Jersey City Historic Preservation Commission. Uh 6:30 p.m. Sorry, my mic. My Oh, okay. Welcome everybody. Calling to order this meeting of the Jersey City Historic Preservation Commission. It is
uh 6:30 p.m. on Monday, July 14th. Happy Bastile Day. Welcome. Please be advised that in accordance with the open public meetings act, the notice of the time, date, and place of
this regularly scheduled meeting of the Jersey City Historic Preservation Commission has been sent to the Bergen record in Ellis Baselito on Friday, July 11th, 2025. The same notice has been sent to the city clerk for posting on the bulletin board outside of the
clerk's office in city hall and on the Jersey City website. Uh I have proofs of these not notice uh here in evidence if we can mark these as B1. Of course, uh prior to roll call, we do have two new commissioners this evening. Uh we are happy to welcome you to the
commission. Uh, Commissioner Mandy Edgecomb is filling Kelly Lewis's unexpired term. And then Commissioner Natalie Calbach is filling a vacant seat and is the second alternative. Uh, Mandy, please confirm that you have been sworn in by the city clerk.
Uh, I've been sworn in by the city clerk. Great. And then Jonathan, if you could just swear in Natalie. Can you raise your right hand and repeat after me? I, Natalie Callback. I am who solemnly swear
that I will support the Constitution of the United States that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey that I will bear true faith that I will bear true faith and allegiance and allegiance to the same
and to the government established the established in the United States and in this state and this state under the authority of the people under the authority of the and that I will faithfully I will faithfully impartially and justly
and perform all the duties of an alternate member of the historic preservation commission member of historic preservation commission of the city of Jersey City of the city of Jersey City according to the best of my ability
according to the best of my ability so help me God congratulations By the way, this marks the first time in 23 years we've had uh three women on the commission. So, well done. Okay. And we will move on to roll call
attendance. Uh Commissioner Gucciardo is absent. Commissioner Sanamp here. Commissioner Gunther. Commissioner Sukong is absent. Commissioner Blazak is absent. Commissioner Gordon
present. Commissioner Edcom present. Uh Commissioner Kbatch present. Vice Chair Griga here. Uh Chair Cronin here. Okay. We have uh staff notes that
there are seven commissioners present this evening. Five affirmative votes are required for a certificate of appropriateness. Next up on the agenda is the approval of minutes from the June 16th, 2025 regular HPC meeting. Are there any questions or
corrections to the minutes? Staff see uh since there are no corrections or changes, staff recommends making a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion second. Um, Commissioner Sankamp, I,
Commissioner Gunther, I Commissioner, Commissioner Gordon, I, Commissioner Edgecom, I, uh, Commissioner Kbatch, uh, Vice Chair Gria, I,
Commissioner Cronin, I, uh, there are seven votes in favor. No against, no abstensions. The minutes from the June 16 question before that, Commissioner Edgecom, did you review the the transcript? Sorry, from last from the last meeting. I was here.
You were here? Yeah, she was in the audience. Oh, perfect. Never mind, I guess. Sorry. Uh, the minutes from the June 16th, 2025 meeting, HBC meeting are approved. Um, for correspondence, all copies of
correspondence and all application materials are linked on the agenda through their application numbers. For announcements, staff has two announcements. Item 8 C under old business. Uh, case B-24-2696 1123 Summit Avenue has elected to carry
to the August 18th, 2025 regular HPC meeting. And then item 11B under demolition review case B-25-0166 300 Central A has elected to carry to the August 18th uh 2025 regular HPC
meeting. Now moving on to um public comment. If there are any members of the public who would like to speak regarding matters of historic preservation that are not listed on tonight's agenda. Um again this is for matters that are not listed on tonight's agenda. Uh, please approach the public comment mic.
Um, can we have a motion to open public comment? Motion. Second. All in favor? I would raise your right hand. Do you swear or testimony or comments about this proceeding?
Yes, I do. Paul Amatuso. P A U L A M A T U Z O 83 Sherman Place, Jersey City, New Jersey 07307. And Paul, I know you know the rules, but
I'm just going to go over them again real quick. Uh before we begin your time, um first, our court reporter will swear in, which he just did, and then uh all members of the public will have 5 minutes to address the commission. Staff will indicate when you uh when the timer begins and ends and uh I will also give
you a warning at about like a minute left. Um staff reminds any members of the public uh that any questions should be addressed to the HBC chair chair who will relay them to the appropriate person following the completion of public comment. Um Paul,
good evening commissioners, both old and new. I did not think I'd have to be back here so soon, but here I am. I am call um here before all of you to let you know that uh which most of you do know
that I've been working on the Sherman Place Historic District for close to seven years now. And in December, we finally got the last of our paperwork together. And the only thing we're waiting for now to make it an official
district would be the meetings with the stockholders being homeowners and it has to go before the uh city council for a vote. In the interim, the house next door to me was sold on April 16th,
and by June 6th, it had full zoning and historic approval to demolish part of this historic home for a 37 foot, three-story high addition and an ADU in
the rear of the property. Um, I truly feel that this was a huge, huge oversight because this now sets precedent for anybody in the city to apply to do a
partial demolition of their home to allow for an ADU to be built in their backyard. And I think this is something that should have come before the commission. It should not have been left for Michael's decision.
