Oh, >> all righty. >> Okay. >> Okay. Calling to order this meeting of the Jersey City Historic Preservation Commission. The date is February 9th, uh, 2016, and the time is 6:30. >> Please be advised 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. 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 Basalito on Friday,
February 6th. Same notice has been provided to the city clerk for posting on the bulletin board outside of the clerk's office in city hall and on the city website. I have uh proof of this notice here in evidence. If we could mark it as B1 evidence. Okay, we'll move to a roll
call attendance. >> Commissioner Sanimp here. >> Commissioner Gunther >> here. >> Commissioner Sakong >> here. >> Commissioner Blazak >> here. >> Commissioner Gordon >> present. >> Commissioner Kay >> here. >> Commissioner Kbach
>> here. >> Commissioner Gera or Vice Chair Grigga >> here. >> Uh and then Commissioner Gucciardo and Commissioner Edgecom are both absent. And then Chair Cronin >> present. There are
there are nine commissioners present this evening. Five affirmative votes are required for a certificate of appropriateness. And then next up on the agenda, we have uh the approval of the minutes from the January 12th, 2026 uh regular HPC
meeting. Are there any questions or corrections to the minutes? >> Staff hears no questions nor corrections and recommends a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. >> Motion. Second. >> I'm sorry. Can you do the motion? >> Sand Kemp,
>> Tony, and then Gordon. >> Okay. And I'll take a roll call vote. Uh, Commissioner Gunther >> I. >> Commissioner Sung >> I. >> Commissioner Blazak, >> abstain. >> Commissioner Gordon, >> I.
>> Uh, Commissioner Kay, >> I. >> Commissioner Kbach, >> I. >> Uh, Vice Chair, uh, sorry, Commissioner Samp. I >> vice chair Griga >> abstain >> and chair corner >> I
>> there are one >> seven in favor no against and two abstensions. Uh the motion the minutes from the January 12th 2026 HBC meeting are approved. Uh for correspondence all copies of correspondence and all
application materials are linked on the agenda through their application numbers. And then for announcements, staff has three announcements at this time. Uh case H--24-0251 515 Jersey AB Suite 1 uh has requested
to carry to a date uncertain and at the request of uh the applicant um demolition review B-25-0166 300 Central A has carried to a date uncertain and lastly uh demolition
review application B-25-8 1851, that's 507 Summit A, has withdrawn their application. Okay. If there are any members of the public who would like to speak regarding matters of historic preservation that are not listed on tonight's agenda,
please approach the public comment mic. Again, this is for matters that are not on tonight's agenda. >> Staff sees no members of the pre public present and recommends a motion to open and close public comment. >> Motion Sandamp. Second, Blazak.
>> All in favor? >> I >> I >> Okay. And Dan, if you would like to call the first case. >> Okay. We've uh are calling our first case. It's under new business H-25 0484.
The applicant is uh Jeff Jordan, RA, on behalf of Zayn uh Kusro, owner. Uh it's uh 319 Veric Street, unit number two in the Vanver uh Park Historic District. They're going for a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of
a roof deck and a bulkhead uh not visible from the PRO PR P at an altered at an altered contributing Italian8 rowhouse construction circuit 1870 in the Vanverse Pork Historic District.
proceeding. >> I do. >> And if you could just state your full name. >> Sure. My name is Jeff Jordan. J E F O R D A >> Jeff. Could you Yeah. Could you just tap where it says push on the mic?
>> Is a green light on? >> Green light's on. >> Great. Um staff notes for the record that Mr. Jordan has previously been qualified as an expert in the field of architecture in front of this board. >> Am I supposed to be seeing? Do you guys see >> I will It should go up now.
>> There we go. >> All right. Thank you, commissioners. Um again, Jeff Jordan, architect representing the owners of uh 319 Veric Street in uh downtown Jersey City. Um the property is
located between Montgomery and Mercer Streets and the Vanvor Park neighborhood. Um the building consists of two units over four floors. Uh we're referring to them as um a basement plus three floors above. I'm going to just
quickly take you through it. I um hope this is a fairly straightforward application. Um the work uh consists of sort of two different efforts. One is interior work. Um some interior alterations which are pretty minor in nature. Uh they involve some uh changes
to the finishes, uh kitchen layout, um some minor tweaks to the interior layout layout, but no change in terms of the number of bedrooms or bathrooms. >> Sorry, Jeeoff, one moment. Um just staff notes that Commissioner Gutiardo um uh
arrived. It is 6:36 p.m. Thank you. You can continue. >> All right, continuing. Um some minor changes to the top four in terms of closets, adding a washer and dryer. U but the reason we're here
tonight is because the proposed addition to the rooftop. Um the idea is to extend the existing stair up to the rooftop via bulkhead uh to create a rooftop deck. Um as noted in the introduction, the rooftop deck will not be uh visible to
the to the public from the rightway. Um, additionally, there's no changes to the front facade, which you can see here. Um, and to the rear facade, uh, no changes to the existing building aside from the new roof deck on top of the building.
I'm just going to go through a couple drawings here quickly showing this is a section or an elevation showing the proposed elevation of the bulkhead and stair. Um, you'll note that the bulkhead has a door, of course, and a few windows which will bring light down into the space below. Um otherwise the uh idea
here with the bulkhead I'm sorry the stair is that or deck is that it'll be a epay wooden deck with um black metal guard rail cable rail. Uh the bulkhead itself would be clad in stucco and the
windows would be black framed. I do have some samples here that I can pass around. I'm go back to the section cut through the building. Just uh illustrating the fact that this is not visible from the public way. This is across a street and you can see here that the bulkhead is
actually well below the sight line there. And then a couple other things I want to note just in terms of the size of the deck and what's happening on it. So the deck is u 22 feet 9 in long from front to back. Um as proposed it's
aligning with the front of the bulkhead on the mer or on the veric side. Um it's the you know essentially the full width of the unit which is uh 19 ft effectively um over the party walls there. Sorry that's the total width including the bulkhead. The deck itself
is 14t 8 in. So on the deck, we're proposing um a series of movable planters um as well as a storage bench which would be built out of the same EP. The owners have indicated interest at some point uh in putting some outdoor
furniture out there and potentially a grill, but not nothing's been sort of picked out yet. That would be furniture that they would decide on later. Um but if if I go back to that section cut, you'll note that there's no visibility. um to that deck. So, nothing that's on
that deck, assuming it stays below the guardrail height, uh would be visible. And I'm going to leave it at that and answer any questions you may have. >> Do any commissioners have any questions for Jeff? >> So, does Excuse me. There's no visibility from Varic Street, but is
there any from Mammoth Street? Because you I I think you can see through that parking lot. Yeah, we I'm not sure if staff looked, but we you can kind of see the back of the building, but you you can't really get a sight line to the roof deck or sorry to where the roof deck would be. Um yeah, it's a it's a
kind of a weird angle. I'll go to the block plan just to make >> those ones that might be a little bit to further south. Um those might be the ones that like lots eight, nine might be visible with seven. >> Exactly. You can see here. Yeah. lots two, three, and four sort of obscuring
uh the the sight line from that parking area. I suppose if you're in the parking lot, you'd be able to see it, but from the public way of the sidewalks, you would not. >> Are there any addition? >> And I just wanted for the record, too, because I I think, you know, we're obviously always more worried about over
the front facade. I think even if it were visible from like I'm I doubt even Mercer Street or like kind of in that between lots 21 and one on Mama Street even if it were visible. I think that's in line with what we've approved in the
past. So I'd be comfortable with that. I just I just wanted to make sure I understood when you're saying it's not visible if you're just talking about the front or or any views. So thanks. Any other questions?
