Okay. All right. I'll now call to order this regular meeting of the Jersey City Historic Preservation Commission. It is Monday, August 18th, 2025, and I have the time as 6:33 p.m.
Please be advised that in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, the notice of the time, date, and place of this regularly scheduled meeting of the Jersey City Historic Preservation Commission has been sent to the Bergen Record and Ellis Baselito on thursday,
August 14th, 2025. The same notice has been sent to the city clerk for posting on the bulletin board outside the clerk's office in city hall and on the Jersey City website. I have proof of these notices uh here in evidence. Uh if we can mark this as B1
and we will move on to a roll call attendance. Um Commissioner Gucciardo is absent. Commissioner Sanamp here. Commissioner Gunther >> here. >> Commissioner Sakong >> here.
>> Commissioner Blazak >> here. >> Commissioner Gordon >> present. >> Uh Commissioner Edcomm is absent. Commissioner Kalbach >> here. >> And vice chairs Grigga and Chair Cronin
are both absent. Uh Commissioner Gordon is filling in for the chair this evening. I'm going to make that motion. Would that be the appropriate time now? I'm going to make a motion to appoint um Robert Gordon as
chairman pro tempmpori. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> Okay. Um staff notes that there are six commissioners present this evening. Five affirmative votes are required for a certificate of appropriateness.
And then next up on the agenda is the approval of minutes from the July 14th, 2025 regular HPC meetings. Uh are there any questions or corrections to the minutes? Since there are no corrections or changes, staff recommends making a
motion to approve the minutes as submitted. >> Motion. We have a motion from Sanamp. Second. >> We have a second from chair border. >> Commissioner Gunther >> I.
>> Commissioner Sak abstain. >> Commissioner Blazak. >> Abstain. Um, >> Commissioner Kbach. Hi. And then um Commissioner Sanamp >> I >> and Chair Gordon
>> I >> Okay, we have one, two, three, four, four in favor. Um two three abstains and uh no nays. The motion uh to approve the minutes as submitted is from the July uh
14th 2025 HPC meeting is approved. Um, as a note, um, Commissioner Edgecomb just came in. The time is 6:36. Thank you. Uh, for all correspondents, all copies
um of correspondence and all application materials are linked on the agenda through their application numbers. For announcements, uh, staff has one announcement at this time. Uh item 11B, demolition review of 104 Ferry Street, B-24,
uh that sorry, B-25-0182 has been issued an imminent hazard by the construction code official and as such has been removed from tonight's agenda. And Robert, if you would like to call the first case. >> Yes. So moving to old business, I'll
call case H-24-0248. The applicant is Jennifer Bogdansky, Esquire, applicant on behalf of 24 Bright Street LLC owner. The address is 24 Bright Street. And this is for a certificate of appropriateness for a
proposed rear and fifthstory addition to an existing four-story building, interior renovations, and front facade restoration at an altered contributing Italian 8 townhouse built circa 1890 in the Vanvor Park Historic District. And this is a recommendation to the Jersey
City Planning Board that was carried at the request of the applicant from the June 16th, 2025 regular HPC meeting. Before we begin, uh we did have a few commissioners that were not here at that meeting. Um I believe commissioners
Sakong, Edgecom, and Kbach were not here. um if you would just confirm on the record that you reviewed the transcripts or video that were sent uh and if that's okay with um council that they vote on the issues tonight. >> Uh yes, that would be acceptable.
>> There you go. >> And I can confirm that I've reviewed the read transcript. >> Commissioner Kobach, >> I did. >> And Commissioner Edgecom, >> uh I was here in the audience and I watched the transcript again today. >> Great. Thank you so much. >> Okay. Thank you. Yeah. For the record,
Charles Harrington of Connell Foley on behalf of the applicant. Uh yeah, this the application was before the board at their June uh meeting or the commission, I'm sorry, before at at their June meeting. At that point, it was five stories and and four units were being
proposed. Uh you know, based upon the comments uh uh that that we received at that time, uh we we did um adjourn it uh to look at it a little closer. Uh and in that uh time period, what we've done is
is my clients and the architect have have made revisions that that are hopefully consistent with the comments that they got from the commission. So what we're we're presenting tonight, you'll see is is different from what was presented in June. It's a it's a smaller
project. Uh it's a fourstory uh building with three residential units. No variances are being requested as part of the uh overall presentation. Um, so that's um, you know, so what you saw in June, um, even if you read the, you
know, wouldn't read the transcript and looked at the video, you're going to see something different tonight, which we hope you you also deem, uh, is is appropriate. Uh, so um, with that uh, said, I'm going to bring up Mr. Vandermark, who can walk you through,
uh, the revised project. Excuse me. we can just have the monitors turned on. That would be great. >> And while that's happening, I'll just swear you in before you begin your testimony. >> Sure.
>> Awesome. >> Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Can you uh state and spell your name for the record, please? >> Absolutely. That is Anthony C. Vandermark, Jr. Vandermark, V-N
M A R K, principal of the architectural firm of MVMK architecture. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Staff notes that Mr. Vandermark has previously been qualified in front of this board as an expert in the field of architecture. >> Great. Thank you very much. >> Yes.
>> Uh good evening everyone. Um and once again, as Mr. Harrington had just previously explained uh I think we have a a much improved project here. Um again to state that under the Jersey City LDO uh we are uh proposing a variance-free
application. Hopefully what we are presenting this evening uh does receive u a certificate of appropriateness. Um, we have a pre-existing uh fourstory um Italian8 uh town home
masonry structure and we are proposing a four-story rear yard edition. Just to quickly uh go back through and I know uh some of the commission members were here. I know somebody uh some commissioners had read the uh
transcripts. the the project is midblock on the northern side of Bright Street. Um Borrow Street is the nearest cross street to the west and Grand Street uh runs uh again west to east below us on the diagonal. We have a three and a half story uh masonry Italian 8 uh town home
structure. Um we have a three-unit uh pre-existing structure. We have a uh kind of a uh basement unit that uh is pre-existing, but that's not on the books. Um to the rear yard, uh we have a 30 foot 7
in uh deep building. We have a 15t deep uh accessory shed off the back of the building. Um forward picture in graphic number four. Again, it's three and a half stories. The half story is a basement uh slightly below grade. Adjacent to us at the west graphic
number five uh is a vacant uh property um that will someday uh be developed. The vacant property and the property immediately to the west the fivetory structure. Uh both of them fall in the Bright Street redevelopment plan which permits four stories on the vacant
parcel. As you can see it's pre-existing five stories to the west. The redevelopment plan permits uh that vacant parcel to be at a 70 foot building depth. Uh in the foreground here, graphic six, we have a pre-existing uh 3 and a half story town home in a green clapboard
that has recently been renovated. Um and graphics five uh nine. Uh as you can see, uh both different perspectives to show you the uh side cementitious stucco material uh on the side facade. uh both
on the western side and also on the eastern side. The rear yard has a pre-existing fire escape uh stucco in the back of the building. Um and if I take you to the next graphic, uh there is a pre-existing one-story shed in the back
which is proposed to be raised. Going back to the existing structure, three and a half stories uh brick masonry. uh at one time uh we're thinking there was a brownstone finish at the base. The heads in the sills uh again uh we anticipated those to be
brownstone. The uh pre-existing opening has since been reframed um and we have done exploration uh of the framing and to see if there was any material at this location uh on the facade uh which it no longer exists. The the windows are
replacement uh and the cornice is original. Uh we will get into the restoration of this facade uh down the road. Interior of this structure as you can see uh it looks like it's a circa 1980s uh interior renovation. Um inside the
historical resource uh we couldn't find any elements of the pre-existing uh historic structure. Um therefore uh this kind of opens the door for us to go ahead and propose the renovation of the interior which we're proposing this evening.
The application uh again uh before you under the land use ordinance uh for historic uh would be deemed uh no variance or variance free. Here we are proposing a uh 60% or 60 foot deep uh uh
structure a a 30 ft um 5 in uh pre-existing structure with a 29 ft 7in rear edition. uh together giving you a 60- foot deep uh complete volume as a whole. And again uh the proposed
addition matches uh the original uh historic resource at four stories uh 3 and a half uh above grade in the front, a full four stories in the back. The application proposes a 70% lot coverage.
