to the best of my ability. >> Okay, happy to have you, Jonathan. All right, moving on to roll call. Commissioner Gucciardo is absent. Commissioner Sankamp >> here. >> Commissioner Gunther >> here. >> Commissioner Sakong is absent. Commissioner Blazak is absent.
Commissioner Gordon >> present. >> Commissioner Edgecom >> present. >> Commissioner K >> here. Commissioner Callback >> here. Uh, and Chairman Cronin is absent. So, acting chair Griga
>> here. >> There are 1, two, three, four, five, six, seven. There are seven members of the commission present. Five affirmative votes are needed for a certificate of appropriateness. Next item on the agenda are the approval of minutes from the September 15th HPC
meeting. Does anyone have any questions, comments, concerns? If not, staff recommends a motion to approve. >> Motion. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> We'll do a roll call vote. Uh, Commissioner Sankamp, >> I.
>> Commissioner Gunther, >> I. >> Commissioner Gordon, >> I. >> Commissioner Edgecom, >> I. >> Commissioner Kay, >> I. >> Commissioner Kach, >> I. >> Commissioner Gujardo is absent. Commissioner Sakong is absent.
Commissioner Blazak is absent. Chairman Cron is absent. Acting Chair Grea >> I. >> There are seven votes in favor, none against. The motion to approve the minutes carries. For correspondence, all correspondence is linked on tonight's agenda. All
application materials are linked on tonight's agenda as well. Um for announcements, we do have a number of cases that have carried this evening. Um if anyone is present for these, they will be um heard either at the November 17th meeting or at a date uncertain. If there are any questions about that, you
can reach out to staff. So case 8B, 147 Monosel Avenue has carried to a date uncertain. Case 9E has carried to November 17th.
Case 11, I'm sorry, the 9E is uh 515 Jersey Avenue. Case 11A 32 Sherman Place has carried to November 17th and case 11B has carried to November 17th. So those cases will not be heard this evening.
Staff has no other announcements at this time. Right. If there are any members of the public present who would like to speak regarding matters of historic preservation that are not on tonight's agenda, um you may approach the public comment. M Mike staff sees no members of the public uh
looking to speak for open public comment. So we recommend a motion to open and close. >> Motion >> second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> I >> Okay. So for old business, Corey, if you'd like to call the first case.
The first case would be uh case A uh 300 uh Central Avenue B25-0166. >> We are going to move around that. >> Okay. So we are going to do C. All right. So actually the first case would be case uh H250079.
Uh that would be 70 Fair View Avenue, Maxon Builders LLC on applicant on behalf of Farooq Salem Rahil, owner. Okay. For the record, this application is for a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of an additional
dwelling unit in the rear of the yard that is visible from the public right ofway at an altered contributing two-story 3 bay woodframe dwelling built circa 1915 in the West Bergen East Lincoln Park Historic District. And this application was carried from the September 15th regular HPC meeting.
Okay, there goes about half my intro. Good evening um members of the commission. My name is Ailen Brennan and I am with the law firm of Prime Tuval in Misselli. On behalf of the applicant, Farooq Salem uh who is the owner of the property and the resident of the
property located at 70 Fair View A block 16502 lot 31 and as was mentioned in the Westber and East Lincoln Park Historic District. We are here tonight seeking a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of an accessory dwelling
unit in the rear yard of the home. Um, and what I want to just uh address right now and get out of the way is that there is already uh an ADU in the yard um that was constructed uh pursuant to zoning permit and construction zoning approval
and construction permits that were issued uh earlier this year. Uh there was some um confusion as to um the approval process and uh the uh zoning permit was issued, the building permits
were issued and construction commenced. Uh there was no stop work order issued. Um but we were told to go to the HPC um which obviously an application was submitted. Um, meanwhile, the construction continued,
uh, resulting in a nearly complete ADU in the back of the home. Um, and that ADU that's that's there, the way that that looks right now is not what we're seeking to keep on the site. We have plans to change that ADU to make it more in conformance with the historic
district. So, I just wanted to make that clear that what's what you'll see on the pictures in the staff report is not um we're not seeking to legalize for lack of a better term. Um that the way that that structure looks right now um and
our architect um Jeffrey Wright >> Lewis >> Lewis I'm sorry it's >> okay. I was I was talking about a movie earlier. Um Jeffrey Lewis um is going to discuss the plans um for the ADU uh the materials and what we have uh what we
think that that ADU what we plan for that ADU to look like in place of the structure or the facade that's there in place right now. So go ahead or affirm the testimony given this proceeding to the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
>> I do. It's Jeffrey Lewis, JFF Ry L E Wis. >> And staff will note that Mr. Lewis has previously been qualified in front of this board as an expert in the field of architecture. Please proceed. >> Thank you. And I'll note that my uh
license is uh active and in good standing in New Jersey. >> Great. >> Okay. So, I am just zooming in a little on the site plan so we get a better look at it. Should have done that before. I apologize. Um, so what we have here is an existing uh two family building which is on an oversized lot in the R1 zone
and we're proposing a new ADU in the back uh as well as some additional work around that ADU in the rear yard. Um, I do want to note that all the work that we're proposing is in compliance with the Jersey City zoning ordinance. So we >> I'm sorry >> that we are proposing is in compliance
with Jersey City zoning ordinance. So we don't need any variances for this project. Uh, with that I want to just jump right in. uh start with the existing site plan on the right here or what was existing previously. Um so on the right side of the house we have a
driveway and a walkway which leads to our backyard. Uh that yard was previously all asphalt and gravel and was used for parking for vehicles. We're going to be digging all that up and we're proposing that new twostory
accessory dwelling unit um as you can see here on the left as well as a new uh concrete walkway which leads from that driveway back to the ADU and in front of the ADU. Um the accessory dwelling unit itself is
surrounded on both sides and the rear uh with a lawn area, a new lawn area. There's also another new lawn area located in between the ADU and the existing deck of the primary residence in the front. Uh, and I do want to also note that because of these changes, this
is going to bring us into compliance with lot coverage where previously uh 95% of the lot was impervious and we've been able to reduce that down to 80%. Which is well below compliance in this zone. Um, the last thing I want to talk about the
site plan here is we are proposing two new trees on the right here. I do want to make a small revision to this though. Um, because there is an existing fairly large tree at the back corner of our property. It's not on our property. It's on our neighbors property, but it's very
close to our property. So, I do just want to take this uh tree that's in the back and bring it forward about 10 ft or so just to get it a little bit away from that larger tree so that it has uh the room it needs to to grow. So, that's the one minor change that I would like to uh
propose for these plans. Uh with that, I'm going to move on to the floor plans themselves. And I'm just going to briefly go through these because there's not much to show. Um so, we are proposing a new two-story accessory dwelling unit. Uh the ground floor has a living dining kitchen area,
a half bath as well as a washerdryer. At the second floor, we have uh shown here we have two bedrooms and two baths. And then the roof is a flat roof and we're proposing 470 square ft of green roof on there.
Underneath we have our um elevations of the accessory dwelling unit. Uh but first I do want to just go briefly to the staff report. Uh so this is the photograph of what was built. Uh we are keeping the same building footprint but we are making changes. Um as you can see
it was proposed as a mo more modern building with modern finishes that obviously aren't appropriate for historic district. Uh so we have worked with historic to change those. And so I do want to show you here starting at the front elevation the changes that we made. Uh the first on
the front here is we did add two new windows. Uh one of them is here in the living room on the ground floor and then the second is to the right here uh in the bathroom. And the the idea here was to eliminate some of these larger blank spaces that we had on this wall. Um and
then the second change that we made, the more important change were the building materials obviously uh where now the main finish will be a Navajo beige colored uh smooth Hardy plank siding um with 4-in uh white um
trim at the corners. Uh we also added a 1-ft tall khaki brown uh Hardy panel trim piece at the top of the building which will act something like a simplified cornice for the building.
Um, so our windows are all six pan six panel windows. Uh, they the frames of the windows and the window trim is going to be gray in color. And we did a pretty simple uh, window profile that we're
showing here on the right. Uh, we also are proposing a farmhouse style uh, sconce which is going to be mounted above the door which you can see here. Uh the rear elevation is look is on the right here. Um it's there's no windows
or anything. We're just doing a gray smooth stuckle finish at the base and then uh the same Hardy plank siding that we're using at the front of the building on the on the floor above on the second floor of the building. I do also
have the side elevations. I want to just go to them. They're on page six. So I can show those to you. So here they are on the top left here. Uh you can see they basically have the same finish as the rear with uh the smooth stuckle finish at the base and hardy plank siding above. The main
difference is on the right side we do have a 5'9 setback and we have some windows on that side for bedrooms, the living room and in the kitchen. Um so that's um my review of the drawings of what we're proposing. I do think that the ADU isn't distracting
from the historic nature of this property because we're only replacing parking here with a building that we think now fits better into the neighborhood uh in terms of its size, its mass, uh the new finishes that we're proposing, as well as the look and feel of the building as proposed today, not
what's there now. Um, thank you for your time. Any questions? I'm happy to answer them. >> Hello. Thank you. Um the most obvious question that comes to mind is um are there any sighteline drawings because it says that it's visible from the public right of way. >> We did do some sighteline drawings. This
is the plan showing the sight lines. You could see it's not visible from the left side, but down the driveway is where it's visible from. And I think you could see Oh, it's here. You can see it would be a little bit in the corner right here.
