk line. Uh, and that creates a

573
02:46:51.840 --> 02:47:07.520
little bit of a uh a stranger condition, you know, with the horizontal sight lines of of each uh, you know, window ribbon, you know, across the street facade or the street wall. directly to the uh to the right here of center graphic view five is looking east. Um

574
02:47:07.520 --> 02:47:23.200
again a lot of these structures are very similar in nature. Um there are some uh small projected cornis lines on some of the existing architecture. What we're going to show you this evening is we do have a a small projected cornice as part of this application. Um but it certainly

575
02:47:23.200 --> 02:47:39.840
is open to discussion uh when we get into the details of facade. uh bottom graphics uh again uh multiple views of looking uh east and west towards Cole Street uh and then also Jersey Avenue. I want to just introduce a few exhibits

576
02:47:39.840 --> 02:47:54.800
because I know these photographs are, you know, many in a sheet. Uh again, just to show everybody what we're talking about here is this is immediately to the east uh masonry front porch um steel gate line between masonry

577
02:47:54.800 --> 02:48:13.040
peers and we have a kind of a taller uh you know four and a half to 5 foot mural uh of masonry adjacent to our property. Again, uh two and a half stories above grave and under the eyes of zoning it would be three stories with a small kind of projected cornis line. Anthony, um,

578
02:48:13.040 --> 02:48:29.359
are all these photos with within your plans and they're just blown up or are they new photos? >> No, the these three that I'm about to show you are new photos taken today by myself. Um, so yeah, I think we should introduce these as exhibits because I >> So, all right. So, we'll do these as uh

579
02:48:29.359 --> 02:48:45.200
they're all related, right? So, we'll do these as um >> A1 photos dated. >> Yeah. >> July 30, 2026. >> That's correct. >> Great. uh again in immediately to our west. So

580
02:48:45.200 --> 02:49:02.319
you can see here again a masonry uh front porch um with a painted wood cloud and a a dual gabled roof gable at the front facade and again also at the side facade that opens itself up into the vacant parcel that we're proposing here

581
02:49:02.319 --> 02:49:19.040
this evening. Um this is a shot looking directly into the property. Uh, as you can see, there's there's multiple siding options here on the structure to the west. Uh, a a painted CMU foundation. Our site right now, um, is used utilized

582
02:49:19.040 --> 02:49:36.479
for parking, uh, to the adjacent property to the east. Asphalt, we're definitely making site improvements to this. Uh, just a few things of note are the basement windows to the uh, immediate east of us. They are boarded up. Uh, no windows exist there. And the

583
02:49:36.479 --> 02:49:51.760
property uh you know is deep uh as far as 100% uh to the left side which is the eastern side. You have a a 60 to 70% lot coverage immediate to the west. Taking you back to the plan uh uh filed

584
02:49:51.760 --> 02:50:05.520
set. Um again multiple views. We have a pre-existing curb cut on the property that will be eliminated um as part of this application for the new structure. There's no parking as being proposed in this application. just a single

585
02:50:05.520 --> 02:50:24.800
three-story uh town home, single family. From a zoning standpoint, uh in the Haramus Cove Historic District, um even though the uh the site is small in nature, we are only requesting two variances. I think both of them uh you

586
02:50:24.800 --> 02:50:41.040
know, we do have Carolyn here. I don't know if we're going to get to Carolyn tonight, but we have a rear yard setback variance request where in historic a 30-foot rear yard uh you know is what's required as part of this application. We have 9 foot6 um that's kind of part and

587
02:50:41.040 --> 02:50:56.720
parcel or part of the nature of the lot being so small and uh we have a building coverage variance request where 60% is permitted and we are proposing 72.4%. Um again the site is only at 738 square

588
02:50:56.720 --> 02:51:13.279
foot uh in size. Our footprint area of our building as is at 535 square ft. So again at 72%. We are we are not requiring a height variance here as part of this application and of course not a use variance since it's only a single

589
02:51:13.279 --> 02:51:29.760
family. And Anthony, if you could just clarify for the record, this is already a lot that has been subdivided and currently exists as its own lot, right? >> Yeah, that is that is correct. When when you when you look at the tax lot situation, uh yeah, this has already

590
02:51:29.760 --> 02:51:46.160
been subdivided. This is not a subdivision as part of this application. This lot uh uh currently exists on the tax records as being vacant property. >> Great. >> So, this is a new structure. Yes. Um, from a site plan standpoint on the