Okay. Anything to close testimony, Jeeoff? >> Nope. That's all I've got. >> Great. Move into public comment. If there are any members of the public present who would like to speak regarding this application, please approach public comment. Mic. Staff sees no members of the public present and recommends a motion to open and close
public comment. >> Motion Sandamp. >> Second, Corey. >> All in favor? >> I. I >> move into staff comments. Um, as indicated in the staff report, this is a very straightforward roof deck. It is
something we see very often here. Um, follows the general pattern of development at this point. Um, I did go out to Mammoth Street to determine visibility. I could not find an angle where I even saw more than a corner of the back of the building. So, in staff's opinion, this is not going to be
visible. But, I do agree, Brian, that even if it was, it would be in line for us to approve it. um if especially the visibility would just be a railing at the back. Um the staff report does have recommended conditions. They are standard roof deck conditions. Um and I'm happy to answer any additional
questions. Seeing none, staff recommends a motion to approve the COA with conditions in the staff report. >> I'll make that motion. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. >> Jeff, do you and your client accept the conditions in the staff report? >> Yes, I reviewed it with them. They're uh
they do accept those as do I. Thank you. >> All right, we'll do a roll call vote. >> Commissioner uh Sanamp >> I. >> Commissioner Gunther >> I. >> Commissioner Sakong >> I. >> Commissioner Blazak >> I.
>> Commissioner Gordon >> I. >> Commissioner Gucciardo. >> Hi. >> Commissioner K. >> I. >> Um Vice Chair Gera. >> I. >> And Chair Cman. I >> there are two
>> nine in favor, no against, no abstensions. The certificate of appropriateness with conditions is approved. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Oh, they're over here. >> There's there's 10 of us, though.
>> So, because there's 10 of us, Natalie um is a member of the commission, but she's not a voting member. Oh, good to know. >> Sorry. I I I have a habit of saying things that people are thinking. >> That's why I always count I want to like
make sure I'm getting the number right. >> I want I want to stop you. Wait a second. >> I'm protesting this. That poor man. We have to go to come back here. >> We're all good. >> Okay. Right along. >> We're going to move back up.
>> That's right. Back. Here we go. old business. Uh, our next uh, case is H--25-00009, Robert Verbello, Esquire, applicant on behalf of JCH Development. The address is 598 Jersey Avenue in the Haramus Cove
Historic District. They are here for his a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed subdivision of the lot and adaptive reuse of the former North Baptist Church and altered key contributing resource in the Haramus Cove historic district dedicated in 1887
partially destroyed by fire in 1870 sorry 1978 and partially rehabilitated for worship in 1983. The proposed residential project includes but is not limited to the in integration of the character defining features of the
building with new construction to convert the site into a 14 unit residential building incorporating the extent west facade tower and partial south facade. Floor is yours. >> All righty. Good evening chairman
commissioners. For the record, Veronica from the law firm Connell Foley on behalf of the applicant JCH Development. Um, as you all are probably recall, this is a continuation of our meeting from December 15th uh to tonight's meeting. So, same as last time, I will keep my opening comments brief before turning it
over um to our architect, Mr. Pereira. Um, I just wanted to provide a quick uh recap just to put everything fresh in everyone's mind. Um, as the chairman said, this is an application for a certificate of appropriateness for the adaptive reuse of that North Baptist Church. Um, as we testified to on the
record at the prior meeting, applicant and his team have been working with the historic staff on this uh, application for over a year now since we submitted. Um, we've involved meetings and site visits, so on so forth, meetings with the neighbors, uh, glass samples flown in from Portugal. Um, really trying to
make sure that we, uh, continue to take all your comments into consideration. um for this proposed residential use. Um again, allow Mr. Perez to provide his testimony. Um but as a quick overview, we um we really incorporated some of the salient points that we heard from you
guys at the end of the meeting, some of the back and forth that we had. Um so we really do think that we've uh dotted our eyes and crossed our tees and are really excited to present um what we have this evening. Um obviously, Mr. Reeden is not present this evening. Um before the last meeting in December, we did receive his
staff report um which recommended approval with uh appropriate conditions. Um from my position as council for JCH, I think it's still appropriate for us to proceed tonight. Obviously, we would love Mr. Reeden to be here and to continue to present his comments. Um but from a legal standpoint, I I believe
it's appropriate for this board to continue. Um, so with that, I would like to say though, um, I just want to re-emphasize for this uh, commission's consideration, you know, the level of effort that we really have tried to put into this project. Um, trying to keep the
community appraised of the status, fielding in input from the Hearthmus Cove Group. Um, really trying to make sure that we're squared away with Mr. Reed's comments here. Um, just this is the first step for us though. We obviously still have a whole process to make it through before the zoning board
assuming obviously we obtain approval from this commission. Um so we would obviously continue to coordinate with Mr. Reeden on any other design standards that he wants incorporated. Um, we also, as we know, uh, Mayor Solomon was supportive of this project when he was a council person, but we'll obviously
absolutely meet with his, uh, mayoral administration to make sure, um, that he and new council person Little's concerns, if any, are incorporated into this project. Um, as well as additional community meetings as needed with Harm Cove. Um, so again, even if not to put
the cart before the horse, if we do get approval from this commission, we still do have to go before the zoning board and we'll have to iron out additional details with them, but I do think that Mr. Peris will show you um he really heard your concerns, incorporated them into the plans, and we're excited to show you what we have this evening.
>> All right. Staff will also note uh that Chair Cronin was not present for the December 15th uh 2025 regular HBC meeting uh that this application was carried from. Um, and can you can just confirm on the record uh that you reviewed the
transcript transcript andor the recording uh that was provided? >> Uh, yes I did. >> And Veronica, are you comfortable with him voting if it comes to that? >> Yes, absolutely. >> Thank you. >> Do you proceeding the truth?