Uh we're proposing a 10-ft deck extension at the first floor uh with a rear yard stair that takes you to uh an outdoor area for unit number two. Uh we are proposing uh two bicycle parking spaces. We are proposing a zero
sideyard at both east and western sides. We have a 39 ft uh 10-in uh rear yard um setback from the principal structure or the addition to the rear yard lot line. So again, we're not proposing any
variance as part of this application. When you look at the site plan graphic, the pre-existing condition on the left hand side was at a 45% building uh coverage with the carriage house. combined uh with the uh imperous
pavement we are at 74% complete lot coverage. This application that you have before you is actually a reduction um in lock coverage. So again, 60% building coverage on the on the combination with a 70% lock coverage as part of this
application um really has no relevance to this, but we are proposing a storm water detention system in the rear yard, which is part of the green principles uh that Jersey City is looking for now in uh all of their new uh building proposals. There's a pre-existing front
planter. This application proposes all new sidewalks and curbing as part of this uh restoration and and addition. We are proposing one new street tree with a tree uh planting pit that's in compliance with the Jersey City forestry standards. Graphic in front of you, the yellow is
the pre-existing historic resource at four stories, 30 ft 5 in deep, a fourstory rear yard edition at uh 29 ft 7 in. Uh the brown graphic to you is a 10-ft deck extension that's coming off of the
uh first floor above the sidewalk. and uh in total a 30-foot rear yard setback from the back edge of that deck. Uh pre-existing streetscape graphic number one uh existing structure dead center uh labeled site in black and
white. Graphic below you is the complete block diagram. Again, our building is shorter um than the uh you know building uh adjacent to it to the east. Uh there seems to be some sort of uh rear edition on that building. Then there's also a deck extension off of the back totaling
70%. Vacant parcel immediately uh to the west of our property. Again, uh as part of this application, uh no top floor addition. We have a fourstory extension off the back. you will uh in in two dimensions anyway in
plain that you can see uh the proposed bulkhead uh which is to the roof deck access for the top floor unit. However, what I will prove to you uh in sighteline diagrams uh from middle of the sidewalk from the edge of the sidewalk directly across the street that it will not be visible from viewing
angle. As you can see bottom graphic here, uh in the future you will potentially have uh uh highlighted in blue a proposed structure adjacent to it which will cut any visibility through that empty lot uh
to the rear yard edition. Red uh is the uh proposed addition and the brown is the deck extension. As you can as you can see in line in footprint area uh you're at a 70% building coverage. We're at a 60% building
coverage with a 10-ft deck extension. And then again, very similar to the east at 60 feet and a 10-ft deck extension. Um, these three properties uh together should work in unison uh in the eventuality when uh that new proposal
will be immediately to the west. from the proposed floor plans. Uh at the basement level, what we're labeling that the first floor plan, um we have a singular unit. Um at the basement level, um again, yellow is the uh existing
historic resource that's going to be renovated. We have a 29 foot7 extension. We have a uh 1,230 ft two-bedroom. We have uh two rear yards uh stacked uh vertically. Here we have the first rear
yard at 400 square ft that's going to be available to the two-bedroom at the basement level. Then we have a stair uh that's that goes down to uh the rear yard or the rear yard separation at 481 ft. And that'll be for unit two coming
in off of the second floor. Second floor, bottom right hand graphic is a 1,923 ft 3bedroom plus den duplex. Um, you know, the front and the back of this level uh is all considered one unit with
one internal stair and we have one pre uh one pre-existing or newly created uh renovated internal stair uh servicing the common area of the building. We have uh the proposed third floor. It's it's split up into um two units. Uh
the level portion goes down to the first floor or portion of the duplex. So that is together and then uh the rear portion of this is to the upper portion of the building at 2,142 ft. The common stere uh will disappear uh at
the third level. We will create a roof access hatch uh via ladder at the fourth level. Because we have three units and we have a third floor um entry point to both of these units, uh we are not required to bring the stair up to the
first uh the fourth floor and we are not required to have uh two means of egress um as part of the structure. Top floor again uh is the upper part of the back duplex from the third floor and again at
60% building coverage servicing that top floor unit. Uh we have a red centrally located um internal stair with a 380 square ft uh upper roof deck and we have a 178 square ft
extensive green roof around the perimeter of that roof deck. The four condenser units uh for each level uh again centrally located on the pre-existing roof will be screened from visibility and will not be viewed from directly across the street mid sidewalk
back sidewalk 5'8 and 6'1. As part of this application, again, we are proposing a full restoration, uh, repointing on the masonry, uh, new brownstone finish on the heads and the sills, uh, new painted wood, black, uh,
one over one, uh, window sets. The, uh, entry point will be uh, carefully uh, demolished uh, and, uh, a new pair of doors will be put back in its place. Um base of the building again will be a new uh
brownstone finish and the upper corner line will be restored uh and painted an ineity black. Uh as previously mentioned, we did exploration uh on the this wood uh what we're thinking is a pressuret treated
wood surround this uh existing single door. uh no uh remnants of the existing uh historic uh opening uh were in this opening here. No no brick mold uh none of the components of part of that door
assembly. So uh you know we feel uh it would be appropriate to remove and then come back with the appropriate uh pair of doors as part of this uh application. again um full restoration on all the masonry elements as you can see bottom
right hand corner now in graphic number two pair of doors with an upper transom uh very similar to the 18 uh Bright Street which is uh few doors down to the east overall uh building height
will be at 35 ft 5 in that's to the upper deck and the pre-existing uh structure to the back end of the sloped corner Um, we are at 34 ft 1 in. Again, the front railing system
pre-existing will be scraped, cleaned, and repainted. New brownstone finish will go on the existing planter and the existing curbing in front at the gate line. Stairs will be refinished. Uh, the existing railing system again uh will be refinished in an ebony black. We will
have a mahogany paired doors as you can see with a lower medallion uh uh both with lights above the medallion. It'll be a stained ebony color with an upper transom above. We have one uh plaque sign uh with the building number
directly if you're facing to the left hand side or the western side of the entry door. And again, as you can see, uh it'll be painted one over one uh double hung windows here. proposed rear edition. Uh right-hand
graphic number two, we're proposing a hardy uh grained uh plank siding. Um I brought the material just for everyone to see. Um the window wraps will be in a matching
uh 5/4 by 4 in. And again, we will have a painted uh wood casement window with lower transom on floors four and three. The lower floor will be similar in window set with one entry door that opens up into uh that rear yard deck. We're proposing a 2x two or ladder type
railing system painted black steel with a steel stringer uh and steel uh tread and riser uh on the right hand side coming down painted in ebony black. It's a pair of sliding doors on the lower level uh that'll be access to grade from the basement and again a casement window
that opens up into that rear yard. As far as viewing angle goes, uh historical resource in yellow, new addition in blue. Um uppermost point uh to the upper roof deck is at 35 ft 5 in. Again, no variances is being requested
for the overall height. Four stories is permitted in the historic district. uh and four stories is being proposed. Um graphic shows, as you can see, you cannot see uh above the cornice line from across the street at 6'1 and even see the bulkhead uh from the proposed
internal stair and the top floor unit. The condensers will be screened with a uh a 1x4 Azac screen. The paint will match uh the color of the proposed addition and a color in red. graphic on the bottom again is in the
middle of the sidewalk. It only improves your sight lines from that location. Opposite side we are proposing cementitious stucco uh refinish on the side elevation. Proposed fourstory addition in red board on board fence in
the rear uh that's broken up into two parts and again the steel ra uh steel uh stair and uh deck railing as you can see here above in this graphic. Same thing from the opposite side. Uh new cementish stucco. Uh new clapboard
siding uh done in a a red Hardy plank. Uh and again uh steel stair and board on board fence in the rear. As part of the uh uh addition, we will be uh slightly moving the floor levels. Um the overall floor height will be 8
feet in the basement, 9 foot five uh on the first to second floor, 9 foot five again and 9 foot4 on the top level. From the front facade, you cannot see the rear edition. Uh in perspective from the east, you cannot see the rear edition. only in perspective from the
west through the vacant parcel, you'll be able to see uh this 29 foot 7 inch addition with the upper bulkhead and again an aerial uh again it more or less looks like one uniform volume now
uh but clearly uh standing forward and standing proud is the historic structure from a sun angle uh point of view the structure uh is permitted in height in volume. Um, again, we're casting shadow uh in
the uh in the morning uh in the midday into the vacant parcel um and into the side of the building of the redevelopment plan building at five stories. Only, you know, when the sun turns, you know, at the end of the day uh from the west uh will the rear yard uh be impacted from the addition. But
again, um volume is permitted. The height is actually 4 foot uh 7 in below what is permitted. Um and again I think the the addition um now does not overpower the historic resource which
was the original concern by this commission. This concludes my presentation. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any questions from any commissioners? >> Um I like it significantly better than the last one. Um my um uh interest is um
I noticed on your previous uh plan that you called out the lower level as being uh something that you weren't going to habit inhabit because it was a flood zone. is >> Was that something you guys determined was not the case or that you >> because of the extent of the addition?