591
02:51:46.160 --> 02:52:00.720
right hand side, um, from our property line, we have a 2 foot7 front yard setback. As you can see here in this graphic, we are aligning with both properties to the east and to the west of their front facade. Um, the building

592
02:52:00.720 --> 02:52:18.560
itself is at 41 ft, 3 in in depth. And as previously mentioned, we have a 9 foot6 uh rear yard setback. We do have a rear stair. uh you know the building is elevated again 3 foot2 uh you know off of the sidewalk line due to the flood plane. So we do need a stair to access

593
02:52:18.560 --> 02:52:33.760
the rear yard but that's not included in the building setback. In the front yard we're proposing a painted steel gate um with a small landscaped area as you can see here immediately to the west. Um, we will be

594
02:52:33.760 --> 02:52:50.080
proposing uh uh new curbing uh a new new charcoal colored sidewalk uh and a new front porch that extends 7 foot2 off of the building face. We have landscaping on both the left side uh and the right side of this application and also uh in

595
02:52:50.080 --> 02:53:07.040
the front up against the gate line. Um that will eventually require a franchise in the event that we do get approval here and then eventually get approval uh at the zoning board. Building footprint is here in yellow. Uh centrally located. Um again 100% on the left side to the

596
02:53:07.040 --> 02:53:24.080
east a little bit shorter of coverage uh to the western side on the right hand side. As part of this application that you're going to see um on the third floor we have an exterior stair that goes up to uh a roof deck that sits essentially located on the roof not

597
02:53:24.080 --> 02:53:43.040
visible uh from the street line from across the street. From a coverage standpoint, top graphic here highlighted in red is the proposed site. Um, again, the these slots are very short in depth at 52 feet. Um, very

598
02:53:43.040 --> 02:53:58.399
narrow in width at 14 uh, you know, 0.2 uh feet of of of frontage. Concentrating on the street wall. Uh, again, we have a kind of a a toothless uh part of the street wall. Uh, Uh

599
02:53:58.399 --> 02:54:15.680
currently graphic here uh is where we are proposing uh from the sidewalk we are proposing a 31 foot 10-in high uh to the principal roof line 32t 6 in uh to the deck line but from the flood plane

600
02:54:15.680 --> 02:54:32.640
or above DF we are proposing a 28 foot uh 8 in high structure. Um, so when you you kind of put this in context due to the building being elevated, it really kind of does fall in line though with a lot of the pre-existing heights on the block. Centrally located on the block,

601
02:54:32.640 --> 02:54:49.680
as you can see, a taller uh two uh adjacent sidebyside structures here midblock uh with a kind of a taller three-story gable line. We are below that gable line. It's previously mentioned uh also is that uh we do have a few very larger multif family

602
02:54:49.680 --> 02:55:08.080
structures directly across the street from this property. As you get into the floor plans, you know, I talked a little bit about the front yard and how we are proposing, you know, a new curbing, uh, new sidewalk line, new landscaping in the front, um,

603
02:55:08.080 --> 02:55:23.840
a projected, uh, front stoop, um, you know, which is something common that you see here in the street front engine, definitely on the adjacent properties. Um, large open floor plan on the first floor. Uh, centralized kitchen, living room in the front, dining room in the

604
02:55:23.840 --> 02:55:39.600
back. Uh again, a small set of stairs that takes you to a rear yard that's at grade uh landscaping element to the left side on the east. And we're proposing a board-onboard fencing uh to enclose all three sides uh of the rear yard.

605
02:55:39.600 --> 02:55:56.240
Proposed second floor, we have a front and a rear uh bedroom space. Due to the, you know, the width, the narrow width of this property, uh you only really able to get one room, you know, in the width of this property. So, bedroom in the front, bedroom in the back that require light and air, and we can only have

606
02:55:56.240 --> 02:56:13.680
windows both in the front and uh and back of this property. None on the sideyard. We have two centralized uh bathroom spaces. So, each bedroom is going to have a bathroom, washer and dryer closet centrally located top floor. Um one bedroom, one den space off

607
02:56:13.680 --> 02:56:30.080
to the rear. Uh the rear part of the third floor here does not have enough light in there to qualify as a bedroom. So therefore, it's going to be labeled as a den. We have a door that accesses uh a small uh uh landing or roof portion that takes the stairs directly up to an