>> I do. Manny Pere. >> Thank you. Manny Perez, P E R E I R A S with Pedas Architects ubiquitous architect for the applicant. >> Staff staff notes that Mr. Pedas has previously been qualified in front of
this board as an expert in the field of architecture. >> Please continue. >> Thank you so much. Um I'd like to begin by thanking you. the I really appreciate the dialogue we had previously and we really took it to heart and we've been
able to spend this month almost a month that we had between meetings to refine our design refine materiality and really work out a lot of the details. Now this is a massive building. There's a lot more that I even want to do but I think we're at a good point where I'm very
comfortable presenting it to the board. Um, as such, I don't want to break down and give you the history again and but I can if we need to. I'd like to pick up where we were before and put a few things into the record. Um, what remains of this site is primarily the Jersey
Avenue facade with only a small portion of the Fourth Street facade still present. Our proposal is an adaptive reuse that stabilizes and restores what remains and then reconstructs the lost massing in a way that is compatible with the original church's scale and
vocabulary while also being clearly of its time. Our preservation approach is guided directly by the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation. We are prioritizing and retaining historic masonry details, documenting
and revealing original openings and profiles, removing intrusive modern elements, and repairing historic materials using the gentlest of effective methods. The drawings include a restoration and
salvage mindset throughout. Existing face brick is to be removed by hand, cleaned, cataloged, stored, and reused where reconstruction is required. We are restoring masonry details, sandstone trims, terracotta, and ornamental
elements throughout carefully cleaning, repointing, and repair with replacement components matching the original design, measurement, color, texture, and finish. along Jersey A. The intent is
restoration clean and point. Um it is a and then along fourth street the intent is a contemporary interpretation that respects the original bulk and cadence but uses contemporary materials including significant glazing so that
the new work is compatible but differentiated which is consistent with the standards. And finally, we treat the site elements with the same respect as the building fabric. Blue stone is to be numbered, photographed, documented, and
stored for reinstallation. And the existing rod iron fence is to be removed, secured, preserved, and then reinstalled. This is a preservation project first. It saves what is left, restores the
public's face of the historic church on Jersey Avenue, and returns the site to a productive use by means of the adaptive reuse of the new apartments in a way that supports long-term stewardship. The Secretary of Interior standards for
rehabilitation do not require that new work look old. In fact, for a site like this where much of the historic building is gone and what survives is a fragile remnant, the standards strongly support
a contemporary for street elevation as long as it is number one compatible in massing scale and rhythm, two clearly differentiated from historic fabric, and three respectful of what remains and
does not destroy historic material. I'd like to walk you through a little bit of the very intentional choices that we made on the Fourth Street facade. We have created a very almost blunt
differentiation between what is new and what is old by introducing a line that literally separates the two. That line um is a symbolic gesture of what that differentiation is. It is created by an
ACM panel. It's 2 in thick. It protrudes just two inches beyond the furthest face of any building element. And it is a blunt kind of reference of this is the separation between new and old. That is again reintroduced where we're breaking into the existing facade with a new
entry point. So we have the same line, same concept along that entry point along the bottom. As we spoke earlier, our concept and our bulk of the building is still being referenced from the original facade and from the original
photographs of Fourth Street. And we're taking those same elements and following the lines of the buttresses that are existing there and taking the same angle, the same portion. But now our contemporary um resolve is with different
materiality. We are using an ACM panel for that trim work. However, it matches in color and in bulk and in scale what was there in the previous facade as well. The infill becomes a glass u infill
contemporary storefront within creating a lightness to the structure. So what we are proposing what is new has a different lightness to it. And then there are a lot of poetics within this. For example, and just to mention one,
the cornice on the top of the historic uh construction was a cast stone placed on top with uh also bent uh metal. We are using the same kind of decorative element but it becomes a decorative
element. We leave a space between the top of the corners to the next element to show this is no longer being used as a form of keeping water out. This is a very intentional uh design element to show how we're
making this and our facade, our envelope is being wrapped underneath with modern uh building materials so that we see that differentiation. There are also very intentional elements done within our facade. For example, it
is not our place to define where the difference is between historic and and the proposed building. That is a pre-existing spot. So, for example, this spot right here, that is a very awkward line. That is
awkward intentionally because now it shows that on the bottom and left of this that's the historic facade and to the right and up is the proposed new contemporary facade. And that awkwardness in the facade not keeping it
perfectly symmetrical makes your eye go to that and question what is this? Why is this? How does this work? And it makes you understand really what that differentiation is and really in a very subtle way exposes the difference
between historic and the new building. We also took into account a lot of your comments and wanted to understand how the bulk of this building is visible from the street level. And we created a very accurate model and took shots from
every angle so that we could understand what that massing and how that building feels like from different perspectives across the site, across the street. uh so that we understand how the building reads very much in scale with the rest
of the neighborhood. How the upper floors are set back in a way that are not intrusive. That when you're working walking on Jersey A, the portions to the back are secondary to the Jersey A facade. They are step back sufficient
that it does not take away or hinder from the historic facade. And I'd like to commissioners on the the fourth street facade just to talk a little bit more about that and compare it to the standards. It is intentionally contemporary because
the project is being guided by the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation and those standards do not ask us to recreate history where it no longer exists. They ask us to preserve what is authentic, avoid conjecture and make the new work
compatible but legible as new. If we go standard by standard, standard three is most central here. Most of the church volume was lost after the fire and decades of deterioration and a literal replica along Fourth
Street uh would risk creating a full sense of historic development. Our approach restores the surviving historic fabric on Jersey Avenue where evidence and material remain and it treats Fourth Street as a new construction that is
honest and respectful rather than pretend original on standard nine. The standard nine then guides us the the design of the new facade. It requires that the new work be compatible with the historic building in massing scale
rhythm while also being differentiated from historic fabric. Along Fourth Street, we match the historic bulk and vertical cadence. And we carry forward recognizable church vocabulary, including a brick expression and a roof character that reads consistent at the
streetscape level. At the same time, we intentionally introduce contemporary elements and little tricks, architectural tricks that I presented to you, including substantial glazing and details, uh, so
that the addition reads clearly as new work and of its time. Now, standard 10 is also satisfied by concentrating the program and new construction primarily where the historic building has already been lost,
which reduces the pressure on the most significant surviving material and keeps the historic Jersey A facade as the authentic public face. where new masonry interfaces with the historic fabric. We follow a strict matching methodology,
including selecting new brick to match size, finish, color, and material based on clean samples from the existing building. But keep it clear, the beauty, this is a preservation product at its core, and the facade on 4th Avenue
becomes the star. The uh uh the on Jersey A becomes the star. Fourth Avenue is secondary to that. And in short, the contemporary forestry facade is not an exception to the standard. It is one of the clearest ways
to comply with them. It avoids conjectural replication, preserves the highlights, authentic, highlights historic, authentic historic fabric, and creates compatible new architecture that is honest and about its time. And that
concludes my testimony today and I am open for your questions. I have a question about the detailing of the roof at the top of the tower. Um I'm looking at a photograph that's in the project file of the existing condition and sort of like I see that
you're showing all the brick work is being retained. However, in the photos of the current condition, there appears to be a projecting band course at the top. Um, and it looks like it might be intended that the new roof sort of covers that.