We did also do the elevation sight lines. As you can see, it's so far back. It's not something you're going to see over the building. It's really just you'll see it from the side. You can see that here as well. Um, this might be a question for staff,
but uh, is there how does the city's ordinance define an accessory dwelling unit or is there like any kind of minimum requirements for square footage or number of bedrooms, etc. >> I believe the only requirement is that
it can only be uh 18 feet, so 18 feet tall and then it must meet all egress on the sides. Um, so they can have as many uh bedrooms I believe. Um, I don't believe there's a limit on bedrooms. Uh, but again, the height has to be 18 ft.
So, generally we only see uh one or twotory buildings and that's that's generally what uh constrains the applicant. >> Yeah, I could add to that if you want. Really, the only constraints they have as was mentioned is the 18 foot height. There are some setback requirements two
foot from the side and the rear um and five feet in between the buildings. So we are providing more than that on in between the buildings and on the one side where we have the 5'9. >> Yeah, I was guessing I'm asking because um a twotory back building in this
district is a little atypical. It's not very common. You will sometimes see one-story garage buildings. Um, I can think of at least one twostory garage that might have dwelling above it that is maybe historic on Bentley Avenue. Um, I just don't know that two-story back
buildings are very common in this district. You know, maybe that's suitable elsewhere in Jersey City, but I'm not sure that that is appropriate in this historic district. >> Well, I I just um it was fully compliant with all of the zoning regulations as pertains to the district and and to the
accessory dwelling unit. So that was uh we did it all in accordance with the ordinances and the bulk regulations that are that are in place for the district. >> Do you have any precedents for twostory back buildings within this historic district with you?
>> I didn't look I have to be honest. >> Um again because it was an allowed use we didn't look to see if there were others. Do you have any physical material samples? >> We didn't bring the physical samples. We do have uh just the sheet in the corner. Um it's it's a pretty standard Hardy
plank siding and Hardy PL hardy panel. I could zoom in on >> Yeah. And one of the reasons we like to see those physical samples is uh for color swatches because it doesn't it's not always um true to life when you see it on these screens. We could we can of
course give real samples to the historic um staff and have them approve them, >> please. >> There any other questions from commissioners? Do you guys want to look go back look at any parts of the plans? >> Um can you go back to the the front
elevation of the ADU proposed? Okay. is so the um fascia board I call it um or cornice line board. >> Is there a reason why you didn't continue that around?
>> Would that be a hardship? >> I think it was probably just something that wasn't required, but that is something we'd be happy to do if you prefer it. >> I think you especially since you've got five feet on this side and you're going to get a good view of the the corner,
>> I think you should probably continue it. >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah, I think the thought was the front was what you would really see, but you could see around those corners. You're right. We can do we can do all four sides, I think. >> Um, also the the door clearly is a different period. >> I was expecting that.
>> Um, and uh if you're going to do all that work to make this >> uh more of a period building, are you going to keep a door that uh >> we are we are happy to work with staff to select a more appropriate door? And >> I think that would be
That would be something that would help. >> I agree with you on that one to be honest. >> Turn my vote there. >> Um, and the the windows themselves. Can you just read out the spec the spec? It's an Anderson double hung. Is it a
what kind of a window is it? Oh, I mean they're eight over eight, but um what is the um >> are they clad or what are they? >> Specs are >> Oh, you know what? There are specs on here. I'm sorry. I just have to find the
page. >> Oh, right here. Yes, these are 400 series Anderson windows. >> Um, I would lean toward the the smooth Hardy if you can. >> That is what we specified.
>> Okay. Any further questions for the applicant? Okay, we can uh move on to public comment. If that concludes your testimony, >> okay, 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. Okay. Staff sees no members of the public present and recommends a motion to open and close public comment. >> Motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> I.
>> Okay. And we can move into staff comments. Uh yeah. So this is a bit of a unique one um in that they did receive approval from the zoning division as well as from the building department. Um, so then they came in with a
partially complete building uh to HBC staff. Um, and so I worked with the applicant over the last few months uh in order to try to get something that was more appropriate. Um, I will say and it's
visible in my staff report uh there is a photo where you can see the visibility of the building currently uh from across the street. Um, I took that photo while on site. And so that's that's really the extent of the visibility is down that uh
driveway staff's belief is that uh based on the changes that have been made um the application um mostly conforms to the historic design standards for new construction within the district. Um
especially speaking that a majority of the property is not going to be visible from any public right away. It's really just that slim portion of the right facade, the right side of the facade um when looking at the building. And uh the changes to the window fenestration has
created a nice symmetry. I do agree that revising the door would be appropriate as well. Um, and changing it to the the hardy plank, the smooth uh, lapsiding um, will be a big change uh, create an appropriate
relationship with the rest of the block in the historic district. Um, the two stories is permitted uh, by the zoning. So staff doesn't see an issue with that. Um, so in staff's opinion, the project as proposed will not cause an adverse
effect on the character and/or integrity of the surrounding historic resource um and the West Berg and East Lincoln Park Historic District. As such, HBC staff recommends approval of the certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. Uh, the first one is that the applicant shall revise the exterior
existing materials on the exterior of the extent accessory dwelling unit to match those depicted on the construction documents. um just to make it very clear to everybody what's going on here. And then the ones that I picked up from tonight is that the applicant shall move
the rear tree up 10 ft prior to the submission of uh construction documents. The applicant shall revise the ADU to wrap the fascia board around to all four sides. And then last but not least, the applicant shall work with HBC staff to
revise the front entranceway door. And then the rest of the ones that are in the staff report are just our standard conditions. Again, staff's recommendation is uh a motion to approve the COA with conditions as read into the record and
in the staff report. >> Um can we also ensure that the applicant is going to submit the physical samples? >> Yes, that is actually included in one of our existing conditions. >> Okay, great. And I I wanted to just clarify the the windows on the top left
and right of the primary the front elevation. Are those a different number of lights in there >> than the other? >> Um the smaller windows. >> Yes, >> I do believe they're 6 over6 and I believe the other ones are 88. >> Yes, they're 6 over six and they're 8
over eight in the main uh windows. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Are there any other questions for staff? >> I'll make a motion uh with conditions. >> I'll second it. >> Okay.
>> All right. Okay, we'll move to uh does the >> just to clarify for the record, what motion are you making >> to approve? Sorry. Uh >> the I'll make a motion to approve the certificate of uh appropriateness
with the conditions set forth by staff. >> Okay, great. And we have a second on that. >> Yes, I'm second. >> All right. Does the applicant accept all the conditions in the staff report and read into the record this evening? >> Yes, we do. >> Great. All right, we'll move to a roll
call vote. Commissioner Gordon, >> I. >> Commissioner Edgecom, >> I. Commissioner Kay, >> I. >> Commissioner Callback, >> I. >> Commissioner Sanamp, >> I. >> Commissioner Gunther, >> nay.
>> Nay. Okay. Uh, do you have an ordinance citation? I >> I don't I think the twotory height is in is inappropriate for the site and setting in this historic district. >> Okay. Site and setting. Got it. Thank you. Um and then Commissioner Gucciardo is absent, Commissioner Sakong is absent,
Commissioner Blazak is absent, and Chairman Cronin is absent. So, uh acting chair Gria >> I >> Okay, there are six votes in favor, one vote against and no abstensions. The certificate of appropriateness is approved with conditions. >> Thank you everyone.
>> Thank you. >> Okay, so we will move on to our next case. Um before we do that, I do just have to ask, is there any applicants present for 300 Central A? I didn't think so. Okay. Um so that is case 8A in
old business. Um the because the applicant is not present, I'm staff's going to request that the um chair make a mot. I'm sorry, the commission make a motion to carry that to the next regularly scheduled HBC meeting of November 17th. >> I'll make the motion
to carry >> to November 17th. November 17th. >> Okay. >> Second. >> All right. All in favor? >> I I >> I. >> Okay. So, that brings us out of old business and into new business. We are once again changing around the uh order of the agenda this evening. We are going
to temporarily skip over 9A and we are going to call case 9B. Cory, if you'd like. >> Okay. Uh calling case 9B, which is H-24-0012. Applicant Vivid Arc LLC. Applicant on behalf of Yousef Shod. Owner address is
285 Grove Street. And this is in the uh Vanvor Park Historic District. Grove and Mercer redevelopment plan for the certificate of appropriateness for a proposed interior renovation and twostory rear edition uh on an existing
rear edition that is visible from the public right of way and roof deck at an altered contributing mixeduse building built circa 1870 in the Vanvor Park historic district. >> Great. Thank you. Uh Steven Joseph for the applicant. Uh Cassano quickly trumi.
I was just retained today, so I'm not on the agenda. It's my appearance. Um, we're going to get set up here. This is a it's an existing building with two dwelling units and one commercial space. There's an addition on the rear. It's it's not a corner property, but it's one lot in from the corner. And when we take
a look at the photos, as I'm sure you've already seen, it's uh it there will be visibility there. Um, and I think the the property that's on the corner, which has some ventilation and all that, does distract from from the visibility of of our building. Um, but I'll turn it over
to the architect to uh walk through the plans and then we could uh talk through any questions the commissioner may have. >> Did you raise your right hand to be sworn? Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
>> I do. Arlennis Dominguez. A R L E N I S Dominguez. D O M I N G U E Z. >> Thank you. >> And Miss Dominguez, would you mind just perfor uh providing the staff with the
uh benefit of your qualifications tonight? >> Sure. Um I have a bachelor degree of architecture from NJIT. I've been practicing for 12 years, licensed for 5 years. Um I my license is in good standing and um I haven't been before
HPC but I have been before um zoning board in Jersey City and as well as um several other New Jersey. >> Uh staff recommends that the chair accept the qualifications as an expert in the field of architecture. >> I accept.