Um, in my 63 years living in Jersey City, I've never seen 6 week approval for such a project anywhere. It takes 6 weeks to get an approval for a sidewalk. Um, and this is a huge injustice because
we've been trying to preserve the open space of Sherman Place for seven years now. The state recognizes it. The city recognizes it. The city has helped us. Maggie, Tanya have helped us to get this
designation. And here we are. It gets snuck in under the radar while no one's watching. And this is what we're stuck with. Now we have a 200t lot with 32 feet of yard
left. And it's just ridiculous. It walls my property in from the west all the way to the backyard. Um, when Tanya sent me the plans on
I don't know, it was June the 6th was the day she approved them, I immediately hired an attorney and filed an appeal with the zoning board of adjustment. That should have been a stay for permits being issued. But yet on July 2nd, the
city issued full permits. On Monday, back hoes showed up. They blew a hole through the house. They have been digging foundations. And the neighbor on the other side's yard caved in today.
So, I want you all to know that this is what goes on while you all sit up here and give your good time. Okay? Something needs to be done. This decision should be rescended.
It should not have been left for one person to set precedent for the rest of the city for the rest of the years that it exists. One minute. And I I cannot tell you how upset I am.
I had to send my husband away. Thank you for your time. Uh, is there anyone else who'd like to comment? Please approach the mic. Raise your right hand. 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? Yes, I do. And if you could state and your full name and provide your address, please. My first name is H AI, last name S U N, address 76 S6 Street, Jersey City. Okay.
I'm here to ask uh the commissioner to consider um approve our renovation plan. We submitted uh the plan in January and uh uh uh Dan came to visit us. We had a
good visit, but the process has just been going on and that he already gave us the conditional approval. The only thing we needed to change was not to make any change to the doors which we did and uh we just like to get
the project on the road. We have been waiting for 6 months. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Would anyone else like to approach the mic for open public comment?
Okay. Uh staff sees no one approaching the mic. Uh if we could have a motion to close public comment. Motion. Second. All in favor? I I did not hear any specific questions. If you guys would like me to address anything, I'm more than happy to or we
can continue on. the sec the second um um person that came up to the mic. Um can you can you address that in any way? Uh that is Dan's application. Obviously he is here not here tonight. Um I cannot
speak to it. I I'm have no review of it in the past. Um but I will when he returns remind him to check on it. I if you have any other things that you would like me to relay, I'm more than happy to. It just seems like sufficient time to be able to put it together. If
there's something that the the applicant was not aware of that there would deemed uncomp incomplete and that would be something we need to know. Yeah, I will remind Dan and check on that and uh hopefully get an answer. um on the first um speaker um can you give
us some sort of um uh overview of what has occurred in that in that situation and um because we do demo permits all the time um and um you know we have a half a half dozen of them
tonight um is there a reason why this particular area even and it's you know as as it's being part of a district that's under consideration and it should actually be a district already. So, as far as the HPC goes, um it is not
zoned H. There's no overlay there. Um it is in the RH1 district, um which has certain design standards within it. Um but you know, they're not required to submit an HPC application or have HBC
review. Um, and it is not a complete demolition of the property. Uh, they were removing one wall and moving it in. Um, I believe it's the believe it's the western wall, but I'm not off the top of my head, I'm not sure. Um, the application was submitted
for a zoning review application. It was reviewed by zoning staff uh, as well as myself. Um unfortunately as from the standards that are written on in the ordinance for the design
standards for RH1 um I did not see any way to deny the application or force them to change uh anything regarding the removal of that wall. It's a sidewall. It's non- primary facade. um they are
moving it in slightly to gain access to to allow to allow them to put an ADU in the backyard. Um and so I reviewed it. It's an only an internal review. Um we don't have a
mechanism for it to come to the HPC. Um if it becomes a district Sherman Place, then they will have to apply for a COA or cone. But as it stands now, um it's just an internal review that is uh at
the discretion of the zoning officer or the the zoning review agent. Um that was referred to me. Whenever we've had districts that were pending, we've generally given more uh we've been as a as a as a commission,
we've generally been given more um latitude than um we we've heard about them anyway. Um so it because we didn't hear about it at all, um it kind of I think hits people blindsided. Are you suggesting that there was nothing that you've
considered historic in the area that's being removed and that if it's moved off the bearing wall, you're talking about a you're talking about a bearing wall of a historic building? Not that there's nothing historic to it, but the design standards are pretty
strict within and that's what I have review over. I don't have, you know, I I don't have the same level of review that we have for a cone or a COA. Um, I have to follow the design standards that are within the ordinance. Um, and
the design standards primarily focus on the front facade of the building and not secondary sidewalls. So, is something coming back to us because are they just going to so decide how to how to rebuild the building? So, again, the HPC does not have any
review over RH1 zone. Um, as far as I understand until the district is finalized and brought before you, brought before planning board, brought before uh city council.