So, this is what was is permanently there right now. Uh, we have a photograph of that condition. This is a somewhat recent photograph about a year old. Uh, that's what's there now. What
was historically there was this steeple. We are keeping that last element that band here and then creating a roof that disappears behind it with a low pitch the minimum pitch that we could comply
with code so that it disappears. Uh and that's what our proposal is. >> Okay. I think it might have just been the rendering. >> Yeah. >> It won't be concealed. The roof, the new roof will be fully above that line. >> Yes, it's fully above that line. >> And that new roof is
>> Sorry. And that new roof is a a pyramid still. >> It's still a pyramid. >> And that's the easiest way that we could keep uh it out of sight lines from every angle. >> So, I know you've changed and this shows it well on the bottom left there. I know
you've changed the roof line of that um addition portion and flattened that out from what was previously this this sloping roof. Can you maybe just talk about some of the other things that have changed or if anything else has changed with the massing since we've last seen it in December?
>> So, very little of the massing has changed other than that. We I thought that was a great point that was brought up by the board. I thought it was attracting attention by having the slope roof when our intention was for it to fade away. uh now I think it really does
uh become a secondary effect. The only other aspect of the massing that has been refined significantly is what happens in this corner over here. Uh and as the roof slopes down, we stepped it. We we thought it was important because
it was this roof was visible from the street. So we kept that roof line coming all the way down and then we cut it out in the back so that we could bring light into the spaces. That's the only difference from the original drawings as far as like the bulk dimensions of it.
But there's been a lot of refinement as far as the opening at the entryway is a little bit larger um and redefined the we introduce a lot more glass within the the portions of that strong gable. But
as far as the bulk uh envelope, it remains the same. And a question on on the elevation um in part of the the set, it talks about new stained and leaded glass
windows and I I think some of that is pointing to this this large glazed area here. Um so is that accurate? Is are some of these going to be and it's kind of rendered. But I don't know if that's supposed to be like shades behind it or is this going to be clear glazing or is
there going to be some sort of stained or leaded finish in any of these? >> So that was a point of contection uh contention with Mr. Reeden and I and we've talked a lot about this. We've probably had 30 meetings talking about these different aspects and I think
that's left over. Our intention is that on the contemporary facade there will be no more stained glass, no more diamond plate. that stained glass is going to be limited only to the historic portions and not the the contemporary portion. >> I think I think >> that makes sense. Um if you're keep
keeping it consistent to historic versus the contemporary having it be clear. I think that's that makes sense. And then are those spandrel panels in at the floor levels then in between the windows as well? >> That is so the there is two types of
glazing and that strong in that large format. It's a little hard to tell from the rendering, but I'm going to highlight this area. This area is all spandrel glass as far as in between. The
clear glass is on the center uh with only a 20% reflectivity. So that it is going to read somewhat close to one unified piece. And I'm sorry, what is what is the difference the so you the areas uh in
the the area in the middle and then the areas to the left and right which are rendered fundamentally those are >> opaque then the areas to the left and right >> are rendered in more of a white as opposed to like a clear. So just explain the difference. >> They are opaque. You can't see through
them and the the sensor portion is the more clear area. >> And is there a reason they're opaque? uh because the it's part of the design. It just um we had lots of walls that were intersecting there and we wanted to keep the symmetry of the facade. I thought
that was important. So that's why we chose to make them opaque. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I have a couple followup or well couple other questions about the Jersey A facade. >> Yes. Um, so in this rendering at the corner entrance, there's sort of like
this pedimented stonework above the doors and in the photos of the existing condition, they appear to be a brownstone. And in the rendering, they're a gray. And I just want to know if that's like a rendering issue or if there is an intent to sort of paint or coat the stonework.
>> No, it's a rendering issue. >> Okay. And same with the sort of four uh recessed brick panels. Okay. Just checking. >> Thanks. We had very tight time restraints >> on on the fourth street facade. Do you still have the uh renderings that you
presented at the last meeting? Could you put them side by side? >> I can I can't do them side by side. Or maybe I can. But this is the original rendering. This is literally the one I was presenting with and sketching on at
the last meeting. Um, we ref we basically started the model from scratch based on our latest scans and new uh new drawings. So things are a little bit more precise now. This is the old one
>> and this is new one. I think that's a a way that they're side by side. >> Yeah. I haven't been able to get Oh, thank you. Okay. >> Why you're doing that? >> There we go. Okay. Got it. A lot of
detail uh has been refined, too. If you notice, the thickness of the windows has been increased because uh our fabricator uh was unable to match the thinness that we originally had designed. However, it looks like this is more in line with the
historic character of the original windows. So, that has been refined significantly. Um yeah, I just I wanted to follow up on the two facades. Um, so I think in your presentation you said
that for the brick portion of the fourth street facade that you're creating as a modern modern area, you're matching the brick to what is existing on the rest of the building. Right. >> Correct. >> And tell me you why you made that
choice. Why didn't you why you didn't just go completely modern on the on the infill portions that you were creating? So we wanted to maintain a continuity of character. So even though we are being
contemporary, the materiality, the color, we wanted that consistency. Now the brick is constructed in a very very different way. Our brick on the contemporary portion is going to be a
brick veneer. It's a full-size brick, but it is built in a contemporary way that allows us to kind of accentuate that where we have our windows, where we have uh different building elements. So even though it is the same materiality,
it is used and built in a new contemporary manner. >> Yeah. Uh I think my concern there is you're trying to be the same, but it's not going to be the same. and it's kind of close. It's almost like I'd rather see
it be completely different than be trying to mimic the brick and not being successful at it. >> Mr. Reed and I had a lot of discussions and and this is really open for for interpretation too and what you feel. I I I really wanted it to be brick. I
wanted to maintain that materiality. I thought that I was I was I kind of put my foot down on that. But we discussed a lot on maybe a different shade of brick. Uh we did a few different renderings with uh different looks on the shade of the brick. It didn't look as attractive
quite frankly. Uh and that's why I kind of chose this. But uh but yeah, we uh we could I also thought of maybe having the mortar joining being a slightly different color as well just to distinguish it a little bit more and
keep the same brick and a different mortar joint. But we ultimately decide to match it the same. But I I'm open to changing that. >> Yeah. Just I just trying to understand your you know your rationale and your
logic before I comment one way or the other. Um and my other concern I think is the massive area of glass. Initially when I saw it I thought you this was all letting light into units but now that
you've explained a lot of it is opaque and only the center portion would actually be giving light into units. Correct. Cor so the glass that we have selected has some translucency to it throughout. It's opaque. You can't see
through it but it allows light to come through. >> Right. How how does it do that? Is it etched? Is it fritted? What's the actual glass that you're supposed to >> I don't I don't have the spec on me right here, but it is basically
laminated on the interior so that it has a little bit of reflectivity and and uh it allows a little bit of light in, but I could I could produce the the spec and and provide it to Mr. Ryden's uh Reeden's uh office.
What it it begs the question in my mind is if it's not if it's opaque and it's not providing light, then maybe the glass area could take on a different shape. It wouldn't have to be as large as it is.