>> Please feel free to proceed. >> Sure. Um so we are looking at um 285 Grove Street. We have an existing three-story building there. Um the ground floor is a commercial retail space and the top two floors are uh
residential. So it's currently a two family. Um we are proposing to maintain the two family and maintain the ground floor as commercial. Uh but we are proposing a rear edition. Um each floor we are asking to add 7
about 750 ft. 751 to be exact. Um and up here this is the front view on Grove Street. And this is the rear view. Excuse the person. Um so this rear view
is on top of the first story. The current first story does cover the full extent of that um lot and the second story only goes a certain um length which we are asking to add on top of but
not all the way to the rear. Um this site plan does illustrate it a little bit better. So this is that threetory that we saw from Grove Street and then this is the one story. Um back here you see the property line. So um
the one story does go and cover that full lot. Our proposed um we are maintaining the existing alleyway 3T3 per survey. Uh we are maintaining the current distance from the adjacent um
building on the left side. And then um from the rear we are asking for a 15 ft um offset but the rest would be that twotory addition sheet A002
we are showing um a line of sight diagram from Mercer Street um this corner building which we see over here. Um, also the second story stops where our current second um, second and third story stops. Um, you can see a little
bit of our building back here. Um, and then this is a proposed perspective showing where we would see that twotory addition. Um, we wouldn't exactly see the rear of the addition, but we would see the sidewall of the addition.
D1 is showing the existing unit layouts on the second and third floor. Um so there's an existing kitchen, existing uh bathroom, and then um a bedroom and a living space.
On the proposed plans, we are continuing to show the existing conditions, but then also showing how we're transitioning into our addition um at the rear. So, uh there is a slight um offset in floor level that we need to
maintain um because of the current structure at the rear, but um we are adding two bedrooms on each floor and then a laundry area. We also see a elevator. Um this is due to the access of the current owner um
who will be residing in one of these units as well as a family uh member that would be um in that third floor. So the elevator does go to the second floor only. Um and then this third floor
access is only for mechanical. That 15t uh setback on the rear will become a rooftop um for access for the second unit. And we are proposing there's an existing rail that is about 2 feet and so we're um extending on top of
the parapit with a railing for um uh safety reasons but up to a 42 inch height from the the grade of the of the deck. Um this is a section just illustrating how we would be connecting from existing
to propose and explaining that slight uh offset from the existing structure on the main floor. Um but each unit does connect and again we are maintaining the two family on this property. A3 is showing um a lighting plan for
interior layout and A4 is showing the elevations. So um four uh elevation four is showing the existing elevation. Although this chimney does seem like it's against the building, it's actually at the very end
of the of the um property just for clarification. So that does um stay. And then this is um sorry detail two is depicting the addition um elevation uh showing four double hung four double
double double hung windows and we are proposing vinyl a white vinyl. We are proposing um a clap sighting which I do have a color sample with me here today as well as two um exterior sconces that
would be a gooseeneck style and um the front elevation which we are we aren't doing anything to the front elevation but just to show the visibility of that addition um would be from that alleyway.
The this fire escape is ex is existing. So it should have shown here but um this is an existing fire escape which would could be utilized for it currently is utilized but can be still utilized from those existing apartments and uh the remaining is more
construction details structural details. >> Can we go back to sheet um A1? >> Yes. >> Because I think that shows the the visibility that the this one. >> Oh, a 001. Sorry.
>> There you go. >> Yeah. So, and maybe just one more time for clarification if if uh could show the board again what the surrounding properties are and where the visibility would be. >> Sure. Um so from Mercer Street um maybe
this one is better. Um there is that um this is ground floor commercial. looks like a cafe of or a restaurant of some sort. And then the upper floor is our apartment. Um so we are standing a little bit past where this car is right
here. Um if we were um taking a picture of from that line of sight, um this building back here is a fourstory apartment building. So, um it does exceed the the height of our building which we can see a little bit better
um in this elevation where on the side we see the extent of our twotory and then this apartment building exceeds that. And then on the other side of the property um is another three-story building. Um I believe it's the same um
composition of a of a commercial and then apartment units above. >> Got it. All right. Yeah. So for from a v visibility perspective on Mercer, we're really talking about the the side wall of the addition and then at the front of the property, we could see a a piece of
of the addition from the front. >> Correct. >> That uh that concludes our direct testimony. Um I'm sure the commissioner's questions. >> Maybe you want to see the sample. >> Pass it around. >> Any
hardy uh cement, but we would use that we would use that as a color control sample for the clapboard. >> Any questions from the commissioners? >> Uh yes, I have a question about um do you have photos of sort of the rear yard
space and the neighboring rear yards and how this addition might impact those? So, I did uh take a couple of aerial views from >> um >> I'm sorry. Were these? >> No, they weren't. So, this could be an
>> So, we should enter this as uh A1. Um it's two aerial photos um of the of the subject property. >> And can we just make sure they're emailed to staff tomorrow? >> Sure. Um so, these are two aerial views.
One is the corner of Mercer and Grove and then one is from Mercer. So if we're looking at the left picture, uh Mercer and Grove, this is our property right here. Um and then this is the existing uh if you want to call it deck, roof deck. Um
and then our adjacent property does have a roof deck as well, whereas um the property to the left has um an accessory building and some greenery. And then this kind of represents what we already showed on the line of sight.
>> And we're not seeking any variances for the addition. Correct. >> No. >> Uh sorry. Uh correction. The rear is um is an is a >> it's an existing non-conforming condition. >> It is existing non-conforming, but the variances for
>> right. So the addition isn't as >> the addition is compliant with the the zoning, but the existing structure that's there extends >> past it. Correct. >> I I think I heard that you're proposing white vinyl windows on the rear facade.
Can you speak to that and how that's approach? That's not something I feel we hear very frequently here. >> Yes. Um, so the current building, um, has white vinyl windows and it's been that since the, uh, property owners
acquired it. Um, so we wanted to continue that same thing throughout the building. Um, and we are aware that that isn't a standard. Um, but, um, this was something that the client wanted to request. >> And, and the rear of the building is also
>> not visible. boxed in. Yeah. By taller buildings on the >> two sides, correct? >> Yeah. Yep. >> And that's just showing the existing. >> So, not my area of expertise, but I'm a little uncomfortable with that. So, I
would put the question to staff to address whether that's an appropriate material choice. >> Uh, we could talk about it with in staff comments, but I could kind of address it right off the bat. Now um generally uh we only the way the ordinance is written
um windows that are visible on the front facade or any like side facads that are visible from the public right of way um are required to match the historic material. Um as well as like condition operation um all of that. Uh windows on
non- primary rear facades in particular um only need to match in the same um like plane and uh there's one other location and plane I believe are the two. Yeah. Right. Okay. Thank you. Um as the historic windows um
so we do typically see sometimes vinyl windows on rear facades. Uh it is something that generally is approved at a certificate of no effect level. Um so that you guys don't see those but staff does see those. Um again this is for
windows that are on rear facades. Uh I will note the windows that are on the addition in the front that is visible from the alley. Those ones are proposed as wood double hung windows. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Can you just clarify for me? I probably should know the answer to this, but the 15oot setback, is that the required? Like if it were a rear yard, like if you didn't have the non-conforming first floor, what's the rear yard requirement in Jersey City? >> And H, it's 30. >> So in this for this property, if they
didn't have the non-conforming ground floor, they would need a 30 foot setback from the property. Okay, that's what I thought. Okay, thank you. >> I have a question. Uh, can you better explain how much of the building that you're going to see from the front? >> Uh, of the addition.
>> Mhm. >> Okay. Um, let me see if this shows it. So, there's um an alleyway and right where this building, the existing twotory stops, that's where you would
see I think it's 3 ft of the addition at the back, which I'm not sure the actual footage, but it's pretty far back there. Um, let me show the elevation. So, this
sliver, but I emphasize it's pretty far back there. And just to clarify, that's not cantalvering, right? The the existing rear of the building already extends to that. Okay. Correct. Thanks. Any further questions?
Okay, we'll move on to public comment. 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 second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. And we'll move on to staff comments. Um so just kind of going into what the ordinance says. uh 34571
L3 for additions rear yard additions for proposed additions which will be visible from a public thoroughfare or right of way. The commission will consider the effect of the addition on any significant architectural features on the building's rear facade and the scale and architectural character of the
additions facade in relation to the building's front facade. Um so I think uh we kind of went through this but it is just that tiny sliver that's going to be visible from the front. they are using uh wood double hung windows um to match what would have been the historic
condition on that. And then on the rear facade um from the photos and from what I've seen from the street view uh there does not appear to be any uh significant architectural features on the building's rear facade.
So HBC staff finds the application to be mostly consistent with the secretary of the interior standards for historic preservation and the historic design standards. Um uh as such the proposed rear edition at this property appears to be consistent
with the existing block paradigm and the development patterns of the area. In HPC staff's opinion, the project as proposed will not cause an adverse effect on the character and/or integrity of the historic resources or the Vanforce Park Historic District and HPC staff
recommends uh approval of a certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions and those are our standard conditions. >> Motion uh for approval which >> are there any questions for staff? >> Any questions? >> Yeah.