>> Um uh it is not a a substantial uh uh uh uh renovation or addition to the overall uh basement area. So therefore not deemed uh uh needed to be elevated above the flood plane. In the event that DP
does change their mind on this, I'll be back to this commission. >> Yeah, that's where I was going. That's exactly what's going to happen. Uh if >> that's where I was going with it. Yeah. >> Um Okay. So, what is that breaking point? Is it 50% greater? Is that what is that why you're
>> 50% greater? And we're technically just below 50% at the moment. >> Okay. Um I guess the other thing was um was there any thought about changing any of the the iron work in the front because I don't I'm not sure it's original or there was anything about that.
>> Well, uh that is something that that is not considered. um not considered as part of the application at the moment. >> Okay. >> I have a question about the windows. Sure. >> Can I Do you have the tax card available? >> Yes.
>> Is there I guess there were one over ones at the time of the tax photo. >> Yeah. I was a little confused by it myself, but it it sure looks like a one over one there in the photo. >> Yeah. I guess my question would be this seems like a relatively modest Italian8 building. Um, and I just wonder if
historically they had one over ones or if they may have been two over twos because the production of the glass, you know, on a building this modest maybe wouldn't have been they wouldn't have paid for those windows. Um, it does appear looking at the doors
which are French doors, it looks like the building was probably u modernized at the early 20th century. Uh, one over one at that point probably would have, you know, made more sense when the
building was originally built. Um, this being a fairly modest building of about 1865 or so, I would think that in this neighborhood, it would have been probably a 6 over6 uh pattern,
which is what we generally see in this in this particular neighborhood of that particular time. Well, I guess I just my question is really just like especially with the presence of two over twos on the rear facade which may you know may have been replaced over time but if that
pattern continued on the rear it makes me wonder if the original windows which we don't have photographs of were two over two which is fairly common for Italian neat window buildings that are more modest. I do, when we were reviewing this or
when I had taken a look at it, um the rear windows I do wonder if they were just left because they weren't public facing and didn't necessarily need to be updated, but I don't think staff has a preference
either way. And I think the applicant would be willing to do >> call >> whichever staff determines would be appropriate. >> Yes, I can confirm that the the applicant would follow the lead of the commission. It's the recommendations.
Thank you. >> Can we take a look again at that um rendering that shows what um the new addition would look like? um from an oblique angle with the existing vacant lot to the west. Yeah.
Okay. So, there's a pretty obvious change in materials there to delineate old from new. Okay. Right. >> I just wanted to confirm that. Thanks. >> And in in um one of the elevations, I think you showed that there's going to
be a roof deck that extends a little bit onto where where the existing roof is. Is that correct? >> Yeah. And and and it's not even the actual roof deck. Um I'm sorry. There's uh this bulkhead is still even
on the new addition. There is a small screened area for four condensers um pushed right up against that bulkhead that's on the rooftop of the uh historic structure. >> Okay. And just just none of that's going to be visible. Correct. It's going to be
visible. Yeah. 4T maximum by the screening for that. >> Okay. And I echo what I think Anthony said earlier. I think this is much improved. So, thank you. Any further questions, comments? Okay. If there are no more questions or
comments, um Chuck, is it okay if we move on to public comment? Does that conclude your testimony? >> Yes, that concludes our presentation. >> Thank you. Okay. Um, so, uh, if there are any members of the public who would like to address the commission regarding this application,
please approach the public comment mic. Staff sees no members of the public present and recommends a motion to open and close public comment. >> Motion Sandamp. >> Second. >> Second was from Blazak. All in favor? >> I.
>> I. Okay, we will now move into staff comments. Um, so I agree with what the commissioners were echoing that uh this project is greatly improved from what we saw uh two months ago and uh I think
based off the changes, you know, we see that it is mostly consistent with the secretary of the interior standards for historic preservation and the city's zoning ordinance uh the historic design standards. Um, I kind of laid out some of the commission uh some of the conditions
that we could uh review it under as well as um kind of addressed uh I think now that the rear edition and roof deck will not be visible from directly across the street along Bright Street. Um that was something that I think the applicant made very clear and uh although it will
be obliquely visible through a vacant lot um I think from staff's perspective uh that's a condition that we have seen in the past. Um so if it's something that the the commission feels comfortable approving I think that there's definitely a possibility for that. Um and then uh the alterations did
remove three proposed variances. Um, so I think that that goes uh I think that that makes this project uh you know as as of right and it makes it uh much more straightforward. Um, additionally most of the front facade work is consistent with the restoration
standards and what is typically seen throughout the the districts. Um, so if the commission finds that the project as proposed will not cause an adverse effect on the character and/or integrity of the historic resources or the Vanforce Park, uh, I do lay out a few conditions in the staff report. Um, all
work all restoration work shall be guided by historic site evidence. Uh, the applica applicant shall carefully remove inappropriate modern materials on the front facade, including the door surround to document existing conditions prior to the submission of construction documents. Uh the applicant shall notify
HPC staff and schedule a site visit of any changes or differences to the approved plans at the time of this exploratory demo. The applicant shall work with staff to revise the front facade window brick molding case brick mold casing to a historically accurate brick mold based
on historic site and photographic evidence. Um, the applicant shall seek a uh approval of a franchise ordinance for the construction of the front areaway uh yard railing and areaway as it extends beyond the property line. If any
component of that approval alters the proposal, the applicant shall submit a deviation request in writing to HBC staff and provide plans for review showing the existing approved and res revised condition. If necessary, the applicant will reappear in front of the
HPC to seek approval of the changes. Um, most of the rest of them laid out are all of our standard conditions. Uh, we did have one condition that was brought up by Commissioner Gunther. Um, the I kind of kept it vague, but if we would like it to be more spec more specific,
we can. Applicants shall work with HPC staff to revise the front facade windows prior to the submission of construction documents. I don't know if we want specifically 2 over2 or if we would explore 6 over6 what you would prefer. >> I'm just inclined to think that the one over one is not likely to be the
historic configuration. >> That's all. >> Yeah. >> So maybe we keep that vague a little bit vagger condition and then I'll work with the applicant to ensure that we have appropriate windows on the front facade. >> If it's vague, how will you know what's appropriate? >> Do more research.
>> Yeah. Based based on historic research. >> Okay. Unless we would like to specify. >> No, we need someone needs to do the research first. Okay, >> we could say a minimum of two over two. >> So then that way it could it could it could increase from there. Maybe
>> that would be acceptable. >> Okay. Uh I did have one other one that I caught while I was re while the applicant was um presenting uh that I did just want to also address. Uh the applicant said that the siding proposed the hardy plank was going to be a
patterned kind of wood grained. Uh if we could just revise that to a flat siding, a flat hardy plank, that would be appreciated as well. >> Sure. >> Okay. Um so the applicant shall revise the hardy plank siding to be flat rather than uh patterned um prior to the submission of construction documents.