And then possibly being reflecting in two different ways, you know, adding more busyiness and more distraction on Fort Street. That was my concern. >> Understood. >> Yeah. feel like it's no fun unless there's some debate. So, I'm just going
to offer some counterpoints. Um, >> in in my mind, this is a vastly improved design from the last time we saw it. I think there there's a clarity of intent between first of all, not just the modern and the new, but even within the modern kind of the brick massing with
punch windows versus, you know, not quite curtain wall, but let's say window wall um assembly. I think there's just a a a much more refined sense of proportion and material that I I really appreciate and I feel like this is the reason why I love doing this is because
that conversation has produced I in my mind a a much um a much better design. I I for one I I think um I was actually worried about when you said spandrel in my mind Spandreel is 100% opaque
um and I that I think becomes starts to look corporate starts to look >> cold um and Fourth Street is a warm residential kind of domestic scale life. So I understand I I see the master bedrooms that you have behind those
glass walls. I I understand the need for having light and air um into those >> bedrooms. I see those partitions missing the mullions. Hurts my teeth, too. Um, for whatever it's worth, in my I would far prefer uh it to have kind of a
consistent glass and use shades, use the partition jogs to meet the mullions rather than having fritted or or or I mean, if you're using like a 3M vinyl or something on the inside, I feel like that's even worse. So, >> my two cents, I I would rather see it
consistent. Um, I am a little bit I'm I'm also kind of nitpicking a little bit on the details here. Um, I also noted the the typos on the on the annotation of the glass. Um, uh, I I see that big glass wall and I think to myself, if are
are any of those lights operable >> on the >> on the big on the big glass wall? No, >> they're all fixed. >> Those are all fixed. Okay. >> Yeah. I I couldn't find a an attractive way of making them operable. >> Okay. I mean, so that was just going to
be a if there if there were then the added added thickness that that gives to the to the mullions, I think you would have to draw that in and make sure they're composed >> thoughtfully. Um, but if they're all fixed, then I guess it's a mood point. I I think the you need to coordinate some
mullen colors. I was I was hoping to see some material samples. I would love to see the actual color chip that you're proposing for the gray >> next to the um caststone sample. I see a gray mulling color in the big window
wall. I see a white mulling color on the the punched. I think they should probably all be consistent. I think it gets very busy if you start using too many metal colors. >> Noted. >> Um and I again my two cents. Um it's I
this I think is is as you say a little bit more subject to interpretation. I'm perfectly fine with the brick color matching the old. I think you know the wire cut brick next to the old um let's say hand mold brick. I think that
texture difference will be apparent what's new and old. So I I think it's better sort of in conversation rather than one being too starkly different. So I think you have enough differences. So I that that brick color consistency um reads fine to me. But again, I would
have loved to see I would have loved to have seen that brick. >> And I would just encourage you um in future applications um depending on whether or not we decide to vote on this um to just bring the materials. Um anyway, so uh but other
than that, I I really do want to commend the application uh the applicant for what I think is a is a much improved design. >> Thank you. Does the revised design include any changes to the uh the new the door on Fourth Street?
>> Yes. So, the proportions of it and I made the mistake of drawing on this. I'm not sure if I could erase what I drew. >> So, it is extremely contemporary. So we have that trim outline differentiating
the existing and the old and then it's just a mullionless glass partition. There's a transom on the top. Uh a light panel and then the glass door. Um a question of color. Uh that image that you just had up just a moment ago
just before this one. Um that shows that's the upper right corner there. Oh, you're going too fast for me. That upper right corner image. Um the line that's delineating the old from the new. >> Mhm.
>> Like it it it's showing up in your renderings as as a white line that pro and it's protruding three-dimensionally protruding from the building. What is the color and material? It is a off white color to match the the the white
brick on the building facade. So we clean the portion of the white brick on the historic facade and this the intention is for it to be as close to that as possible. And um again on color the uh vertical windows that are not part of the the
glass sections the the two to the right and the one to the left. >> Um that's similar that's the same color metal as well. >> Yes. >> And you're in you're attempting to match the color of the stone that's around the
historic windows. >> Correct. So like the brick, it is similar in color but very different in materiality and finish. >> And then what's what's the color of the um the cast stone at the um the coping
stones above the facades? >> So they're not cast stone. They're going to be made out of ACM panels. And again, all the colors of all the the metal should be matching in in color. Yeah, it's it's again you said your two cents.
My two cents is I think the I think it gets busy and I'm t kind of tagging on to what you said, Commissioner Sakong. You know, in my mind, the whole thing should just recede a little bit more. If the if if the metal in the glass portion
uh was a gray color and you continued that on the delineation between old and new and on the windows to the right and to the left, that whole thing would read as a modern infill and it would separate itself and be quieter. I I think that
would be more successful than trying to mimic the color of stone in a piece of metal. I I I think I I'm not sure if it will actually achieve what you're hoping to achieve. I think it'll look like an attempt to match. It's not going to match. So, it's just a suggestion that
you might want to color-wise pull the whole thing together. >> I I don't disagree and I I I I could see your point of view. >> And for me, it quiets the infill portion down and lets the historic structure shine. Not that the infill is any less
important and it's, you know, a good piece of modern architecture, but maybe they have a better relationship if it's a little quieter and and we'll work with Mr. Reed's office to really fine-tune that. That might become the the final result.
>> Um, well, might become the final result. Doesn't help me all that much. Yeah. >> Or it might be a condition. >> Yeah. Right. >> We're we're fine with it being a condition >> if if Yeah. if if that would be acceptable to you. >> I I do find it acceptable. >> Okay.
>> I just want to go back to the question that was asked about the operable that there were no operable windows within this large window wall portion. >> Yeah. >> Is that so those ws are two code without operable windows? Is that >> Yes, they could be two code with
operable windows. The new standards will require fresh air. We could make that uh work uh mechanically. So they will be in full compliance with code. >> Okay. Thank you. >> For those um you said the ACM panels there. So they're just they're just
metal panels and are they kind of flat or is there any sort of reveal to them? >> So So we have actually already asked for shop drawings to start working how they how they come out and what they are. Um we've designed them in a very specific
way. These are panels are intersecting each other. Uh we're looking to make the joint lines match the mullions of the the frame itself uh but almost disappear. So you see just single lines and the continuity of the mullions on
those panels. So they're so we're working on a design where they intersect each other and all you see are those two lines. So there's no flutes to them. There's no separation except for the the joint lines. >> And is it is it all flat or is are those
>> Oh, no. There's >> there is some section we were able >> I'm sorry. >> No, I was just I think he's going to show there is a section of it. >> Yeah, there's sections all over with different detailing. This is that cornice and the shape and proportions of it.
Yeah, I just noticed something else on the Jersey Avenue facade. Uh the roof line. Um what is the material made of that's actually on the facade just below the roof line? That's depicted in a gray color here.