>> Right. So, in the past, uh, buildings that were nonconforming pre-existing that were extending the non-conforming pre-existing use, we normally would force them to set the
extension to the depth that's required as opposed to beyond that. My my point is that this building would then be required to have a 30-foot setback
in in the in the addition levels. And before you respond, I just want to say that I I had a similar thought because, you know, there's nothing specific I can point to except that looking at this uh application, it it's a lot of building and I had the same a similar thought
that we have a number of existing non-conforming conditions in terms of front yard and rear yard setback and max building coverage and to further extend those non-conforming conditions. It's just a lot of a lot of building. And I would say the exception that I've found
over the years to that would be corner conditions. This is the first time I've seen an interior block interior lot within the block that was able to or is asking to extend a non-conforming
pre-existing condition on multiple levels above where where the idea was that this commission would say no, you've got to stay to what the standard is. I I found this to be a relatively unique
application in the sense that we don't see many 100% lock coverage applications where there's only one story on a three-story building. Um I don't think that's a condition we have too often in Jersey City. Um I think this is the first application I reviewed that's
similar to this. I don't know if Maggie can speak to applications in the past that have had rear editions. Um I I don't think that um the 15 versus 30 foot uh because of
the you know limited visibility on the side facade is is really that much of a of a change to the condition the existing non-conforming condition. Um but I can see where the commission's coming from. I'm not referring to the
visibility >> to on Mercer Street. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I'm referring to the donut inside. >> Um and it's something that hits home for me. >> Yeah. >> As as there's a building on my block that has this exact condition
>> and Maggie knows it. 87 Brightite. >> Be my example. >> One of the most um contentious uh >> I don't think we I don't I I don't think we need a reminder. We don't have time to to go into that right now. However, that one was was asked and did not
>> I think >> did not did not uh interfere in the 30-foot setback above the existing pre pre-existing non-conforming condition. >> I think the difference with this application from staff's perspective at least is the um current condition of
this block. Um, if you looked at that aerial and the block plan, um, there are a number of, you know, really the only property that has rear yard in this area is the immediate adjacent neighbor. Um, even
>> to the south right next to him. >> Yes. Yes. But there's not much of a donut left. I I I think was my point to that. Yeah. But again, >> um, there you're also overlaying the back of the the building on Mercer. Um, are there windows on the back? I
didn't see any any photos of that rear. >> There's a the building on Mercer, the the third structure. Is that have any windows on it? >> So, >> or do you have a photo of that? >> There's supposed to be a block plan right over there. It's on the the set that I printed from the portal, but for
some reason it didn't render on on what we're pulling up. And I think that would be really helpful to demonstrate the existing uh the ex existing conditions on on site. Um, could you pass? >> I'm referring to the four-story residential that's >> to the rear.
>> Not not the corner unit, not the corner building on Mercer and Grove, but the the first building behind it on Mercer that's a four-story residential here. >> And I'm just I'd be curious as to say that the second and third floors of that building don't
have windows. They do, but we're not um we're not we're not overlapping on them. This is this is what is there. >> So, you're saying that that first 15 ft there's no windows on that building. Uh on the uh >> well, this is
>> easterly the easterly 15 ft. Within the first 15 feet there are windows but where our addition starts and continues there are no windows. They wouldn't be obscuring any a lot. There's no windows on in the area where
they're proposing to build. You can see they're on the lot line instead. Mhm. >> But I have a question, you know, related to all of this, and I I think I've kind of already asked it, but I just want to make sure I understand the 30 yard 30 ft 30 foot required rear
yard. If this didn't have a non-conforming ground floor, because like they said it meets all of the zoning standards, would it not if this didn't have the ground floor that went all the way to the property line, they would be requesting for a variance. Is that so? So So it's only a technicality
of the way the zoning is written that this isn't requiring a variance because the bottom floor of the building doesn't conform. Is that do I understand that correctly? >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I would Yes. technicality of the way it's not even the way it's written also the way that it's enforced. It's if it's a
pre-existing non-conforming condition. >> They can ask for more than what an a different type of condition like a different property that didn't already have that had a full yard. They couldn't do that without a variance. But in this case, they can. >> Well, they're not expanding upon the
existing condition, right? It doesn't go all the way back plus more. So, the existing condition is allowing a loophole kind of right at the upper two floors that they're proposing. >> I'm hesitant to call it a loophole, but what you are saying is correct. >> Okay. Cuz I just I I do think that this
is too much building too deep into the lot for what remains of the rear yard volume in on this block. And I say volume, I don't mean just the footprints of the buildings, how far they set they extend into their rear yards. I mean the volume of that
>> and the bulk of the addition >> just Yeah, the addition I think is is too too bulky, too big, too deep into the lot. >> I agree with uh Commissioner Gunther. as do I. >> I don't feel like they should because
they've gotten too much on the ground floor that they should get too much on the second and third. >> If the applicant were to pull the building back to conform with the rear yard setback on the addition minim Yeah, that
>> that'd be a a um if that was a condition, I would say I would I would agree to that condition. >> I would also agree to that condition. I don't think we do that as a condition for what it's worth. I'm just trying to just >> sus out where we are level of
support-wise. Stephen, do you want five minutes? We can take >> Sorry, I apologize. Yeah, I'm conferring with my my client. >> Yeah, why don't we why don't we take a five minute break then? >> Thank you. >> Okay, we're right around not quite but close to it. All right. Um, if we want to take
a five minute break and come back at 7:37, >> you're in charge. >> Uh, we're going to take a five minute break and come back in 5 minutes. >> 7:37. >> Okay. Do we have all the commissioners present? Bridget, just let me know when
you are uh ready to go. Okay. >> Okay. Want to call the meeting back to order? >> All right. It is 7:38 and I am calling this meeting back to order. >> Uh Stephen Joseph for the applicant.
Appreciate the time to confer with my client. The applicant would like to carry this application to the next available HPC hearing. Sure. Okay. >> So, we will carry to the next available HBC meeting that is November 17th.
>> Do we need a motion or just >> Yes, we need a motion. >> I'll make that motion to carry this application >> and I'll second it to the next to the next meeting. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I >> I >> Great. Thank you.
>> Thank you all. >> Okay. So, we are again jumping around again. We are back up to 9A. Corey, if you'd like to call that. >> Sure. Case 9H-25-041. This is for the review and
recommendation of proposed amendment to the Bright Street redevelopment plan. Uh recommendation to the Jury City Planning Board and City Council. >> Okay. So, this is a city project. Um, Michael is gonna go down and plug in the
monitor so that you all can see what we're talking about. And we have Matt from our office with us. >> And Matt's going to be walking you guys through the um proposed changes to the Bright Street redevelopment plan as soon as Michael plugs in. We don't
>> on this board. >> Okay. >> Um, >> yes. Um, Matthew Dilva, senior planner, division of city planning, mat h da
space s i lva. Um so before you is a proposed amendment to the Bright Street redevelopment plan. And um for those not quite familiar, the Bright Street redevelopment plan consists of more or less a segment of
Bright Street on the edge of the Van Bource Park Historic District. Um Michael's scrolling down to the >> map, >> the map. Um so that's the extent of the district and then there are several subdists within
the district. Um yes and so this amendment concerns zone three which is the residential infill zone. Um the purpose of the residential infill district is to provide for appropriate new infill construction and to redevelop the the area's town houses, for family
dwellings, multif family residential consistent with the historic pattern of construction on this block and approximate historic resources within the district. Um generally um you know there's lots of regulations around the infilt the residential
infilts context and especially fitting into its historic context. either. >> No worries, Bridget. >> So, there's the bulk regulations and the use regulations are really around just that residential infill that fits into
the historic context here. Um, within the Vanforce Park Historic District, um, as you see, the borders of the historic district bisect the plan. The north side of Bright Street is within the historic district and the southside um zone one
which is where most of the larger scale redevelopment in the plan is called for is outside of the district. Um, so this amendment was petitioned by the owners of 16 Bright Street, um, which was a new construction,
um, three family town home, I believe, um, that was, um, approved by this board and concurrently by the planning board and then built
several years ago. And there is um where historically when you'd have the type of sort of brownstone townhouse development over here, you would have what a basement apartment due to modern flood regulations can't be a habitable residential space. And so the p the plan
previously accommodated for this reality of um development that mirrors the built form of our historic built forms while adhering to modern flood regulations and modern considerations around habitability and flood risk um by
allowing for accessory office use um in these types of spaces. um sometimes residential amenity spaces, but the idea of a small office, you know, a notary public, small tax office, small law firm, etc. Um and the rule for the rules
for accessory uses in this primarily residential district is a it has to be just that accessory. It can't be the primary use. Two, it has to be 2,000 square feet or smaller. um this amendment as a request um the applicant,
the petitioner here in this case, the owners of 16 Bright Street um requested that um they be allowed to lease out this space as a retail store um small corner store type space. And so
to accommodate that, um, we are amending the plan to add as allowed accessory uses beyond the current fences, walls, and stoops, home occupations, decks, patios, swimming pools, off- streetet parking, professional office and medical office, retail sales, so your typical
small store. Um, so selling anything, retail services, think barber shop, salon, um, any sort of customerf facing business where what's being provided isn't stuff but a service. Um, and then
cafes, all less than 2,000 square feet. And I want to emphasize that this allows cafes and not restaurants. And the difference in our code between a cafe and a restaurant, um, is that cafes do not have a dedicated kitchen. Um, and so we're not talking about, you
know, the intensity of a full full-on restaurant being allowed here, but um, just a small, um, cafe, perhaps similar to the Treehouse Cafe that recently opened across the street in this general location. Um, you know, serving coffee, light snacks, and the key limiter here
is, as you see, all these uses would have to be 2,000 square feet or less. So, we're not talking intensive. We're not talking large traffic generators. We're talking complimentary neighborhood business. Um, and with that, I leave it to Maggie and
Michael for the historic district context. >> Okay. Um, Michael, do you have any comments on the historic district context or just >> No, this is a very straightforward amendment. Um these are all uses that we see throughout the historic district in
the areas that um you know retail and and such are permitted. We have cafes and retail use. Uh so this this is something that's really kind of just keeping with uh what is standard throughout the historic district. >> Do the commission have any questions for
staff? I think we had an application for this for 16 bright uh three years ago for an awning and I'm just I'm just looking for may perhaps a little bit more context. So is the idea that uh it was approved
for these limited uses and it's not being used successfully. So they're looking to expand the scope and and if that is the case was there any rationale behind the original list? Why were these
forms of business not originally contemplated by the redevelopment plan? >> Um certainly. So I think um well the accessory uses were a later addition in the plan. I think as modern flood regulations and as a reaction to
the idea that you couldn't do true ground floor residential in this location anymore due to flood considerations as state flood regulations updated as our flood maps updated etc. I think the the addition of uses was peace meal um initially. So I think the initial idea is oh this could
be an amenity space, a home gym, whatever. Um that's a tall consideration. I know this particular building is a condominium for example. Um and um and then the idea with okay office,
you could have some sort of leasable space and make use of these ground floor spaces in these types of infill buildings in this location. Um, and I just think, um, the reaction has been that the market for small-cale office is
weak, especially that 2,000 square foot limit puts a pretty, um, strong cap on the types of potential clientele. Um, and small format retail.