As staff mentioned, uh staff recommends a motion to approve and recommend to the planning board. um with the conditions as noted in the staff report and read into the record. If if I could just before we go there when I picked up reading the conditions uh number nine I
just want to clarify in the record uh condition number nine which which has us come back to the HPC in the event something is submitted to something is is approved later but it's not before the commission tonight which would be the the windows or condition number
three uh the the front facade window brick mold casing Those are items that would not have to come back to the board because they they seem that number nine conflicts with number three. >> So number nine um is one of our standard
conditions and that just is mainly if if there are substantial deviations that cannot be approved at the staff level. >> That was my understanding. I just wanted to clarify that. >> Not a problem. Um uh before we take a vote on this, I also
want to emphasize on the record that um although there's visibility obliquely um from the front of the building. Um and we have to take the site as we find it. I
think we can all acknowledge as the applicant did that there is a very high likelihood of development at the neighboring lot and I think it's fair to say that is something that we are taking into consideration in this case. So I think this is a you know we're deciding
this application on these specific facts just for future reference when we look back at what we did here I want to bear that in mind. >> Okay. Again, staff's recommendation is approval of the certificate of appropriateness and recommendation to the planning board with the conditions
as read into the record and in the staff report. >> I'll make a motion to approve with conditions as read into the record in the staff report. >> So, we have a motion by Commissioner Blazak and then >> I'll second that. >> A second by Commissioner Gunther. I will
take a roll call vote. Commissioner Sanamp >> I. >> Commissioner Gunther. I >> Commissioner Sakong >> I Commissioner Blazak >> I >> Commissioner Edgecom >> I >> Commissioner Kbach
>> I >> and Chair Gordon >> I >> we have seven in favor no against no abstensions. Uh the certificate of appropriateness and the recommendation to the planning board is approved with conditions.
>> Okay. Thank you everyone. >> Thanks. Thank you, >> Michael. While I have the floor, if I if I can indulge the commission, I'm also here on 300 Central Avenue, uh the demolition review, and I I'm just requesting that that be carried to September. There's there's a an issue
that I wanted to take another look at. >> Not a problem at all. If we could just have a motion to carry it. >> Motion Sand Camp second, Blazak. >> All in favor? I Thank you. >> Thank you.
All right, with that I will now call demolition the demolition case uh for 1123 Summit Avenue. This is B-24-2696. This was carried at the request of the applicant from the June 16th, 2025 regular HPC meeting.
>> I was going to say this beforehand, but sorry. I actually don't know if anybody is anybody here for the demolition application? No. Okay, maybe we save that to the end. I apologize. And then move on to the new business and then we can go loop back to those demos. Well,
this way we can get the good people out of here. >> All right, we'll circle back then. So, moving to new business. That takes us to case H-25-0226. The applicant is Continuum Design LLC on behalf of Laura Hooker and Darcy
Greenham owners. The address is 575 Jersey Avenue. This application is for a certificate of appropriateness for interior renovation and a full height rear edition visible from the public right of way at 575 Jersey Avenue. A
non-contributing twostory residential building circa 1975 in the Haramus Cove Historic District. >> Before we get started, I'll just swear you in when you're ready. >> Sure. Ready. Can you raise your right hand? Do you swear from the testimony
you're about to give, is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Can you step spell and state your name for the record, please? >> Uh, Thomas Ogzalik, T H O M A S O G O R
Z A L E K, Principle of Continuum Design. >> Thank you. >> And staff notes that Mr. has previously been qualified in front of this board as an expert in the field of architecture. Feel free to begin. >> Interesting. Sorry, it's just not
responding. That's not good. Apologies. Apologies. Are you able to see this the way it is? I'm going to have to use the mouse to The keyboard's not quite doing what I want. Okay. Um, I'm Thomas Ogzalik. I'm a
partner at Continuum Design. I'll be presenting the architectural plans for 575 Jersey Avenue. The presentation for a rear edition to an existing 2 and a halftory non-contributing building in the Hearth Cove Historic District. Um,
just to get everybody oriented, you'll see the front uh on this the existing photo. This is a series of four buildings that are non-contributing along Jersey Avenue. To get everybody a little bit of orientation,
if you look at the text, if you look at the um if you look at the site photo from above, the location of this property is in the center of these four buildings. 57 that are made up of 575A,
575, which is the project location, 573, and 571. It's immediately across from the Key Foods on Jersey Avenue on the western side of the street. Uh if you look at the block diagram, you're going to
notice that the the proposed addition is consistent with the other previous approvals for this block at 575A, 573, and 571. The existing um the existing property,
you'll also notice currently extends beyond um the rear yard setback. So, there's an existing non-conforming condition that exists on the site. Right now, the rear yard setback is at 28 feet and the total lot
coverage is also over at this point in time. Our proposal is going to basically abate that, bring everything back into conformance. Historically, for those of you who are interested, um around um
circa 19, I would say 39, the tax records indicate that there used to be one large existing building on the entire site. Um that made up those four buildings.
That building um was uh owned by St. Mary's Church and rented by the state department of labor and then sublet as a part of the building to the state probation office and department of hygiene and
sanitation. Um, as far as we can tell, um, it was probably like this until 1948 when our understanding was there was a fire that destroyed the entire building. So what I'm speaking about here is if you look at this structure on the left,
that structure occupied this entire site that make up these four buildings. Our project happens to be the building right in the center here um with the lovely blue vinyl siding and the faux stone facade. Couple other things to kind of note. Um
these structures that we're looking at uh currently they were all originally built somewhere around the 60s all similar time all similar kind of layouts. What we're proposing with a third floor addition, you can see from the sight
lines here, you're going that will be visible. If you were standing across the street right in front of the Key Foods or if you were on the sidewalk, you're going to see in this hatched area. This is the proposed addition. There is an existing singlestory that we are demoing
and building back because this existing single story currently doesn't have a foundation. Plus, it also extends into the rear yard setback. So, we want to fix that condition. But this is essentially what we're looking at as an addition and that will be visible from
the public right of way. What we're proposing is to match everything else that's been done and reviewed by staff previously. Um, so the intention is that what we will see here from the front facade, and I'll get more into the details of the materials later, would be
consistent with the adjacent buildings. One thing to note, um, and we'll talk more about this a little bit when I get into the details, we have done investigation underneath the faux stone. We're not sure about underneath the faux vinyl or the the
real vinyl siding, but underneath the faux stone is an existing masonry brick facade. So, there is existing brickmasonry there, but we really don't know the condition of it. One of the things that we will have to investigate once we actually do the demolition is
the condition of that brick masonry. Um I will be working with staff. So as soon as we have that kind of free and clear, we want to take a look at it to see if there's any possibility of restoration. If there isn't, you'll see what we're proposing to do to match all the other
existing buildings that are there. um the existing conditions. You can kind of see what they have right now. Um ground floor level, living space, kitchen area, and this family
room area, which is a singlestory addition that currently extends into the rear yard setback. Second floor is three bedrooms with one full bath. The third level is really just the attic level. It's a gabled attic. You can kind of see that in the section here. Here's the front of the building. Here's the back
of the building. And then here you can see that existing family room which is a singlestory structure. Uh these are the existing condition elevations here and here. Um >> just make sure you're talking into the mic. >> Sorry. Thank you. >> These are the existing conditions for
the front elevation and the rear elevation. The rear elevation has vinyl siding as well. Um for the most part this is a full gut rehab. We are making use of the existing major utilities, meaning the sanitary lines and the incoming services, but and and some of
the structure, but for the most part, um it's been chopped up pretty badly. So, we're going to be reframing a lot of the interior. These are the proposed plans. So, what you will notice about this at the entry level, um we just maintained
the same living room. We've created a new window here to match the window at 573, which is what we are calling the sister structure, which is the other center building. We've got a single powder room, a
kitchen, and we do have a family room in the back, but we are pulling it back so that it meets the rear yard setback of 30 ft. Once you get up to the second floor, and these are all brand new stairs. Once you get up to the second floor, we're renovating the front bedroom. If you recall, and I'm just
going to pan back for you here. If you take a look at the windows here, you can see the windows are these are the existing windows. What we're hoping to do in the renovation is we're renovating it so that the window scheme will match the window scheme for 573.