I'm sorry. On the Jersey Avenue facade >> on Jersey Avenue. Yeah. Uh th this material. >> Yeah, >> that is. And it it looks a little dark on the uh on the rendering, but that is it's actually very interesting that the
historic uh cornice, I guess I would call it, uh or or fascia to that roof line was made out of copper. There was a intervention that we found around the
1930s where they had a mixture of metals including tin. Um that's why you see that the two pieces are actually at two different widths and dimensions. So and this has been a point where we've
had like hourlong conversations on how we're going to address this. We have decided to maintain the different whiffs as kind of a token to this change throughout history and the different elements but match them so that they're
the same. So that will be a copper edge that we hope to patina over time. Okay. So, the reason why I brought it up and um when I'm looking at that roof line and I'm looking at the roof line on Fourth Street, this one is being
depicted as a gray fascia. >> The roof line on Fourth Street is a whitish whitish fascia. >> You see what I'm saying? It's kind of breaking. >> And I think that's why Mr. Reen hates renderings because, you know, it the look and the the way it renders, but the
intention is for it to be equal. >> Okay. See the difference. Shall we go to public comment? >> Sure. >> If there are any members of the public present who would like to speak regarding this application, please approach the comment mic. Staff sees no
members of the p public present and recommends a motion to open and close public comment. >> Motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. So, we can go to staff comments. Um, as has been stated, Dan is not
present. Um, however, he does have the staff report that was revised on December 12th. Um, where he is recommending approval of the project with a large amount of conditions. Um after review of the conditions
suggested for this, they are mostly um related to providing more information um via shop drawings and material samples and site mockups and things like that. Um if we would like we can go through them item by item but again most of them
are related to um either tuning up the drawings at the point of construction documents which is something we would normally see or um site mockups and material samples throughout the course of construction which is something else that we would normally see.
Does staff have uh does does the commission have any questions for staff? >> Do any of them address the issues that were brought up tonight? >> Almost all of them do. Yes. >> Including colors of metals and >> Yes. So there's condition on page to the second page of
conditions that talks about the uh color samples for the pediment cornice window framings doors. There's the casings. There are the fasia.
Am I forgetting one that we discussed? And and the recommendation there is to unify them or to just to provide samples >> there to um the proposed color of all of those shall be based on site evidence and approved
by HPO. So we can clarify that to say to um have them match. >> I I would like to propose that that's a little bit too open-ended. >> Sure. Um, I would like to specify it to to have a language around unifying it
around a simplified pallet. >> Sure. >> You know, pick a gray. Um, I'm a little and and I think the exact color of that gray should be based on site evidence per the per the language in the in the report, but yeah, I I think we should we
need to corral it a little bit so that we're not picking four or five different colors based on site. Yeah, I I think in particular the color of the delineation between the old and the new is an important element and in my mind it
should be a lot darker than what it is and and if we can somehow create some language around that and what else is happening in the new construction on the fourth street facade that would be helpful. >> I agree. Okay. >> So, I think if it's a direction to go
with a darker color um both for unifying purposes and for that um uh panel that is differentiating the old building and the new building to go to go with a darker color and not have it
be a lighter color. Was >> I believe uh the architect said that that would be workable. I I do and just so that to add some color to this literally we debated a lot whether that should be like a bright red color too kind of like differentiate but
I agree completely wholeheartedly maybe a darker color like a pewtor kind of look that I think that would work very well >> maybe there's some other element in the existing building that >> I think this has to be genuinely new temporary and not not take from the
existing there I think the color has to be a kind of uh a new element to to this. So I think it maybe a pewtor it's not shown on the it's on the existing I think it's it's it'll relate it's in the same color palette but it's it's distinguishable. >> Yeah. I trust your new design is going
to stand out and be separate from the historical building. >> Yes. >> There won't be any issue there. >> Great. >> Okay. The applicant shall simplify their color palette based on site evidence and HPC staff approval. In particular, the panel between the old and new construction shall be a darker color than is currently represented on the
plants. >> And are we saying along with the window metals on that facade as well that there's the big glass panel and then there are the >> the So the intention of the condition would be to cover all of that. I did specifically call out the
differentiation between the old and the new. Do we want to specifically call out other things or >> maybe we could say the trim elements on the new construction particularly the line that delineates old from new
>> and then that covers all the trim elements. >> Um I I think what Commissioner Gerard was referring to and and what I was pointing out was the different window mullion colors. Exactly. >> Not just the trims. Um okay. So in my mind I think that would improve it. >> Yeah.
panel and window. >> Got it. Window mullion >> covers. Okay, those two are specifically called out. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. Does that work for you guys? >> Yes, we accept. Absolutely. I think the
other thing that maybe isn't really covered under the staff report because I don't know if this is revised since this um this has been revised um is the different types of glazing the opaque versus that clear glazing and
this versus the spandrels. And I think that is something we also want staff to continue to work with them on. I'm still not 100% sure how that's all going to play out and what that's actually going to look like, how that's going to be achieved. So, I think we should add a
specific condition about that as well. >> So, maybe you can take a minute to talk about that or think about it. >> I was noticing about the plans, you know, there was conversation about where walls would have to be in front of the glazing and that was sort of driving the opiqueness, but looking at the plans, I don't see the walls there. So, I'm a
little confused about what's accurate. in respect to the windows and why the glazing is different. >> So, is the commission saying if it's if possible the possible the glazing should be the same throughout as opposed to two
different types of glazing? >> Again, in my mind, yes. But I would I would be open to the conversation. >> Yeah, I I think ideally it would be, but I'd want to know more about how they're going to do it, what it's going to look like.
um before I'd be okay with it, but and I think ideally it would all be one except for the spandre. Spandros clearly have to be opaque, >> right? Understood. >> But I think the you know making entire lights of glass translucent because the end of a
partition misses the mullion by 4 in. Seems to me not quite cooked >> because partition walls can jog. >> Exactly. Exactly. And I would prefer that than to let that I think it's it's the tail wagging the dog to to have such
a huge area of the facade influenced by that kind of planning detail. >> Yeah, I was misinterpreting the uh describing the walls as being the thing driving the opakqueness as being parallel to the window and not being perpendicular to it. So I think that >> that's my that's my interpretation
anyway. I don't want to put >> So, I was confused when I looked at the plans and was not seeing walls in front of the windows. I didn't understand that they were supposed to be translucent. I thought they were just hiding the fact that there would be a solid wall behind it. >> Okay. So, I I misunderstood. I misunderstood. So, I apologize for that.