Um, I mean, as Michael mentioned, is a very sort of traditional aspect of the Vanforce Park Historic District and, um, it's less of a there was active contemplation against retail previously
and more of a um, you know, wasn't petitioned and planning didn't consider it until this petitioner came forward. >> Okay, I appreciate that. Um, I'm good with it. Thanks. >> No problem. Any further questions?
>> I was just going to say as a comment, I live only a few blocks from there and um I think that most neighbors would say as long as it's not disruptive at night, they would be probably okay and like to see a little bit of an activation of the
neighborhood. So, I think that those uses uh still fit that bill. >> Yeah. And as a reminder, um any um you know proposed fit out that has an exterior component
would have to come before this board. So um there would be opportunity for the HPC to have input when a proposed use comes forward a potential tenant >> as far as the aesthetic concerns. Right. Not the use. >> Oh yeah, we don't. Yeah. However, I just
will say for the use Tony on your point of the neighborhood doesn't would prefer for it not to be disruptive that cafe category prohibits um rear yard seating. So that I know that has come up as a concern in the past and that's the specific cafe use does not permit that.
So it would be less disruptive than a category one or two restaurant which is not permitted. >> Good. >> Okay. Any other questions? If not, staff recommends a motion to >> public comment. >> Oh yes, public comment. How could I forget? Are there any members of the
public who would like to speak regarding this application? >> Okay. Staff sees no members of the public public present and recommends a motion to open and close public comment. >> Motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. And on that note, staff recommends
um a motion to recommend approval to the planning board. >> I move to recommend approval to the planning board. >> Second. >> Okay. We'll do a roll call vote. Uh, Commissioner Edgecom, >> I. >> Commissioner Kay, >> I, >> Commissioner Colback,
>> I, >> Commissioner Samp, >> I, >> Commissioner Gunther, >> I, >> Commissioner Gordon, >> I, >> Commissioner Gucciardo is absent. Commissioner Sakong is absent. Commissioner Blazak is absent. Chairman Cronin is absent, which just leaves uh, acting chair Griga. >> I,
>> there are seven votes in favor, none against, with no abstensions. The recommendation to the planning board is approved. Thanks, Matt as well. Welcome. Thank you, board. >> Okay. So, Corey, if you'd like to call the next case, which is 9C.
>> Yep. 9C. Calling uh H-24-0455. Applicant Peter Johnston, architect PC. Applicate applicant on behalf of Stam Stoya, owner. address is 310 Pavonia Avenue, zone H, Hamilton Park Historic
District, for the certificate of appropriateness for the proposed construction of a two-story rear edition and roof deck that is not visible from the public right of way at an altered contributing Italian rowhouse built
circa 1875 in the Hamilton Park Historic District. >> Perfect. Thanks. We'll give the applicant a moment to set up. There we go. Would you raise your right hand please? Do you
swear or testimony in this proceeding truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> And state your >> uh Peter Johnston Per J O H N S T O N. Um
Mr. Johnson, if you would mind uh providing the commission with the benefits of your qualifications. >> Um sure. I have a bachelor of science in design in architecture from Arizona State University. I have a master's in architecture
um from UCLA. I have over 30 years experience. Um a lot of this is um renovating um town homes and historic structures such as this uh mainly um in Hoboken. Um I have been before many
boards um not this board um recently um including zoning and um historic >> and you are currently licensed to practice architecture in the state of New Jersey. >> State of New Jersey. Yes. >> Great. Um HBC staff recommends that the chair accept Mr. Johnston's
qualifications as an expert in the field of architecture. >> I accept. Thank you. Please proceed. >> Okay. What happened here? Okay. So, um 310 uh Pavonia Avenue uh
presently consists of a duplex unit um and two um additional units above. Um the scope of work will be for the renovation of the duplex unit on the interior um and a um rear yard addition
um which will be um two stories um as mentioned in the report. There will be no interior uh work um in the two um apartment units with the exception of some sprinkler work. So what we have
here first is um the front facade. Um again there will be no work on this. It's in um very good shape and as mentioned um we would not be touching um that okay
here is the rear yard as it presently stands. Um, as you can see, there's um a one-story addition um that's in terrible shape. Um, it's yellow. Um, it's rusted um looking. Um, and then you can see the
um rear uh facade of the existing building which has a fire escape on it. Um, I'd also like to uh take note um if you can see the to the right um the neighbors um addition which was improved. Um we plan to come out as far
as the neighbors addition. Um so we would be in compliance with the zoning code on um all of these um particular items. Other things that we're going to do is remove the fire escape um because with um and propose uh sprinklering the
building itself. Um here's another close-up um shot to see how things uh presently are. Um again, we're matching the neighbors. Um they have a a deck up above. Um we will
be doing a similar um construction. Okay. Um, as far as let's make that a little bigger here. Um, as far as variances, um, we are in conformance. Um, so we do not need any variances at all. Uh, we came out, um,
within the setbacks of the zoning code. Um, and as mentioned, um, we will be matching, um, the neighbors. Um, I want to bring you over to the, um, site plan. Um and you can
see um you know the proposal um or lining up um with the neighbors addition uh also proposing a spiral stair which is similar um to what they um have done. Um, as far as the rear yard, um, we're
going to remove the, um, concrete that's there that's, um, uh, falling apart and put blue stone, um, pavers in the rear yard, um, and leave much of the indigenous, um, landscaping there. Um, and again, we'll be at the 80% and we'll
not go over um, that. So, we are in conformance with the zoning code. Um right here um we could look at some of the uh demo and removal plans. Uh we will be renovating um the first two floors, removing the existing kitchen,
uh removing that addition. Um and then on the second floor, removing the fire escape. Um as mentioned, no interior work um on the third and fourth floor with the exception of uh bringing sprinklers in.
Um here are the floor plans as they exist um today. Okay. So now we get to our proposal. Uh we are proposing a um rear yard addition um which is 1710 and a half. Um we note
here that we're aligning with the neighbors um and we have a spiral stair. Um we also will come back and do a series of um bathrooms um and closets um in on this particular floor. On the
upper floor we will have a deck um uh with the spiral stair and that's when where we will have the um proposed um kitchen. Um and again no work on the upper um two floors.