So, we're trying to make this look consistent with the building that is immediately to the south. Sorry. Yeah, that bedroom will have its own full bath. There'll be one shared full bath
for the two bedrooms in the back, storage closet, a mechanical space, and then a laundry center. the stair will rise up to the third floor where there's a small office area, a master suite with a full master
bedroom closet area, and then there's going to be a roof access ladder in the closet. That'll allow you to get to a roof hatch and go out onto the roof to be able to do maintenance. There are a couple of skylights in the project. Um, you can
see that in the roof plan. One is in the main bathroom. The other one is over that office area. And this is the roof hatch I was talking about before. Um that actually you get to through the one of the master closets.
We made some revisions. Um so hopefully you're looking at the most recent set of drawings. Um the rear in the rear elevation, you'll notice we've got um centered Frenchwood hinge doors, two bed two two bedroom egress windows,
and then a larger egress window for the master suite and then a larger window for their bathroom. Um the front roof is an existing shingle roof. It's in decent condition and we don't plan on changing it because it currently matches all the
other roofs at 571 and 573. And if we were going to renovate it for some reason or decide to put a new roof on, it would match what we would be removing. Electrical lighting and some HVAC plans.
Um, nothing really major to note here other than the HVAC equipment for this project is not up on the roof. The condensing unit is actually in the rear yard. Um, in some of the other projects we had presented, it was up on the roof. This is actually in the rear yard, and
there's a mechanical space internally in the attic as well as on the second floor. The rest of the drawings, you'll see here uh a building section through the entire structure. So, just to orient you to to the right of the drawing is the
front. That's the living room, the renovated bedroom, and the existing attic with the existing roof that we're not doing any work on. The extension goes up from approximately 26 feet to about 32 feet. So, it's about a six foot high parapit that you will see from the
front. And then it's a sloped roof back all the way to the edge of the to the edge of the um existing 30-foot yard set back with new foundations. Um the existing family room had no foundation. So we will be excavating those out.
Some details uh information you with the interior elevations. If you have questions, I'll be more than happy to answer those. Um but I wanted to kind of get to um the materials. So existing front elevation, you can see
the blue vinyl siding and you can see the faux stone. All the windows are going to be replaced. all the doors replaced. And the intent is if we can if we can manage um and the brick is in good condition underneath, we'll restore it and we'll bring it back. But if it
isn't in good condition and we have to remove it and put new brick veneer on, the new brick veneer is meant to match what's happening here at 573 to the south and what happens at 575A to the north. We will not know that until we tear off
all the stone in the vinyl. Um, this is the proposed elevation. Um, what we're proposing to do here is a Hardy panel. It's a fiber cement panel. It's consistent with previous
applications that we presented for the other two or for the other three non-contributing structures. The hope is that the brick will be able to be restored, but if not, this is going to be a new brick veneer to match the adjacent properties. Um, we are proposing to have the same type and
style of door. I'll get into some of those details now. Um, same type and style of door as 573, but the applicant wishes to paint it black. Um I believe in the application packet you may be looking at we didn't upload the revised
material color palette. So it may be showing you a wood door um like a a a wood stained door. So this is something that um I need to send to staff in the morning the the revisions to these
materials. Everything else is the same, but the door changed. The door is at 571 and the door at 575A is a black door. The outlier is 573, which is a stained wood door. Um,
>> we're going to mark this as A1 in evidence. >> Okay. >> Did you bring any physical material samples? >> What material sample would you like? the uh brick veneer that you're indicating may be necessary if you can't restore
the extent material. >> I I didn't bring a sample of the new brick um because the hope and it was in decent condition is that the existing brick is going to be okay um and we can restore it. If we can't, I'm going to
have to get a sample. Um we did the renovation for 571. It'll be the same exact specification for 571 cuz um that was done I want to say four years ago they did a facade
renovation for >> the brick is still in production. We use it quite frequently. >> Yeah. Um so no I did I didn't bring a sample of it because the hope is that we can restore what's there. >> Okay. And are we potentially approving
this on a conditional basis where you'll the applicant will attempt to restore it and if not then we have plan B or will the applicant I guess this is a question for staff will the applicant need to come back. >> So I would say that the applicant is
proposing to restore the facade brick on the chance that it's not able to be restored. it would be a deviation to the approval to, you know, replace the front facade material with um something that matches
the adjacent properties. Um I would say that that's probably something that would be handled at the staff. That's a deviation that would probably be handled at the staff level >> and staff would actually recommend that uh we do consider that the brick
underneath will not be able to be restored. Um, the brick, as I recall it, was not in great shape, which is why that faux veneer was put on and, uh, some of the, uh, way it was attached
might have might have harmed some of the brick. So, might be prudent to plan to replace all the brick, but that's a deviation that could be taken care of at Steve at staff level. I have a question about the brick that's presumed to be beneath the
vinyl. Do is this something that you did a probe on one of the previous renovations so you know what the color and the texture is or >> Yeah, I do actually. I was able to visualize it in the vestibule. It's still exposed in the vestibule, the front entry vestibule of 575.
>> Okay. So, if that were to be exposed, is it going to match what's on the other three buildings that's newer or will it be different? >> It varies. Okay. >> It's it's different. So, the hope is that it's in good condition, but we don't anticipate that. The way we
actually set up the structure and the way we planned the spaces is we planned for it to most likely have to be replaced. Um, but we wouldn't be able to guess on that until we took the vinyl and everything down. And if staff also
feels that it can't um be replaced or even if it could be restored or replaced that it would be too inconsistent with the other buildings. The applicant also understands that most likely we would be putting a new brick veneer on.
>> Yeah. I'm wondering if, you know, I know we're going you're going to try to maybe restore that, but I'm also wondering as a non-contributing building if we're overly concerned with restoring what's there and maybe it's preferable for them all to match in this case. >> Sure.
>> I don't think that there is brick underneath the uh underneath the vinyl. I believe that that was a cementitious sighting beforehand. >> I didn't look under the vinyl. It was out of my reach. >> Yeah. I I I think that that was a
summiticious >> well whatever is being exposed. You know, if it's not a good match, maybe it's okay if it's not. It could be new. >> Agreed. >> And and so the proposal is that it matches it be identical to the neighboring property.
>> Absolutely. Okay. Okay. Very. >> That's the proposal and that's that's what we're planning on. So this would be the hope, right? If we matched it. So this is what it'll look like if we match it. That's exactly the
same brick as 573. Same thing for now kind of filling in that empty spot. And so that that wall you see is part of that third floor edition.
This is the rear elevation with the vinyl siding. This singlestory structure will be taken down. This is the new proposal. It's going to be a fiber cement lapsiding. The finish is actually going to be the same type
and style as what was proposed at 573 and what was proposed at 571. Not that those are visible from the public right of way. Um but it just keeps it consistent in the rear yard as well. And that concludes the presentation. If
you have more questions, um, I'd be happy to answer. >> Can I ask a question about the trim color on the around the fiber cement? Um, yeah. In that in that rendering, um, you show >> it's a sketch
>> in the in the sketch. Um, you show the trim being darker, but I see in the property to the north, which I I'm guessing was the first one, right? >> Um, it the trim is lighter. I was wondering which way you were going to go with 5. >> They're going to match all the colors
that are there right now. Currently, 575A, the project to the north, that would be the project to the right on your screen. That's completed, >> right? Okay. So, >> so whatever was done there is going to
be matched across that entire across the other three buildings. So, whatever the colors were, I mean, the colors I'm actually going out there this week um because they've applied for their CFO just to confirm the overall height of the par of that of that kind of parapit,
but also just to I do have the color swatches from the contractor. Um, I do know that the fiber cement board that was bought was what was specked, but the sizes were maybe not cut exactly the way this sketch shows. So, whatever is out
there now will be matched. >> Do you have that? Do you have that photo in this packet? >> I do not, but the cover page. Oh, there it is. >> Yeah, you can kind of see it here, >> right? But that was taken before they painted the trim. >> So, this doesn't help you.