608
02:56:30.080 --> 02:56:45.840
elevated roof deck. Um here we are proposing a centralized roof deck not visible from the street of 270 square ft. Um we have a small mechanical equipment screened area. Again uh that will be a painted AAC screen. Uh we have

609
02:56:45.840 --> 02:57:02.080
details in the plans uh to that nature. And up in the front here, we have a 100 square foot extensive bream roofing uh area inside the parapit line. So you can see here there's an 8 foot7 off of the parapit and a 3 foot6 set back to the roof deck. Again, uh we have some

610
02:57:02.080 --> 02:57:24.399
section drawings uh that show that this is not visible from our immediate sidewalk, from the street line, and from across the street. take you to the front elevation lefth hand side uh color palette is directly below and what I'm going to do is you

611
02:57:24.399 --> 02:57:40.240
know and I apologize uh to the commission that I'm going to flip between two slides here to talk about the elevations when you look at the elevation on the lefth hand side in black and white you know we're looking at uh uh uh you know five window set um these are proposed

612
02:57:40.240 --> 02:57:56.240
casement windows um painted wood casement windows by Marvin um they will be in a a stone white uh Benjamin Moore color. There is a bottom transom light um that is approximately 4 in from each

613
02:57:56.240 --> 02:58:12.399
floor level um you know on the elevation. One of the ownership's requests here uh as part of this application is that you know they wanted a lot of light and air. The building is narrow but it is deep. Um so we're trying to pull as much natural light and ventilation as we could into the center

614
02:58:12.399 --> 02:58:28.240
of this building. We have one single door uh and it is colored uh this cadet gray uh with a single vertical light. We have a steel stringer uh and a steel riser um stair with a steel handrail. Uh

615
02:58:28.240 --> 02:58:44.000
everything is going to be painted the stone white. Um unfortunately we have an electrical service that's going to be on the right hand side. We have an a 1x4 Azac trim wrap um that's painted snow and white around each window line. And then also

616
02:58:44.000 --> 02:59:01.760
we have a 1x8 wrap on the proposed entryway that's coming in off of the front porch. We have an aluminum composite material, a a kind of a simple uh sloped profiled cornice line. And by owner request, we have a simple uh 3 ft

617
02:59:01.760 --> 02:59:17.279
wide uh by 8 in thick ACM uh front awning uh over the uh proposed entryway. Building mass as you can see here in two dimensions how it fits into the property. As previously mentioned that

618
02:59:17.279 --> 02:59:32.960
uh due to the being elevated out of the flood plane, you know, we do not have window alignment with the adjacent properties. These properties, they do have a basement. they sit approximately uh five to six feet uh above the sidewalk line. So therefore, we are not

619
02:59:32.960 --> 02:59:48.720
going to have when I go back to the street elevations that these windows unfortunately are not going to be able to be aligned due to this issue with the flood plane, right? Um first floor is slightly higher than what we're proposing. The second floor is slightly higher than our than our second floor.

620
02:59:48.720 --> 03:00:05.120
However, our third floor uh will be slightly above uh the cornice line or the roof line of the adjacent properties. But again, we're not requiring a height variance as as we know in the historic districts. You're permitted four stories and 40 ft. We were trying to be extremely sensitive to

621
03:00:05.120 --> 03:00:21.359
the street wall and the adjacent properties as part of this application. Um but again, um not requesting a height variance and we're approximately 28t 8 in above the flood plane here. So, we did try to limit the amount of height on the floor to floor heights. The first

622
03:00:21.359 --> 03:00:37.520
floor is at 9'4 to the second uh floor. Second floor to third floor is at 9'4 and we have a 10-ft uh to the roof line here. Um as you can see here in this graphic, we have a painted mechanical screen as part of this application. It again will not be visible uh from the

623
03:00:37.520 --> 03:00:55.840
street line. Going back into the side elevation graphic, um we have a cement board lap siding on both the front facade in this color in deep ocean uh wood grain and on the side elevations we are proposing a

624
03:00:55.840 --> 03:01:12.160
light mist or a gray tone with an Azac trim board uh that that basically holds the corners of the siding. Um, as part of this decel elevation, you can see here is that we are proposing a steel railing system with a small uh small landing that takes you up to the

625
03:01:12.160 --> 03:01:29.359
roof line to the centrally located 270 ft uh roof deck. Majority of the colors are in the gray and the white uh pallet family or the slightly off-white. They're not stark white. As you can see here, um stone and white that we're proposing is a little

626
03:01:29.359 --> 03:01:45.880
bit of a warmer white u and we think it's a little bit more sensitive uh to the adjacent neighbors in the context of the neighborhood. The water table is being proposed is a uh as you can see here a gray or copper gray cast material.