Um here are the existing um drawings of the rear and front facade. Uh front facade um we saw in the photographs no work. Um in the rear yard we will be taking down this fire escape um and taking down um the addition. We will be
leaving the windows and the brick that's up above. Okay. Um as mentioned um in the report um you cannot see uh the proposed addition from the street um as indicated by these
sideline drawings. Okay. I don't know if I skipped something. What the hell happened here? I don't know why we're skipping over the rear. Okay. Ah, here we go. Okay. So, uh, the rear
yard, what we're proposing on the rear yard edition, um, are, uh, glass doors, uh, double hung windows to come back in. We will build the, um, addition out of, uh, stucco, and I'll go through the colors on that. Um, we're going to leave
um the existing brick. It has some character. Um, and leave um the windows um and of course the cornice there. We will have some skylights on the roof of the second floor um addition. Um as far
as coloring um goes and nature materials, um the actual um fencing that we have up here or railing will be black. Uh the windows will be black and the um actual
um addition itself in stucco um will be um in Benjamin more. Let's go next fresh brew which is um a reddish brown uh which we think goes with the um neighbors um edition. Uh we will also uh
be using on the deck uh Timbertech terrain collection which is a gray. Um and as mentioned for the uh windows we will using um black um and black on the railing. Uh we will have two lights um
which um are downward um and have fluted glass and they will be uh bronze metal. Uh we're using uh Pella windows, the Pella Reserve Traditional, which has a nice profile to it. Um and then is um
clad. And same thing with the door. Um here we have um some of the details of the railing, which is um simple and um in black. Um in conclusion, um we hope that you um
approve our uh proposal here. Um it is in conformance with the zoning code um cannot be uh seen from the street um and matches up with the neighbors um addition. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh any questions from any
commissioners? >> Just get some water. My only question is Mr. Johnson, do you have any material sample boards or paint samples or anything? >> Well, the only um a good question there. The only one we have would need a sample
on would be the decking. Um the rest is metal. Um as far as the railings and the spiral stair and we have details on that and that's going to be um black. Um the um lamp itself will be bronze. Um and
then any of the cap metal um will be um black. The um Benjamin Moore Fresh Brew, which will be the uh color of the Stuckco, we will most certainly do a mockup of that to see how that dries and looks. >> So I would just ask that you please
provide samples to staff. >> We most certainly will. >> Thank you. >> Any further questions? The lighting is uh just at the deck level or >> uh rear door, the lower lighting at each
door. So, one at the lower level and the upper level. >> Okay. Hearing no more questions and if that concludes your testimony, we can move on to public comment. Uh if there are any members of the public uh wishing to speak regarding this application,
please approach the public comment mic. Staff sees no members of the public present and uh recommends a motion to open and close public comment. >> Motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> Okay. And we can move on to uh staff comments. Again, um this is a very
straightforward application. Uh the neighboring property uh 310A Pavonia was granted a COA for the rear edition in 2018. Um this matches it as far as bulk and uh stair and all of that. Um it
appears to be uh consistent with the existing block paradigm and uh the development patterns of the area. Uh it is not visible from across the street um in the public right of way. So, in HPC staff's opinion, the project as proposed
will not cause an adverse effect on the character and/or integrity of the historic resource or the Hamilton Park Historic District. And HBC staff recommends approval of the certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. And uh those conditions are
our standard conditions. >> I'll make the motion to approve. >> Okay. >> Second. >> Okay. Sorry, I missed that. Who is the second? >> Gordon. >> We will take a roll call vote.
Commissioner Gunther >> I. >> Commissioner Gordon >> I. >> Commissioner Edom >> I. >> Commissioner Kay >> I. >> Commissioner Callback >> I. >> Commissioner Sankamp. >> Hi. >> Uh, Commissioner Gujiardo is absent. Commissioner Sakong is absent.
Commissioner Blazak is absent. Chairman Cronin is absent. So that just leaves acting chair Griga >> I. >> Okay. There are seven votes in favor, none against with no abstensions. The COA with conditions is approved. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Next case. >> Is that a C? >> Uh >> oh, sorry. Um D, right? >> All right. So, uh we're calling case DH25-0147. applicant Steven Joseph Esquire,
applicant on behalf of 82 Sussex LLC, owner. Uh the address is 77 Grand Street, also known as 82 Sussex. Uh that is zone H Paulis Hook Historic District for certificate of appropriateness for
the proposed construction of a new fourstory twounit residential building and associated site work in the Paulus Hook Historic District. >> Wonderful. Thank you. Uh Stephen Joseph Castano Quigly for the applicant. Um, so
just briefly on the two addresses, uh, this this was a formerly a large property called 77 Grand Street. The prior owner subdivided off the, uh, the the piece of land that fronted on
Sussex. The new address is 82 Sussex, and that's a vacant piece of land. Um, what we're proposing tonight, I think, is fairly straightforward application. um conforming project. So, no referral to the planning board or zoning board. Um and it's a it's a new construction.
Um so, we're getting set up right now. Um why don't we get uh the architect sworn in while we're waiting for the computer to boot up. Should come over here on the mic. >> Sure.
>> Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about given this proceeding will be the truth? The Truth and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Joseph Terrella. T A R E L L A.
>> If uh you just give the commission the benefit of some of your experience in education. >> Sure. I'm uh I have both a bachelor and a master's degree from Columbia University in architecture and I've had a New Jersey license for maybe 40 something years and have been working
actively as an architect for almost 50 years. >> And your license is in good standing? >> It is. >> Okay. Uh HBC staff recommends the chair accept Mr. Terrell's qualifications as an expert in the field of architecture. >> I accept. >> Oh, good.
>> Great. All right. Why don't you uh walk us through the plans? >> Sure. Thank you. >> We're almost ready. >> It's still generating. >> It's thinking. >> Okay. Well, as um Stephen said, this is a
I can take a moment of of levity. It's ironic that his name is Steven Joseph and my name is actually Joseph Steven. So, we found that to be to be kismmet almost when we started working together. And um see
um anyway, it's a it's an infill townhouse on Sussex Street, which is pretty historic and in the old city. And our proposal is to put back a townhouse that is very similar to what was once there. And we've taken into account the
whole street. um trying to match cornes and window lines and restoring the stoop and the the surround entry underneath to the to the uh basement level and um at least on the
the street side really trying to fit in with all the houses that are actually there. And we brought some materials to show the same sort of historic brick and uh some brownstone brownstone base and
blue stone paving and the cornice and um all the kinds of details you would come to expect on a historic house. >> Sorry. >> Thank god I'm not doing this. >> So while we're doing that, why don't we pass around?
>> Yeah, we can do that backwards. But uh >> you want to do that? Yeah, I'll be your Vanna White. >> Oh, thank you very much. Okay, so this is a brick sample. >> Um, it is a historic style brick. It's
sandruck as opposed to water struck. So, it's got some texture and it's got a little not not the crisp edge, but rather the sort of rounded edge. This is brownstone sample of the brownstone, even though no real brownstone really exists much anymore. And um the um this
last uh grout is the um proposed mortar color. And this is a piece of black uh for which is going to be the windows and the paint for the cornice and the door now. Oh, here we go. Okay. So, you
should stay. So um so on the left so as as Stephen said this is the the slot on the you can see the site which was larger p you know sort of P-shaped or something which has now been broken in half and we are the
narrower um top piece and this is a photo that we were able to find of the historic what was there before and the picture in the middle is what what is there now. Um, but we're we we do not need any
variances for this. We are under the 5,000 square foot thing. So, I don't believe we need any zoning particular approval. It's been through the staff. So, which is I guess why we're here. And um you know, it's a it's a pretty
straightforward townhouse info. We except it's going to just be really nice and instead of the what's there now. Um you can see the um photo and then the drawings of the whole street and then and the infill piece uh being suggested.
U it's only about 22 feet wide. So it's uh it's not a big house. And um that's all these pictures. That's a line of sight drawing which shows that nothing we're proposing even on the roof can be
seen from the street. Um, this is the rear yard, the the plan showing the the front with the paving and the steps to go down under the stoop to get to the the studio apartment and the rear paving the rear yard which is
somewhat stepped with a stair from the from the first floor and uh sort of stepped going back with some planting and some paving to um to give it some variet. iety. There will be hip fencing around the
whole thing and trees along the back. Okay, these are the plans which show the there is a a small studio apartment in the front in the basement being proposed which depending on who buys the house could be a spot for a
nanny perhaps as opposed to a separate renter but it could be separate. Um and then uh sort of a media room or playroom in the back and uh there is an elevator in this thing, right? Yes, the elevator
and um and then uh public floor on the the main floor which has access to the back and then bedrooms front and back in the in on the upper two floors. uh and a roof deck.
Here's the facade again showing traditional window shapes and styles pretty much was a little tough between the either side but pretty closely aligned with both sides although they're not exactly aligned. Um, here's
the the cornises over there in the middle and uh the stoop below it and just just getting in underneath enough to to get clearance to go to the basement level.
Uh, and this is the rear facade which is not historic. Uh it's basically a metal and glass facade to open up the apartments to as much natural light as possible
from the back. Um the the various neighbors have different things in their backyards and we felt that this was a a proper reflection of what we're doing inside which is kind of a sort of a more mid-century
Italian modernist piece and that the we thought the back facade would be a nice expression of that neutral open This is a section of the building. There is a cellar which we're going to have
things like our sprinkler gear and uh boiler and things like that in, but it's not otherwise it's not an occupied space. And you can see the terrace yard in the back. These are our windows.
The top row is the historic windows. These would be wood and uh double hungs. And this is the back which would be metal and glass which would be which would have operable doors and and
casement type windows. Uh some fixed um These are the details of the windows and doors and stuff partition types.
But the intention is to build a traditional looking high quality very nice piece of infill townhouse that would help fill in the missing tooth on the block. >> I know we went through that pretty quickly. Uh it's a fairly simple
project, but Of course, happy to discuss any of the details of this with the commission. >> Is there a rendering of the of the how it would look like in the front with the adjacent buildings? >> I think so.