>> That's a really So, this doesn't help you. This just so everybody knows the existing front elevation. This was taken months a before they painted the trim. So the trim is actually a dark trim. >> I think the trim being darker is really helpful to the overall
>> No, the trim being darker helps it disappear completely. >> The goal is to make it disappear. And I don't know if this was, you know, in the middle of construction and it's been since been rectified, but just looks like some of the detailing on that trim is a little, I don't know, rough,
like it it could be smoothed out just in this photo. So, um >> I know >> maybe it's something that if it's painted a darker color could disappear. So, >> yeah, I'll be up on the roof this week. Okay. >> So, I'll let you know. I have to go out there before we can before we can get a
CFO just to kind of verify some things. But yes, it is it wasn't painted when this photo was taken. So maybe that's a little misleading. Any further questions? No. Okay. Does that conclude your
testimony? >> It does. >> Okay. We'll move on to public comment. If there if there are any members of the public who would like to address the commission regarding this application, please approach the public comment mic. >> Staff sees no members of the public present and recommends a motion to open
and close public comment. >> Motion sand. >> Second, Blazak. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you. And we'll move into staff comments. Um, this one see is pretty straightforward from my perspective, right? We have the
other three that have been approved. One of which is nearing completion. Um, and this one will finish off that row. Um, I know there was some discussion at the last uh the last time we heard these two applications about possibly doing something more modern, but uh from
staff's perspective, I think you have the three now and to change it up on this last one would kind of create a real um inongruity between the four buildings. So I think just continuing that uh line makes a lot of sense uh and
definitely is the most contextual uh I think for this this little small area of non contributing buildings. Um the proposed work on the front facade I think is appropriate as you know we kind of talked about we will the applicant
will work with staff to uh ma make sure that the front facade matches appropriately with the adjacent buildings. Um so in all uh HBC staff believes that if the commission finds the application as presented would not have an adverse effect on the Hammus
Cove Historic District, it could approve the application uh due to the building's non-contributing status in the district with the following recommended conditions and those are our standard conditions that are in there. Um so again, staff's recommendation is approval of a certificate of
appropriateness with the conditions in the staff report and read onto the record. I'll make a motion to approve the application with the conditions as read by staff. >> So we have a motion from Commissioner Sak. >> I'll second
>> and a second from Commissioner Sandamp. >> Commissioner Gunther >> I. >> Commissioner Sakong >> I. >> Commissioner Blazak >> I. >> Uh Commissioner Edgecom >> I. Commissioner Kobach >> I. >> Uh, Commissioner Sankamp. >> I,
>> and Chair Gordon, >> I. >> We have seven in favor, no against, no abstensions. The certificate of appropriateness with conditions is approved. >> Thanks for your time. >> Thank you. We'll now move to case H-24-0416.
The applicant is DND Construction and Garage Doors on behalf of Karen Cop owner. The address is 2684th Street. This application is for a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a proposed roof deck on top of an
existing garage that is visible from the public right of way and an altered contributing Greek revival rowhouse built circa 1860 in the Haramus Cove Historic District. Good evening everybody.
Still me for a second. >> And before you get started, I'll swear you in. >> Okay. >> Uh he is not the architect, but so we're just going um still need to be sworn in. Generally, we do everyone who provides testimony other than officers of the court. Are you an attorney?
>> I'm not an attorney. Contract. >> Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth? I do. >> The whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Can you uh state and spell your name for the record, please? >> Danielle Bech, D- an Y A L B A C H Okay.
>> Thanks. Okay. Um, on behalf of the owners, Mr. Mrs. uh cop um were proposing u a rooftop deck above their um uh rear garage of the residence. Um the the
address is 2684th Street um in Jersey City obviously. Okay, that's the front uh of the property and the rear of the property. This is um from uh Third Street looking over to the to the back uh of the
property where you can see the garage on the bottom. Um, basically it's a a wooden uh structure above uh an existing masonry uh uh roof um with a composite decking
uh tracks and u cedar plank u privacy fence. Um, it will have a metal stairs between the garage and the and and and the residence uh with a track railing uh between the
the house and the deck with the rod railing uh track uh on there. Um I believe you guys have the plans. Uh there's several um houses on that block
that have the same uh rooftop decks. Um the house sits uh between Jersey Avenue and Kohl's Avenue. And there's a little alleyway uh to access the garage uh from Kohl's that goes uh to uh Jersey A.
Um, get the plants. As you can see, um, that's the alleyway, uh, coming on to Jersey Avenue. And, um, show some pictures of the visibility of the of the deck.
And that's the alleyway. Also, uh the neighbor uh directly next to them uh that would be on the east side um have a rooftop deck similar will be construction similar uh deck. It'll be raised with the the adjustable
pedestal framing. >> Do we have the architect here present? >> We have it. Yeah. Representative. Yes. Can you just come up and um testify to the plans that you signed and sealed them and everything? >> Can I just uh one more on on on this
last uh slide, you could see um uh which which houses the the five houses that have um the rooftop decks next to it. >> Thank you. >> Of course. >> Can you raise your right hand to be sworn? Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to provide is the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Can you spell and state your name for the record, please? >> Sure. Nazir Afamugad. N A Z I R. Last name A F A M O U G A T.
I'm the designer from the architect's office. Caesar Pastamante. Uh the project is about to build above garage deck in single family house.
It's the the visible part of the above the garage deck is from the alleyway from Jesse Street. There is a few houses with a with a
similar buildings and similar deck above their garages. The garage is existing. It's masonary. Nothing going to be changed as garage door or or any kind of masonry or veneers there.
The material as he mentioned it now it going to be similar to the next door garage on a on the right side if we are in a alley and there's six of those garage uh above garage decks on that
alley. Uh, this is >> I'm sorry. Is Mi I I'm going to mispronounce your name. Mr. Aamagot. Um, I missed it. Are are you an architect or >> I was just trying to get to that. Yeah. Sorry. Um I >> I'm the designer in the architect's
office. He couldn't make it today because he has some health issue. So that's why I'm come come here. >> Usually we need the architect here who signed the plans. This way they can testify to the >> We have it. We have the I I know the
plans are signed, but I I usually we we require that the the person who's licensed needs to address the commission to to you know to testify to the plans that they are as they are presented. Um
>> did you materially work on these drawings? Yes. >> Actually, I'm the one who do it there. >> Okay. And you're working under the architect's license? >> Yes. >> Um, the applicant is Daniel?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Um, and the is the owner here? >> Yes. >> Okay. Would you be able to guarantee that the work is done according to the
approved drawings in the event that a certificate of appropriateness is granted? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes, we do need you to be sworn in, I think. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Can you raise your right hand to be sworn? Do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you're about to ride is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I swear. >> Can you spell and state your name for the record, please? >> It's GMO cop. Gui L E R M O. Last name as K O P.
>> Thank you. >> I I mean, we've we've approved applications without the testimony of an expert witness before. Um, but I I I think it's worth noting that if we don't have a recognized expert, then we're
we're basing our decision off of lay testimony essentially. >> I would agree with that. I would also say that I'm not aware of any requirement that an architect or an attorney appear before like these proceedings, but I know that generally
it's a a process that we the board the commission normally likes to see. So >> my uh my only concern is that one of our general conditions is that the architect of record um
be retained during construction to make sure that construction is done correctly. And at the end of the project they can confirm in writing that the project was
constructed as designed and planned. So if you can if you could uh make sure that the architect is available. I understand that you know accidents happen or health issues do
come up. Um, I I don't see a problem with taking testimony tonight and taking a vote. >> Yeah, I certainly don't have a problem with it. Um, and since we do have the applicant here, um, you know, we can
just ensure that if we do approve this that that that the applicant personally uh agrees to the conditions and ensures that the architect complies with them. So, just to be clear, you're asking me to make sure that the architect follows
through with the plans, >> correct? >> As described. >> Yes. >> Make sure that the builder Make sure that the architect makes sure that the builder follows through with the plans. >> Okay. Thank you for the collaborating. Yes, we will. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much.