>> My greatest concern is the consistency throughout the volume on different floors because when you get to the top floor, the two triangles at the end, there is nothing behind them. So that looked very awkward making those as opaque elements and not having the ones
below. So I kind of wanted that symmetry and that's why we introduced the the concept of having those being translucent but not visibly uh seen. And you're correct. It's not completely cooked. We're looking for glass samples. We had less than a month to prepare. We
requested things. We have things flying in from Portugal. We have to select those glasses. But the concept, the overall concept is that the two pieces of glass are going to look very close similar from the from the streetscape uh
even though they have two different levels of opacity to them. And the question is how much opacity, how much translucency on the on those more uh opaque panels. And we haven't defined that yet, but we feel like we could work
with uh with Mr. read in to get that correct level of opacity once we have all the samples come in. So I think if we can sorry >> I think if we can um in the language of the conditions simply note the if if
this is the case note the commission's um preference for the glazing to be unified but you know but open to continuing work with HPC staff to get there. >> Yeah
>> that makes sense. The applicant shall work with HPC staff to revise refine the glazing type and clarify the opacity and treatment. If possible, the applicant shall apply the same glazing type throughout the project with the exception of the spandre glass. Once clarified, the applicant shall submit details and specifications for HPC staff
to review and approve. >> I'd be comfortable with that. I mean, I just think that this window wall is a very strong statement and it's kind of cool. And so, I think it's important to try to do it, you know, work I know, I know it's still in
development, but like work on the interior condition to like make that really shine >> and don't have it muck it up, you know? >> We could definitely play with so those perpendicular walls and line Okay. Were there any other comments for staff?
>> Yes. Yes. So, there were 24 different um conditions and we've added two, correct? Two new ones. Okay. >> Well, we've we've modified one and added one, right? >> We're just going to keep the other one and then add we're Yeah.
>> Okay. I'll make a motion to approve with the conditions has been that have been set forth. >> I'll second it. >> Um before moving to a roll call vote, I just want to clarify that this approval includes recommendation for approval to the zoning board of adjustment.
>> Okay. And does your client accept the conditions in the staff report and is read into the record this evening? >> Yes, we do. >> Great. We'll move to a roll call vote. Commissioner Gucciardo. >> Hi. >> Uh, Commissioner Sanamp. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Gunther. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Sakong. >> Hi.
>> Commissioner Blazak. >> I. >> Commissioner Gordon. >> I. >> Commissioner K. >> I. >> Vice Chair Gerriga. >> I. >> And Chair Cronin. >> Before I vote, let me say I've lived here for 11 years. That site's been a dump. And I'm glad you guys are fixing
it up. I >> We are going to have to evict some raccoons. Unfortunately, >> there are nine votes in favor, no against, no abstensions. Uh the mo the certificate of appropriateness and the recommendation to the uh Jersey City Zoning Board of Adjustment are approved.
>> Thank you all very much. We really appreciate your time over these meetings and and taking the time to hear Manny out. We really appreciate it. Thank you. >> Good job. >> Thank you very very much. >> Thank you. And good good luck with it. We're all looking forward to it. >> Okay. Demolition time.
>> Yes. Uh, as usual, I got to go down there to set up. So, just give me a moment. Oh, >> really? >> Well, I'm sorry. >> I didn't mean to boot your >> just work
down. >> Well, there's probably 20 rats. >> Okay, good. Okay, good. Yeah, sure. Yeah. >> Yeah. And in anything you can you can participate in the discussions and things. It's just the volume.
>> Exactly. >> Absolutely. Okay, I think we're going to call the demolitions a little bit out of order, but >> we are. >> Wouldn't mind. I've been asked to change the order just a little. So, our first one is 130 Central Avenue. That is uh
B-25-1702. >> Okay. So, we are going to do 130 central first. 130 central is on the northwest corner of Waverly Street and Central Avenue in the Heights. Um, we do not have a 1938
tax card for this building because this building was constructed in 1959. Um, it was constructed as the union hall for the American Federation of Musicians. um at that the that's where the building
says u musicians building on the front. Um that union was originally um named the musicians protective union and underwent a name change around the 1900s but still colloquially known as the musicians union. Um this building functioned primarily as a union meeting
space and a community space um which it still does serve those functions today both as a community space and a commercial space. Um, it is was constructed in a vernacular modern style, more of a streamline
modern with those with some hints of international with the ribbon windows on the sides and on the front. Minimally ornamented um but very clearly mid-century in style. Um, we are
recommending denial of this building um for two main reasons. one, the first is the architectural style. Um, there are very few examples of mid-century design in Jersey City and even fewer um that are
not public buildings or residential buildings. I honestly cannot think of another commercial mid-century building that still has integrity of its design or so much integrity of its original design. The second is in the master plan
element. Um, one of the themes for expanded research is on underrepresented communities within Jersey City. And as far as we could tell, um, this local union was primarily composed of immigrants to Jersey City, Italian immigrants, Puerto Rican immigrants. Um
so in that uh themes for research section they recommend specifically finding buildings such as these that represent a um tangible way to tie intangible heritage to these groups. Um so we are recommending that the
commission uh recommend denial of 130 central. Um we do believe that this building has integ architectural elements. Um we do believe that this building has integrity of location, design, setting, um diminished
materials and workmanships. There have been changes to the buildings, but not completely ruined entirely. It is still the original brick on both the front and that um the lighter panels on the front entryway and on the ribbon windows on the side. Um we do believe this building
has integrity of feeling and due to its association with the group that built it, we do believe that it has integrity of association as well. Are there any questions for staff? >> Could I make a motion? >> You can make a motion. >> Make a motion to deny. >> I'll second that.
>> Should we do public comment? >> Awesome. I know. >> Yes, we should do public. >> I think we should do public comment. And I would also encourage the commission to discuss specific reasons that they're making this motion. >> Yeah, I think Maggie put that really well. Um, there are very few mid-century
uh modern buildings in Jersey City. And one of the probably the best example is the county courthouse, which everyone knows is going to be torn down for a park at some point. So, we're losing that, which is probably our best example
of modern 1950s, 1960s modernist, high modernist architecture. Uh, and this is a building that I've gone by a number of times and and admired for its integrity um, and its simple kind of restrained uh, modernism that you you just don't
see very often in Jersey City. And like you said, it's still um, you know, has that musicians building on there and I believe it's still used for some purposes. So that feeling of association is still there. So I think I agree that this uh, this would be a great loss if this building were demolished.
>> What is it used for now? To my knowledge, it functions mostly as a community space and commercial space. >> I mean, I think it's it's pretty clear that the only thing uh that primarily affects how this building looks now compared to when it was built was the
replacement of the windows and the entry infill, which was that's commonly replaced. Um, and you can see that the building itself is very intact, in very good condition, and you know, I wasn't sure I was ready to go to to bat for
this until the, you know, staff laid out the argument and I do real, you know, you don't really think about this type of architecture as being that significant. Um, but yeah, there aren't many examples >> and this is for sure a more vernacular
example of it, right? This is quite literally the definition of a vernacular uh style that is taken down to its vernacular level used with locally available materials with locally available craftsman. You don't see a lot of ornament on this building because they probably didn't have money to put
the ornament on this building. Um but you're correct. We don't um the compelling argument for me is truly the lack of examples throughout the city and that this particular example is as intact as it is. I'd also note that just
from my own professional experience, mid-century modern buildings can lend themselves very well to adaptive reuse and kind of reimagination without, you know, compromising um what is intact. And what is intact here is much more intact than many of
the demolition applications we've denied um in the past. So um this is a perfect project um one day for reinvention and uh we should keep it keep that potential in mind as well. So I I I think we should deny.