627
03:01:49.840 --> 03:02:06.000
Again the visibility um you know due to we have a small kind of projected cornice line which we think is sensitive to as you can see here the property immediately to the east there's a small projection here and then also on the other side of the adjacent gabled structure to the west we do have a

628
03:02:06.000 --> 03:02:21.680
slight cornish projection as well so we think we're trying to tie in you know similar architectural language although slightly taller um you know I I think contextually um I think it's appropriate um from a standpoint of, you know, how to cap the building or how to terminate

629
03:02:21.680 --> 03:02:37.439
the top of the building. And also, as you can see here, you know, from a a site or a visual impact standpoint, um, that cornis, you know, assists us with not being able to see both the mechanical screening and the centralized uh, roof deck that's being proposed here.

630
03:02:37.439 --> 03:02:54.240
>> And Anthony, I think we'll end uh end it here. I do want time for for comments from the from the commission. Um, and I think all that was left was another rendering in the in the shadow study. >> Yeah, ju just some some similar elevations, but I think they get the

631
03:02:54.240 --> 03:03:12.479
gist of of what we were proposing here. >> Okay, with that, are there any questions and comments from the commission based on what you've seen so far? Um, I do think, um, it would perhaps be most helpful for the applicants if you have comments on

632
03:03:12.479 --> 03:03:34.080
what is being proposed. Um, I mean obviously questions are important too, but considering that we will not be finishing this application this evening, um, I do think comments would be helpful for them. >> I just have one comment about the windows.

633
03:03:34.080 --> 03:03:50.160
um the way they're drawn on the line drawing, it makes it seem like they're they may be fine, but when I look at the rendering, um it just seems like the solid to void is is off, like there's so much window. Um and I don't

634
03:03:50.160 --> 03:04:05.920
know if it's like an error in the drawings, um in the rendering or if it's partly due to the contrast of the materials, but um I just maybe take a closer look at that. >> Certainly. and and and I think that's a good criticism.

635
03:04:05.920 --> 03:04:27.840
>> Could we pull that rendering again so we could see what Commissioner Gunther is saying? So that is a a a front facade view and then this would be a perspective view. Um,

636
03:04:27.840 --> 03:04:44.720
so yeah, due to probably the reflection, um, um, and then, you know, potentially there could have been some sort of a small scaling issue with the renderings. I I think it's I think it's a comment is is well taken there. >> I think in that cover sheet view is also

637
03:04:44.720 --> 03:05:05.920
maybe fine and closer to the elevation drawing. I just feel like the the head-on rendering was throwing me off a bit. >> Okay. When I look at the block elevation, while there isn't a uniform consistent

638
03:05:05.920 --> 03:05:20.960
building height, it it does appear to be there does appear to be, you know, quite a bit of uniformity um apart from those two buildings that are a story higher. And you know, personally, just looking

639
03:05:20.960 --> 03:05:37.120
at this, my my feeling immediately upon seeing it is I actually might not mind if the building were a little taller, if it better aligned with those other buildings with the gabled roofs down the block. And that top story mirrored those

640
03:05:37.120 --> 03:05:53.040
top stories so that it kind of uh rhymed with those buildings better just to maintain that kind of uh continuity and rhythm on the block. Um, so that's just me. And the other thought I had was the

641
03:05:53.040 --> 03:06:11.920
um with the window uh under the sill um that you said is 4 in from the ground from the from the floor. The one that's directly above the awning. It It looks odd to me how close it is. It seems very crammed uh with the lack of space

642
03:06:11.920 --> 03:06:35.040
between where the window terminates and then the awning begins. It can certainly be reviewed and point taken. >> Thank you, uh, Commissioner Gordon, for what you mentioned because I agree with you like that's what would fit the height matching the the structures with

643
03:06:35.040 --> 03:06:51.760
the gables on on the left of what I'm seeing would would make more sense. This building though, the way it obviously it's going to stick out like a sore thumb because it's new construction and it has different window shapes. Across the street though is an uncontinuous row of everything the same height. And this

644
03:06:51.760 --> 03:07:07.359
would be the only it seems this block of the third would be the only first newer building uh in many decades. But granted things are many different heights and eras