>> Here you go. >> And >> this was not submitted, right? This was not part of our package. We'll enter this as A1 and we will send this to um staff tomorrow. >> Thank you. title rendering. >> Um,
>> call it a rendering. Yeah, >> rendering. Front facade rendering. >> Facade rendering. I don't see a date on it. >> By the architect of record or ordered by the architect record, >> but are these are these colors accurate because I saw the cast stone sample was more of a light brown and this looks
like very dark charcoal gray. >> I don't like renderings for this very reason. I think I think the colors of materials never come out. >> Okay. Right. >> So that we should rely on the samples. Yes. And yes, for sure. And I think the steps are more give you a better idea of
the coloration. Uh probably the license of the renderer wanting the darker. >> Okay. And I have the same question for the window color. Are they proposed to be black like this or a neutral color like the facade? Like more of a brown?
>> No, they were proposed to be black. >> Okay. >> Um Mr. for Terrella. Um I just wonder if you could um speak generally on um where you took inspiration for the the front facade. Was it um inspired by specific
elements of other historic properties in the neighborhood or was it more a general representation of the style? Where did this come from? No, we I mean we've done a lot of historic work, but we took a hard look at this block and and the surrounding blocks in the old city, you know, and we
tried hard to to uh uh take into account both the materials and the positions of the windows, the the spacing of the windows, the the um floor to floor heights, which which impact where the windows can go.
um how how high the the front door should be. How just to get enough to get underneath to get into the the basement. Uh the cornice if you if we go back if we went back to the old drawing, you see the old the original building's cornice was actually a little bumped up above
these the current ones. These guys managed to survive. So they get they get to set the the the height. But we tried very hard to be to be a good infill piece in what is a very nice looking block. Um and it'll
although this one will be new uh you know a number of other houses on the block are very well taken care of and um we we hope to join that group. >> Can you show us the block plan again? Yeah.
because it seems like there's going to be some visibility of the upper floors potentially over the empty lots on Washington Street. Have you studied that at all to see if any of that rear facade will be visible? >> Uh, no. I don't think it is visible. Um
but um there's a there's that lot that parking lot and then there's a high high fence along that the back. >> No, from like for like over the park, right? I think you might be getting there's a
chance there's going to be views of the rear facade over the park, Ballots Hook Park there. Um, I mean, I think we should know whether or not that's going to be visible, especially as we're considering a very glassy rear facade. >> Okay.
>> Yeah, I think we're going across, one, two, three, four, uh, four separate lots at that point. Um, with a fence and and some trees. We we didn't take a sighteline from there. Um, but I think the AR architect testified he doesn't believe it's going
to be visible. Um, and with with the regards to the the glass, it it is a a design style. I believe this commission has has seen in the past and has been approved in the in the past the uh I'll call it the the
business and front party and back style, >> right? Um but I I think you know I am not comfortable making any kind of decision about this project without having it demonstrated whether or not it will be visible and then if it is what we will be seeing
based on the proposed design and from from which vantage points like throughout the neighborhood because we do have this open you know park >> understood >> and it's a four corner park so you're
seeing it from within And you know, from what I'm saying is that I think this will be visible. Um, if you can show me that it isn't, then it then that's maybe fine. >> Sure. Sure, we'll do that. But I'm pretty sure we'll be able to demonstrate that it's really not.
I mean, I think that's a good catch by Commissioner Gunther. I I I think that's a valid observation. Um, I also think we have for the most part adhered to the business in the front party and the back doctrine Mr. Joseph described. So to my
mind, it's not it's not going to really change the outcome for me. Um, to make a comment on the previous point, I went down to the park uh because I thought it was 77 grand and
not 82 Sussex. Um, which is where that park is. Um, and for what it's worth, uh, you really can't see the other side, um, from that park. Any
further questions, comments from commissioners? >> Uh, you didn't really talk about the iron work at the front. >> Okay. >> Do you have some um details of that? >> We do. It's fairly straight bar railing at the
cap and a and a and a ra b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b rail, not wanting to imagine what railings might have been like instead, but uh adhering to the the idea of a a front fence and then the railings and the new post going
up the steps uh we think are are pretty neutral. But in the spirit of the this kind of townhouse, >> thanks. >> Okay.
>> I'm the detail on the the door, the main entrance. Is there glass on the either side of the door or is that just >> No, >> wood detail. Just like a raised panel is mimicking a kind of pyaster type
position of doors that that have these types of things. So if there are no more questions from the commissioners, uh just trying to get a gauge for you know
anyone have any other questions? All comment. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. Does that conclude the applicant's testimony? >> That concludes our direct testimony. Yes. >> Okay. We'll move on to public comment. Uh if there are any members of the public present wishing to speak regarding this application, please
approach the public comment. Mike mic. Staff sees no members of the public pres present and recommends a motion to open and close public comment. >> Motion. >> Second. All in favor? >> I I >> I
>> Okay, we can move on to staff comments. Um, so the HBC previously approved the subdivision of this lot under certificate of appropriateness H--24-0079. That was in May of last year. Um, and this created a conforming lot.
It's 22.08 ft by 100 ft lot uh fronting Sussex Street between Washington and Green. And so we don't actually have a tax card for a 1938 tax card for 82 Sussex Street. However, we can see it uh in the
adjacent property 80 Sussex Street. Um and based on historic aerials, it looks like the building was demolished around 198 uh 1970 and has remained a vacant lot since. Uh used as private parking.
um looking at the proposed um project, you know, it's not very often that this commission gets a new construction project that is completely conforming to the uh zoning standards. Um I think
Stephen can testify to this. I asked multiple times to make sure that they I wasn't missing something. Um because I think it's so infrequent that we do see this. Uh so it's an as of right fourstory 40 foot tall uh two-unit
townhouse with the 30-foot rear setback. Um that guide for new construction in the historic district is that new construction need not replicate historic older buildings or structures but may reflect contemporary design standards so long as the design and construction is
compatible with surrounding historic structures. building height with mass and proportion affect the degree of compatibility between the new and the old. Um, I think that this, for my professional opinion, I think that this building does a really nice job of
balancing the new and the old. Um, I think we see a lot of applicants really struggle with the idea of how they make something not a carbon copy of something historic. Uh, but kind of use those little nuances to, uh, influence the
fact that this is new construction, but maintaining that comp compatibility, uh, particularly on such an infill lot. Um, I think the straight bar, you know, modern fence, the modern style windows with the black, um, all really attest to
kind of um, a really welldone job by the applicant. Um, the fiberglass cornness uh, kind of replicates the old but not quite exactly. Um, so in staff's uh, perspective, um, this really takes cues
from the approximate buildings of historic significance. uh and the bulk is compatible with the adjacent uh residential buildings on the block and found throughout the historic districts. Um and so as such, HBC staff believes the project as proposed will not cause an adverse effect on the character
and/or integrity of the surrounding historic district um the polictoric district or the res historic resources. Um HBC staff recommends approval of a certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. Um most of them are standard conditions. We
do have two uh or three that are not always seen. The first one is that the applicant shall seek approval of a franchise ordinance for the construction of the front yard railing and areaway as it extends beyond the property line. If any component of that 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 revised conditions. If necessary, the applicant will reappear in front of HBC to seek approval of changes. And then um
all landscaping, including troops, shall conform to the Jersey City Forestry standards. And then no portion of the roof decks or accessories shall be visible from the public right of way. If any portion of the roof decks and/or accessories are visible, this approval shall be considered null and void and
subject to zoning violations. And then the rest of them are just our standard conditions. So again, staff's recommendation is a approval of certificate of appropriateness with those conditions as read into the record and in the staff report.
Um I just want to ask how are we um voting on something that we don't understand whether or not it's visible from the public rightway at the rear facade. It hasn't been demonstrated. I don't believe the applicant has done their due diligence. So that was the
next question was we have the staff comments or Michael gave them was now we have your outstanding request. >> Um I was going to gauge the rest of the commissioners on how we felt about that and how we wanted to proceed. So if anyone wants to opine,
>> I would I think need to see the um the sandborn again just to see exactly what what portion could possibly be exposed. So, the proposed is going to be the same height as lot 17's extension. The same
depth is lot 17's extension, except lot 17's extension is only two stories. Is that right? Um, >> I think we were looking more at lot 16 and not at lot 17. So, I can't speak to that at this moment.
I'm just looking at it on street view. >> Okay. And on street view, you have a two-story uh addition on the back of the first building adjacent to the parking lot. >> Mhm. >> Maggie, do they have the ability to pull
up street view from that side? Like if we want all wanted to >> take a look at it at the big big screen. if the applicant wanted to pull up Google uh pull up a viewpoint of something that they could accurately
date >> um that was not necessarily interactive and mark it as evidence, right? Like if we took like a screenshot of that view, but we had an appropriate date on it. The problem with all of the street views and everything like that um is that we don't we don't know what date it was taken, right? So I can't accurately say
if that is the current condition of the property. Um, I understand where you're going with that. Um, but it's just it's hard for us to say that that is the current condition of the property without knowing that it is. >> Sure. >> Yeah. Because as we've seen these
things, especially when foliage is concerned, um, the season is really critical. Um, you know, in winter there might be a lot more visibility than in the summer when there's leaves on the trees. But >> and and for what it's worth, that does lend importance to what Janelle is asking for in the actual documented
sighteline because the trees don't count towards visibility, right? Anything ephemeral does not when we count when we look at stuff from the public rightway, anything that is ephemeral, right? So not physically in the ground is not doesn't count towards visibility. So you
can have a hundred trees, but if you could see it and the trees are the only thing in the way, it's still visible. So, >> let me uh >> ask a question. Yeah, sure. >> So, if if you could see some portion of
the rear facade from the park that's hundreds of feet away, why would thatffect the historic aspect of the approval? >> I think that's a question for the commissioners, but I think that there is
a um I can't believe I'm about to say this. the uh business in the front party in the back model is generally um acceptable when it's not visible from the public right of way and is generally given more scrutiny when it is visible.