>> Okay. Do you want to reintroduce that motion? >> Where someone can just make a motion to open and close public comment. They can both exist at the same. >> I'll make a motion to open and close public comment. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I think Corey did make the motion and I
did second it. Okay. >> Yes. And I think we can just go to a roll call vote for that. >> Perfect. Commissioner Gucciarda. >> Um yes. because of its intactness, because of its history, because of its uh the raress of this type of building
in Jersey City, I vote I to deny. >> Uh, Commissioner Sankamp, >> I vote I for the same reasons as Commissioner Jaguardo. >> Commissioner Gunther, >> I due to its intactness. >> Commissioner Sakong,
>> I. Commissioner Blazak, >> I for the reasons I stated earlier and it's been stated by other commissioners. >> Commissioner Gordon. >> Yeah, I also was sort of nonplusted when I first saw the photo, but uh I think the comments by staff and my fellow
commissioners are it's very persuasive. There's certainly uh integrity of the property. Um and um I took note of the comments about the rarity of this form of vernacular mid-century modern
architecture. So I vote I. >> Commissioner Kay >> I. >> Okay. Commissioner Edgecom is absent. Vice Chair Griga. >> I'm going to vote I uh affirming what some of my colleagues have set up here.
Um I mean it's intact. We've previously voted to say four walls before, you know, and this is this is I mean, we all remember that it was four walls, just nothing. That was it. And uh this is significantly
um intact compared to those four walls. So, I'll vote I. >> Okay. And chairman Cronin >> I. >> Okay. There are nine votes in favor, no against, and no abstensions. The motion to prepare a resolution to recommend denial to the zoning officer is
approved. >> All right, moving right along. Uh we are on 37 Emory Street. This is B-25-2235. >> Okay, so now we are going to 37 Emory Street.
We got the 1938 tax card photo. A little grainy, but still visible. And then this is the photo that the applicant submitted alongside it. Just a little bit of background for this
property. Uh it was built circa 1870. Um and is located within the Bergen Hill historic district, uh which has a New Jersey HBO opinion of eligibility. Uh and that district is mentioned within the Jersey City Historic Preservation
Master Plan element. Um specifically noting that the uh properties have uh the properties within the district are a mix of late 19th and early 20th century brick row homes, brownstones, Queen Anne style apartment buildings, and private
homes. Uh and this would fall into uh one of those early uh late 19th century uh brick private homes. It's colonial revival style has some uh elements that have been
altered. Um you can see faintly uh the porch has been removed and the entrance uh to the first floor has been kind of made a primary entrance. Uh and then the um um dormer windows have been altered uh
from kind of the two um into one solid uh three window dormer. Other than that um the window fenestration and materials have been
largely maintained. Um, so materials and workmanship staff believes have been somewhat diminished, but the location, the design, the setting, and the feeling have all been maintained. Um, and it does have an association as a colonial revival style building.
>> Is there a chimney missing on the left there? >> Yes, also there has been I I believe there it's tough tough to see. There may have been two chimneys even and those left ones have been removed. And just for some context of the street
is the property next door. And then if you were to turn around uh you have you start going into Westber and and uh yeah this house is in my wow.
Sorry this house is in my neighborhood. So um very interested to see that. I think it's a little confused that house. Um I read it more like a second empire style house. um with the stone coins at
the corner. But I would like to point out that it also is um historically to our city's history uh relevant um since it was built and then inhabited for many decades by William Drayton who was a
merchant um who came to Jersey City in 1812 as a um as a 4-year-old and um from England. His father was a butcher. they were first downtown and he was actually one of the uh founders
along with Fonvor of the town of Funvorst uh in 1841 which then was annexed in 1851. Um and then in the 1870s when Bergen Hill became more um
hip um he moved up and and built on this property. Um he actually also was part of a um hall of fame for Jersey City in the free library in 1901. He died in
1900. Uh where in the hallway portraits of very important uh people of Jersey City were um hung up. I not them but their portraits and he was one of them. So sorry. Um so um just that that was
mentioned and in his um obituary he was also mentioned as one of the u most important people of Jersey City. So I think we also can add that this is um relevant because it was uh inhabited by
someone who's important for our city's history. >> Thank you for that incredible research. That's amazing. I think we know who's making the motion. >> Yeah, I would agree. You know, this building does have, you know, some minor
changes like the removal of the porch and the stair and the doors now on at the basement or ground floor level, but uh and obviously the the dormers have changed to shed dormers, but this building retains a lot of integrity. And I agree uh you know it has integrity of
uh uh location setting um design feeling and association it sounds like even with a person. So it one of the more important people in 19th century Jersey City history. So um yeah I'll I'll make the motion to Oh sorry.
>> We're just going to do a motion to open and close public comment first. >> Then I'll make the motion to open and close public comment. Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> Okay, now we can do >> and I'll make >> God someone else do it.
>> I just wanted to confirm are the the window fenistrations unchanged. Yeah, it looks they look the same to me, but >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. They remain unchanged except for the shed dormers on top, but >> the locations of the windows. Yeah. Not the windows themselves.
>> Yeah. Commissioner Kbach unfortunately cannot make the motion because she is an alternative and we have a full board. >> I'll make the motion. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Second. >> Do we just want to clarify what motion we're making?
>> Staff recommends a motion to prepare a resolution recommending denial of the demolition application to the zoning officer. So, >> uh, recommendation to deny to the zoning officer. >> Okay. >> And I'll sec still second. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. For a roll call
vote, we have Commissioner Gucciardo. >> Um, yes. Before I vote, I when the photo came up on the screen, the first thought I had was, "Wow, that's a grand home." And um its grandness is depicted in uh
the coins at the edges of the brick as was mentioned by my fellow commissioner, the fenestration. Um there's so much intact here, the site, the setting, and now we've also found out about some of its history. I vote I to deny.
>> Commissioner Sank, >> I also vote I. >> Commissioner Gunther, >> I'll vote I. Commissioner Sak >> I. >> Commissioner Blazak >> I to deny. >> Commissioner Gordon. >> Uh yeah. Based on location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling association, I think we've got a full house here. I vote I. >> Commissioner Kay >> I. Vice Chair Grigga >> I. >> And Chair Cronin. >> I to deny.
>> There are nine in favor, no against, no abstensions. Uh, the motion to prepare a resolution recommending denial of the demolition application to the zoning officer is approved. Okay, let me just get back over there one sec, then we'll be done.
Okay. So, just as a point of clarity, we do not have any updates on the tabled cases. Um, we also have no resolutions to review and approved and we do not need an executive session. Uh, so all that is left this evening is adjournment. Um, does anybody want to
make a motion? >> Motion. >> Second. and it is 7:57. All in favor? >> I I >> Thank you.