>> Okay. Uh does do you guys have anything else to add? And >> Okay. Uh do we have any comm questions from the commission? The only thing uh the only thing I wanted to clarify is there was a photo that you showed early on and I think it
it's I just wanted to clarify it's taken I think from that vacant lot where there's parking off Fifth Street. >> Mhm. >> Um so you hear actually on that last slide you went through >> Hold on this one. >> Yeah. That that's that's actually from
that vacant lot where there's parking, right? >> Yeah. That's from uh that's from Third Street. Uh Second Street, sorry. >> I think uh Third Street. Third Street. >> Fifth Street, right? Yeah. Fifth. Fifth. >> Um, so I just want to make sure everyone know this is this is not a view from a public thoroughare. This is from the
middle of a vacant lot that she's just parking. And if there's there's another photo a little later on that does show the view >> which is less close. >> Yes. >> Um, >> so that that uh we just went by it. Can maybe just go back two slides. Um, that
shows Yeah, that's what you're actually going to see there. Okay. >> Any further questions? >> I have a question about the height of what's proposed. And it looks like it's a solid wood. Like there's not like a picket.
>> It'll be it'll be like a 1x six uh cedar plank. >> Solid all the way around. >> Yeah. Y >> I guess my question is you know that it's drawn it's shown at six feet and typically fall protection is maybe 42 in >> and I think maybe something taller than fall protection could be appro uh
acceptable. I just six feet feels very tall. >> Yeah, the the next door neighbor has they have a six foot fence. >> Do we know that that's a legal installation? >> They were approved I believe by historians >> staff can confirm it was. >> Okay. I'm also looking at the photo of
that installation and it's, you know, >> it's vertical planks. There's space in between each plank. So, it's not a wall. >> It's more of a railing. >> Um, so I mean, I just have some issues with sort of the level of solidity
>> in conjunction with the sixoot height. I think it's too much. >> Would the applicant be willing to revisit the design at least? um you know spacing between boards and such that it is not as solid
>> a mass. >> Yeah, we're willing to do exactly what the neighbors have. >> Is it a privacy issue? >> Uh no, I I don't think we really can gave it that much thought. It looks to me that on the lot lines
they are proposing a solid wall and only to that to that alleyway they're doing this kind of vertical slat. So it may be I mean the solution may just be to match the same right so >> do the same as >> solid on the lot lines and then the
vertical slats so that you know there's some paracity >> on the alleyway and then it will just be the same. >> That's fine. Not a problem. I mean, I would also find it acceptable as solid if it were just not so tall. Um, I just think the two the height and the
solidity along the back is just um too much in combination. >> And staff um that the height along the alley is also 6 feet or do you know what the height of the neighboring building is? >> I believe it's six feet. >> Okay.
Any further questions? Does that conclude the testimony? >> Yes, it does. >> Okay, we'll move on to public comment. Um, if there are any uh members of the public who would like to address the commission regarding this application, please approach the public comment mic.
Staff sees no members of the public present and recommends a motion to open and close public comment. >> Motion Sandamp, >> second Blazak. All in favor? >> I >> I >> I >> Thank you. >> Okay, we'll move on to staff comments now. Um so yeah, so um the project as
proposed um seems pretty consistent. There are a number of existing garage roof decks uh on the street 270, 272, 280, and 284 Fourth Street. Um, and the only visibility for these uh is through
that um alleyway uh the public right ofway alleyway behind the property and then maybe like a little bit of uh you know very very distant um visibility from uh Fifth Street. Um, but HBC staff
believes the project um, as proposed is mostly consistent with the Secretary of the Interior standards for historic preservation and the Jersey City Historic Design Standards. Um, in staff's opinion, the project uh, as proposed will not cause an adverse effect on the character andor integrity
of the historic resource or the Hearsimus Cove historic district and recommends approval of the certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. Uh, those are our standard conditions. Um and again that first condition is that the architect uh Caesar Bamante shall be retained during
construction and shall submit as build signed and sealed drawings to staff or a signed and sealed letter representing and noting that site con construction was consistent with work approved under the certificate of appropriateness before the issuance of a certificate of uh occupancy. Um just wanted to make
sure that one was on the record. And then we did have one that was added by the commissioners. Uh the applicant shall revise the privacy screen above uh on all sides to match the adjacent uh existing uh roof deck and that will be revised prior to the
submission of construction documents and again staff's recommendation is uh approval of the certificate of appropriateness with the conditions as read into the record and in the staff report. I think uh Commissioner Gunther had said you know felt that the the
applicant had the option of revising the material or revising the height downward. So does the applicant have a preference? >> I would like to keep the height as is. Um I have a daughter. The higher it is the better. >> All right. Very good. Thank you.
>> Do you agree to the conditions as >> Yes, we will match. We agreed to the conditions to >> We agreed to the conditions to match our neighbors and make sure that they're slanted, right? That there's space and make sure that the architect follows
through with the plans. >> So, you do um agree to all the conditions of Michael read into the record. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um so, again, staff's recommendation is approval of the certificate of appropriateness with the conditions as read into the record and in the staff
report. I'll make a motion to approve with the conditions as written in the staff report. >> So we have Commissioner Blazak, >> second from Commissioner Samp. >> Okay. Commissioner Gunther >> I.
>> Commissioner Sakong >> I. >> Commissioner Blazak. >> I. >> Commissioner Edgecom. >> I. >> Commissioner Kbach. >> I. >> Commissioner Sankamp. >> Hi. >> And Chair Gordon. I. >> So we have seven in favor, no against,
no abstensions. The certificate of appropriateness with conditions is approved. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Um, as we move into the demos, uh, well, so first, we don't have any updates on the tabled case, I don't
believe. Dan, any updates on 172 Belmont? >> Yes, with 172 Belmont. Uh that is the house where the owners came in and wanted to use a substitute siding on their house removing uh
continuing to remove all of the uh historic clapboard and shingling. Uh they have hired an architect uh not an architect they have hired they are hiring a contractor who specializes in
carpentry and uh repair work so that the uh existing uh character defining features can be restored. So, uh, I'm hoping that this will come
off of the agenda in the next couple of months, at least before the winter. >> We were going to uh, circle back to the demolition case. >> Yes, that's why I was coming up here. I was just giving myself a little bit of time. Um, let me pull up the information for
that and then we can get started on them. But in the meantime, if you'd like to call it, feel free. Thank you. >> I would like to call uh I'm I'm revisiting 1123 Summit
Avenue. So that's B-24-2696. Go. >> Can I just ask for a quick clarification? This is this was carried from June, but it wasn't reviewed in June. >> It was never heard. >> Okay. All right. >> No. No part. I didn't see it in the transcript, so I was just wondering if >> No, we did not hear any testimony or
anything for this one. Um, so it was just it was just on the agenda um >> in June. Okay. So, we are going to start with 11:23 Summit Avenue and just a little bit of
um to place us. We have um where is it? Here we go. Um, this is the front facade photo that was submitted by the applicant. Then just to take us through, I could
take us to the 1938 tax card photo. And then we have the memo that was issued by staff. The recommendation from staff. A little bit of background. Uh this was
mentioned in the master plan. Um it was in the ward D survey from 2022. Um and this was one of the properties that was flagged for phase 2 analysis. Um so further analysis um this was built circa 1890
um queen an style. Again I would recommend that the commissioners review the application on the record uh make any comments or any anything that they may see from the application. It's almost identical to its original 1938 photograph. If I look at that my
compare, you know, I'm just comparing it today to the 38 photograph. It's >> it looks like there's been some sighting, but other than that, the form, the mass hanging is definitely still there. >> Original front doors are there.
>> The window openings are haven't been changed. And uh as we've said in the past, probably a lot of the detailing is probably under that um aluminum. It looks like aluminum siding. >> I would agree.
>> I would agree with all of those statements. >> Okay. So, >> and this being on the master plan mentioning in the master plan element uh I think is also very important to note.
>> Yep. Okay. Maybe we can open up for public comment real quick and then we could talk a little bit more. Okay. Um if there are any members of the public who are wishing to speak in regards to this application, please approach the public comment mic.