645
03:07:07.359 --> 03:07:27.120
also. it it was, you know, we were trying to be very sensitive uh to to the height discrepancy on on on the block. Um, and I think honestly, Anthony and I are probably both a little uh surprised to hear

646
03:07:27.120 --> 03:07:42.479
uh what I think I'm hearing is a recommendation to to increase the height of the building slightly to help with the alignment of the block front. That's certainly something we could we can look at and do if that's the consensus of the commission. But again, we were trying to

647
03:07:42.479 --> 03:07:58.160
be as sensitive as possible to, >> right, >> Stephen? If that's the consensus of the commission, that might help better meet one of the staff comments, which was that the while this block does not have a consistent building height, it does have a very consistent window

648
03:07:58.160 --> 03:08:12.560
fenestration and visual sight line. So perhaps fiddling with the height might help um align some of those windows across the row. >> Y

649
03:08:12.560 --> 03:08:29.760
>> I I concur with um not being too concerned about the height. Um as you point out the multif family buildings across the street I think being so much bigger. I I'm not worried about this thing um standing out. I'm I'm a little

650
03:08:29.760 --> 03:08:44.240
Commissioner Gordon, you know, all due respect, um, at the risk of providing conflicting comments, I would worry a little bit about trying to mimic the the gabled tops. Those are much wider buildings. I worry that the skinniness

651
03:08:44.240 --> 03:09:01.680
of this 14t lot might end up the proportions looking a little Well, I I'll just admit. Yeah, I I I just I think it won't quite get there. um personally, but you know uh that's for y'all to try and and for us to to to

652
03:09:01.680 --> 03:09:17.359
pick on. Um >> for what it's worth, I said crazy cuz I have also sat here with trace paper trying to figure out that. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um for whatever it's worth, you know, I'm I typically tend to be more comfortable than many others when

653
03:09:17.359 --> 03:09:32.960
it comes to like the amounts of glass and cell to void ratios. I think building should look of its time and and since we're not restoring an existing building, I think this should look contemporary. I think this should look um lowercase m modern. Um

654
03:09:32.960 --> 03:09:48.560
uh you know, do I worry that on those sill lights you'll see all the junk of everyone living inside cluttering right up against the glass? I do, but um I don't I don't know that that's necessarily an architectural concern.

655
03:09:48.560 --> 03:10:03.359
Um, I I guess I'm just saying I'm I'm okay with it looking a little different, you know, not not continuing the rhythms um of existing windows. But I do think that

656
03:10:03.359 --> 03:10:20.399
striking a couple sort of intentional lines, whether it's an alignment of the cornice or um find picking up some other I don't know clue in the in the block rhythms. Um, I think that's I think

657
03:10:20.399 --> 03:10:34.560
that's something that can help anchor it without necessarily imitating. Um, if that's vague enough. But anyway, I I I overall I I'm I'm I'm find myself uh

658
03:10:34.560 --> 03:10:59.840
supportive of this project. >> Are there any other commissioner comments? Okay. Hearing none, um staff would given the time and that we are close to our 10 p.m. curfew, um I would recommend a

659
03:10:59.840 --> 03:11:16.800
motion to carry this application to the August I believe 17th HPC meeting. It is in fact August 17th. >> Motion to carry to the August 17th HPC meeting. >> Second. Don't. >> All in favor?

660
03:11:16.800 --> 03:11:31.840
>> I. >> Okay, great. So, Stephen and Anthony, I will follow up with those comments tomorrow and we will see you in August. >> Yeah, thank you. >> Thank you, everyone. >> So much. Appreciate your time, everyone. Thank you. >> Same here. Thank you. Good night.

661
03:11:31.840 --> 03:11:47.200
>> All right. Um, as previously stated, cases 9B, 314 Pavonia, and cases 9 C, 281 York Street, also carried to the August 17th HPC meeting. Staff has no

662
03:11:47.200 --> 03:12:05.439
update on the tabled case. We have no demolition applications to review. Crazy. We have no update to the table demolition review cases. We have no resolutions to introduce or discuss, no resolutions to memorialize. We do not

663
03:12:05.439 --> 03:12:20.800
need an executive session. So, at this point, staff recommends a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Okay. For the record, it is 9:59 p.m. All in favor? >> I. >> Meeting adjured.

664
03:12:20.800 --> 03:12:29.279
>> Come on, England. Good night. >> Good night, everyone. Good night. >> Good night.