So I think the commission first needs to establish visibility of that rear facade before they would be willing to opine on the proposed design. Is that would would you say that's an accurate representation? >> Sure. So we're still dealing with standards
for new construction though. It's not a historic building. >> Correct. >> Yeah. So that that was I mean my position was that I I believe it since it is new construction, it's not the primary facade. um even if there were,
you know, a significant amount of visibility, which I don't believe there is likely to be, I would still not have a problem with the application as presented. So, for me, the sighteline is not material.
I think I've made that pretty clear. Can I >> I think the the the facade that's facing the parking lot on that what um western westerly facade that might need to have some sort of
treatment because I think part of it is is it going to be exposed? Is that going to be a brick facade as well? No, the side that faces the parking lot is at the same depth as the addition of whatever the next lot >> the adjacent the immediately adjacent
>> see the side of our >> and the height of that building is the same height and so that's 175 so you're from 150 to 175 ft from the public right away. >> Yeah. >> Can I maybe just propose something
atypical? It How about we can we can provide a sighteline and photographs to staff after this evening, right? And I if it is if it is visible
at staff's discretion, we could treat it as an amendment and and we can come back. Um I I think that's uh >> we could make that a condition of approval. It can be a condition of approval and and then >> it's not visible from the public right
away across the park or across the parking lot. >> Correct. And and then it'll be treated as an amendsment if it is. And >> if it's not visible at all, it's not visible at all. And if it is visible, then you can decide whatever happens. >> I personally do not have enough information based on what is presented
tonight about the rear facade, the side facade, or the visibility to vote in any way, shape, or form on this item. Can does staff recall any other prior applications that the commission has approved with similar kind of visibility
of new constru? I because for me what comes to mind and I may be misremembering was the um the funeral home. I believe it was a similar wall of glass in the back that had some oblique visibility from the side and I believe we did approve that. >> We did. That was not a question though
on if it was visible. Um it was that the it was right it was visible at that moment but the commission had previously approved another new construction project for the lot in which the visibility was you could see it through. Um so that was actually a similar
conversation to um that a closer comparison would be 88 and uh 90 Bright Street when we were talking about that addition and whether or not it' be visible based on new construction. I don't I can't recall an application where the question of if it is visible
at all has um come up. >> Well, so in that the one I referred to, we knew there was visibility and we approved it anyway. Of course, you know, the complicating factor was there. The visibility was suspected to be
temporary. Correct. would. Yeah. So, we're at the point right where collectively the commission has to decide if they would like to vote on this item, noting Commissioner Gunther's absent uh concerns with the project or the commission would like to carry the
project and have the applicant reappear when the um visibility of the rear facade. I will go ahead and say from any angle, right? We're not going to limit ourselves to the park. Ver re veer facade visibility from any angle is clarified.
I can't make that decision for you. You guys, we can poll. We can >> you could Commissioner Gunther could also make the motion to carry the application to the next meeting so that that evidence can be supplied and then the
rest of the commission can discuss and vote on that as you see fit. >> I will make that motion to carry this item to clarify the visibility of the rear facade so that we can consider the design of the rear facade. I'll second
that. >> Okay. >> And just clarify what meeting we're carrying this to. >> The next meeting or the next available meeting that the applicant chooses. >> Perfect. >> Next meeting is November 17th. Okay. All right. So then we'll do a roll
call vote on that motion. Uh Commissioner Edgecom >> I. >> Commissioner K. >> I. >> Commissioner Gordon >> I. >> Commissioner Gunther >> I. >> Commissioner Samp >> I. Commissioner Callback. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Coutard is absent.
Commissioner Sakong is absent. Commissioner Blac is absent. Chairman Cron is absent. Acting chair Gria. >> I. >> Okay. So, we are going to carry this item till the regular meeting of November 17th and the applicant will resubmit to clarify that visibility and we'll see you then.
>> All right. Thank you. Have a good evening. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Continuing on on the agenda. Um, as we noted earlier, case 9E, uh, 515 Jersey A has been carried to the
regular HPC meeting of November 17th. Tabled cases, staff has no update on 172 Belmont. Correct. Correct. >> Okay. Um, for demolition review, as previously noted at the beginning of the meeting, cases 11A, 32 Sherman Place has requested to carry to November 17th.
Case 11B 37 Van Ripen A is requested to carry to November 17th. So that leaves us with 11 C. Corey, if you'd like to call that case. >> Yep. Uh 11 C for demolition review 128 Wegman Parkway. That's application
number B-25-1329. Just to clarify before staff, um are there any members of the are there any applicants for this um application present? >> No one confirmed with staff that they were coming. Would I do like to ask? >> Sure. >> Okay. Seeing none. >> Motion to table that.
>> No, we No, no, no. We This is a demo, so the applicant has the option to appear or not. >> Um, >> good. >> But Michael will walk the commission through >> everything up just one moment. the demo. Beautiful.
Okay, just to provide some background, this is on Wegman Parkway. This is a photo of the front facade. And this is the photo of the adjacent properties that the applicant submitted.
And then here is the 1938 tax card photo again as a recommendation to the commission uh that we have all discussions regarding these applications on the record. Um, but to give a little bit bit of background, uh, this was
built in circa 1916. It's Queen Anne style and this was mentioned in the Jersey City master plan, historic preservation element of the master plan. >> Michael, could you please put the two photos side by side? >> I surely can.
Well, barring what I can't see behind the foliage in the photo, um you can definitely see that the upper floor is very much intact and uh almost in its original condition. This one provides maybe a tiny bit more
view, but yes, it is largely obscured on that first floor area. >> Any further comments from any commissioners? >> Is there any photo? Are there any photos of the back? >> Uh, we do not um the requirement for the
applicants is just a photo of the front facade. Um I'm not sure if that um accessory access accessory dwelling or any of the rear facade um we do not have any photos of that. Yeah. >> I mean it's a very distinctive charming
building clearly largely intact. Um I wouldn't want to see it demolished. >> Yeah, I agree. It's not like it's hanging on by just a
wall. >> Does anybody have any questions for staff or anything? We could go into public comment and then I could add some more comments onto this as well. >> Yeah. Why are we hearing this one? >> Okay, hearing no questions or anything.
Um, if there are any members of the public uh wishing to speak regarding this application, please approach the public comment mic. Okay. Uh, staff sees no members of the public present and makes a motion to open and close public comment.
>> Motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> Okay. Um, yeah. So, this one from staff's perspective really meets again criteria C. Um, the architectural. It embodies the distinctive characteristics
of a type, period, and method of construction. uh most especially if no other or very few buildings or structures with the same association have survived. Um and this one really has all seven uh factors for integrity.
The location um this block is very intact as well as for the setting. um design. Uh I believe that first floor porch um has been opened up a little bit. I believe um or or was sorry it was originally open
and then it was later enclosed. Um and there have been very minimal changes to the exterior. Um the uh front entry door and the storm doors are non-original, but uh that is very common. Um despite that, you know,
you have the original um brick corbling on the cornice. Um you have those brick detailing. Uh a lot of the materials and workmanship um the feeling and association as a uh queen and style um really are maintained.
Does the commission have any other questions for staff? Okay. Staff's recommendation is a motion to prepare a resolution recommending denial of the demolition application to the zoning officer. >> I'll make that motion for denial
for Yeah. for recommending to the zoning officer. >> Correct. >> If you could just say what reasons you're making that >> I mean it candidly it looks all intact. I don't uh recall hearing a specific
reason why this is in front of us but to some of our fellow commissioners points I mean it's intact. I few months ago I we saw a building a structure that was just four walls and it was still falling apart and uh I think this is nowhere
near that. So yeah, >> and the building is mentioned in the historic in his historic resource inventory of the Jersey City master plan. >> There we go. That too. That's important. >> Okay. Is there a second for that motion?
Tony. Okay, we'll move to a roll call vote. Commissioner K. >> Uh I. >> Commissioner Callback. >> I >> I. Commissioner Sankamp. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Gunther. I >> Commissioner Gordon >> I
>> Commissioner Edcom >> I >> Commissioner Gucciardo is absent. Commissioner Sakong is absent. Commissioner Blazak is absent. Uh Chair Cronin is absent. Uh leaving acting chair Griga >> I. >> Okay. There are seven votes in favor of
recommending denial, none against with no abstensions. The motion passes. Great. Okay. Um continuing on on the agenda, tabled demolition review cases. uh 384 commun. This applicant has been
notified um as of today that if they do not provide a substantial update on this application, meaning um some kind of literal submission to staff, which is what we have been waiting for, right? They had said that they were planning on coming to a meeting and testifying and
providing um professionals um if we we need some kind of update from the applicant. They've been notified in writing as of today that um if they do not provide that prior to the completion deadline for the next HBC meeting, we will be recommending that the application be dismissed without prejudice, which just
means that if they want to do something else, they just have to reapply. It doesn't mean that we won't hear the application or anything like that. Um we have no resolutions to introduce or discuss. We have no resolutions to memorialize. We do not need an executive session, which just leaves us with adjournment. If anyone would like to
make a motion. >> Motion. Second. Okay, it is 8:49 p.m. All in favor? >> I