>> Of course. >> Yes. Uh just give me one second and I'll go through the rules real quick and then we can get started. Um so before we begin your time um first we'll swear you in. Uh Jonathan will swear you in and
then um uh all members of the public have 5 minutes to address the commission. Staff will indicate when the timer begins and ends and uh staff reminds any members of the public that any questions should be addressed to our chair um who will then relay them to the uh appropriate person.
Um and if we could just have a motion to open public comment. >> Motion >> second. >> So we have a motion from Tony >> and then we have a second from Blazak. Uh all in favor I >> Okay. Can you raise your right hand to be
sworn? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Can you state and spell your name for the record, please? >> Sure. My name is Sarah. S A R A H Mig Leori. M I G L I O R E.
>> Thank you. and feel free to begin. >> Okay. Hi everyone. Thank you for having me here tonight. Uh I'm Sarah Mclori. I'm a trustee of the Jersey City Landmarks Conservancy. Um and I just wanted to say that um I um am in support
of the letter written by the HPC. Um do not support this demolition. It would be a shame um to lose um a Queen Anne twin on this block. Um, it would also, I think, set a bad precedent um to have
this building demolished um and to lose that historic fabric of this um of this block. And I also did not see anything in the packet about why it's being um demolished. I didn't see anything about the structural integrity of it or anything from an engineer. So, I would
be curious to ask to know why it's being demolished. So, I just wanted to go on the record and say we do not support. Thank you, Miss Migleori. >> Thank you. Okay. Staff sees no further members of the public and recommends a motion to
close public comment. >> Motion. >> Second. >> Motion by Commissioner Samp and a second by Commissioner Blazak. All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you. Um Yep. And again, as far as staff comments go, um staff finds that
um this property does maintain um integrity uh in many of the seven factors. Um location, design, setting, feeling, um association. Uh the materials and workmanship have been
slightly diminished uh based on you know as we mentioned some of the uh exterior components are definitely replacements but uh it clearly still uh maintains its queen an styling. Um so staff recommends a motion to prepare a resolution
recommending denial of the demolition application to the zoning officer. >> I'll make that motion. >> Have a motion from Commissioner Sanamp. >> Second. And we have a second from Commissioner Colbach. >> Maybe just before we vote, just one thing that um came up in public comment
about the structural integrity. Uh just to note that we don't necessarily make our determination based on that when something like this is not in a historic district. >> Yes. >> So it's just about the um um that
doesn't come into a factor with this. >> Yes. Yes. And I will take a roll call vote. Uh, Commissioner Sankamp, >> I. >> Commissioner Gunther, >> hi. >> Commissioner Sakong, >> I. >> Commissioner Blazak, >> I.
>> Uh, Commissioner Edgecom, >> I. >> Commissioner Kbach, >> I. >> And Chair Gordon, >> I. >> Okay, we have seven in favor, no, uh, nays and no abstensions. uh the recommendation to prepare a resolution recommending denial uh to the zoning
officer is approved. Okay. So, um as far as the demo that's on the um tabled cases, uh I still have not heard back from them. So, I do not have any
update on that. Um we have no resolutions to review. Uh, and we do not need an executive session. >> I'm going to stop you there. >> Um, I've requested a to the chairman an executive session. Very short.
>> Okay. >> Um, I wanted to make a motion. >> Do we need do we need to do to make a motion for an executive session? >> I've never done that. >> We need to pass a resolution with the specific details of when and what time
the executive session will happen. What maybe it would be helpful to discuss what you want to discuss in the executive session like what's the reason for an >> I want to make a motion to establish a subcommittee to study the demo ordinance and and recommendations of changes in
the in the demo ordinance. >> Why do you want to do an executive session for that? >> Um if I can do it in regular order, I'll do that in regular order. >> Oh yeah. Yeah. No, I I think that that's >> I think it's very appropriate to just have at at the end of business we can have that meeting. >> Okay. So >> like still in the meeting but the end of
our agenda. >> Yeah. Before we close out the meeting. So Okay. Go ahead. >> We don't need an executive session. So we can move on to to that. >> Okay. >> So I wanted to make a motion to establish a demolition ordinance subcommittee. And the subcommittee would
recommend changes to the existing ordinance to address issues currently ongoing creating problems I believe in for the staff and for the at commission levels. And um and that that commission that subcommittee would report back to
the commission and um eventually we will formulate changes to the that we can recommend to the de demol the the demo ordinance. So, just to confirm that I heard that right, you uh subcommittee uh to review
the demolition ordinance. Um >> we can definitely >> I'm willing to be a member. >> Yeah, I think we can definitely do that. Um >> is there anyone else who would volunteer to be part of this subcommittee? >> I would.
>> So, we have Commissioners Sandamp. Uh, Commissioner Kaba, any others? We won't make it difficult. We just need a diverse opinions about what what are some possibilities of um I think we you know my opinion is that we
we should try and streamline um the way we handle um handle it if if there's ways to um shorten like tonight. That was good. I I would in my opinion, you know, if we had four of those, it wouldn't be ownorous, but we've had many
where, you know, we're an hour on one. And and not just that, um um probably identifying which uh you know um properties should be in front of the commission. It should be a little
more concrete, less subjective. >> Okay. Do we have any other commissioners that would like to join the subcommittee? >> I would recommend not be bigger than three. >> I'll join in. >> Okay. So, we have three. We have commissioners Sanamp, Kbach, and
Gunther. Um, can we have a motion? >> Can I just Oh, yeah. >> Just put a little bit of a finer point on on the the mission of the subcommittee. So, is this to make recommendations to modify the the demo ordinance itself or is it more focus on
the um business practices of the commission and how these applications proceed in our meetings? Is it all of the above? How do you >> I think it's both, but ultimately it's just to make it um function better with within the
commission's meetings and um and also achieve what we're trying to achieve with it. You know, I think we're trying to protect historic structures. Um but at the same time, um we want the the commission to focus on structures that are um like the one tonight. Um you
know, structures that are, you know, in danger that have a lot of integrity. >> Okay. >> But um I'm not saying any real specifics about that, but I would agree that it's it's twofold. um it's going to be a recommendation that will hopefully go
through to the city council where the city council could make a change in the ordinance >> and and I think when it comes to um amending or modifying the ordinance there's a significant legal question there. So um there's no question that
the ordinance could be improved. Um I I wonder at what point council would get involved in this conversation. Is there are are we going to come up with recommendations and then see how they can be legally implemented or could it
be possible to get council involved? Can we can we uh recruit council? >> I would send Commissioner Sandamp an email tomorrow. So >> yeah, I would recommend that council and a member of HPC staff, namely Michael,
um be members of that subcommittee. Yeah, let's get these gentlemen some overtime. We we can definitely uh I don't know if typically non-commissioners are on the subcommittees, but we can definitely um consult. I think
>> I don't know if I'd put you on the subcommittee, but definitely work with the subcommittee to further the commission's goals. >> I can definitely do that. Um so, do we have a motion? I think we can make that motion to work with legal with legal and staff. >> Yes, definitely. Um, so if we have a
motion to form a subcommittee to review the demo ordinance with commissioners Sandamp, Kbach, and Gunther. >> I'll make that motion. >> We have a motion from Commissioner Gordon. >> Second, Blazak, >> and a second from Commissioner Blazak.
Should I roll call? >> Yeah, that seems appropriate. >> Okay. Give me one second. Just gota um Commissioner Gunther. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Sak. >> I. >> Commissioner Blazak.
>> I. >> Commissioner Edgecom. >> I. >> Commissioner Kbach. >> I. >> I. >> Commissioner Sanamp. >> I. >> And Chair Gordon. >> I. So we have seven in favor. No against. No abstensions. The motion passes.
Okay. Um, last but not least, all that is left then this evening is adjournment. Um, does anyone want to want to make a motion? >> Motion to adjurnn. >> That's from Commissioner Gordon. >> Second, Blazak. >> And we have a second from Commissioner
Blazak. The time is 8:15. All in favor? >> I I >> Thank you. >> I Sweet.