Um you know, we cannot force them to apply for a certificate of appropriateness or a certificate of no effect. Um as Paul mentioned, um the application if if they submitted a um appeal, then it would go to the zoning
board for their review. Um, chairman prerogative here. I'd like to reopen public comment because I see someone would like to make an additional comment. Can we Can we do that? You want a sec? I'll Did you make a motion? Motion. Second.
Second. I will just say it says members of the public get five minutes to speak. Well, if the member of the public would like to speak for a few more minutes and knowing that this this is his chance to say his piece, up some of my time. So, I just want to res
like to just respond and then to the to the um design standards. Fair enough. That allegedly were followed. The design standards clearly state that the construction pattern of the block is
supposed to be followed. The development pattern of the street is supposed to be followed. There's not an old house, an original house on all of my block that has an addition on it. So where is the design
standard here? The preservation of open space. Where is where is that design standard that was ignored along with probably a few others. And
what's the point of having a design standard if the bulk standard is going to trump it every time? I'd like to know because I wasted 15 years of my time as far as I'm concerned sitting where you're sitting
because this is a big slap in my face after spending 15 years on this commission and seven years trying to preserve the open space of Sherman Place, the design standard that says
you have to follow the the the primary development pattern of the street. And here we are, a 37 ft threestory high edition with another 37 ft house behind that.
Where's the design standard? What did you follow? So, you didn't even know. You didn't even come. Please address comments to the chair. You didn't even come to do a site visit. Not Michael. Not Tanya. He doesn't even know what wall they're knocking down,
but he approved it. Plainly visible from the street. The house does a jag like this. It's not something that's hidden. Okay. Didn't even bother. There's a
125year-old sycamore tree sitting in front of the house that was left out of the uh current um the current situation. the current condition of the property. Okay, they
were planning on cutting that down, too, because if you look at the plans that were submitted where the tree is, they're moving the driveway over and putting it and think they're putting the tree next to my driveway. So, nothing they've done
has been followed by the book. And this is where site visits come in real important. My my commissioners, if you don't even know what you're talking about, what wall is being torn down or what the view is from the front
of the house, you shouldn't have that job. Site visits are important because it affects my life and everybody, every resident of Jersey City's life gets affected when somebody doesn't do a site visit because you don't even know what
you're talking about. Thank you for my additional time. Thank you. So let So we'll motion to close. Second. Second. All in favor? I I I Okay, let's uh move right along here to
uh some old business. Our first case is a demolition review at 1051 Garfield Avenue and that's B-25-00007 carried from the June 16th 2025 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Uh we just are going to set up a computer quickly. We have a couple of exhibits that we're going to show the board. Fair enough. Okay. Could you put your parents on the record? Oh yes. Why would I do that? Robert Vertobello from the law firm of Connell
Foley on behalf of the applicant public service electric and gas company otherwise known as PSEG and this is a carryover from um May as well. So we marked an exhibit I don't know if you still have that of record that should be A1 but we'll go into
that. Yes. Let's see if it pops up. Looks like it's there. Should be showing up on everything. All right, I'll do my little Okay, so we're ready to go. Um, again, Robert
Verabelloo from Connelf Foley. Um, we were here back on May 19th. This is regarding um, one thing, you have some documents showing at the bottom here. Oh, close those out. Yeah, as long as it's nothing top secret, I happens to the best of us.
Um, this is regarding 1051 Garfield Avenue. This is a a currently existing electrical substation. Uh PSENG has submitted plans uh to the um to the planning uh uh board to upgrade and um
modify the existing station and that includes the demolition of the existing substation building. Um as a quick recap um without going into all the previous testimony, PSEG did make numerous attempts to try to find other properties to relocate the
substation. This um property is in the vicinity of Berry Lane Park and the greater uh Morris Canal area. So there, as I'm sure everyone knows, there's been a lot of uh redevelopment in that area. Uh there aren't very many if any un untaken lots. Uh many of the lots that
are vacant currently are slated for development projects. And so at the end of the day, the substation has to stay where it is. Um, in order for the substation to be upgraded, the existing uh building um and we submitted as exhibit A1 on May 19th, a facility
assessment report, which we acknowledged was not geared specifically towards historic preservation. However, we have here this evening uh Caleb Peterson, who is the uh uh project engineer who um drafted the report. Um, we had after the
May 19th hearing had uh Caleb and his team take a deeper look as to whether or not uh reutilization of the existing building, what the feasibility of that would be. There are a number of challenges that you'll hear tonight with doing that. And as a result, um we again
uh ask that the commission not recommend the denial of the demolition permit, but to allow the PSEG project to go forward. Uh while we understand the sensitivity of historic preservation in this particular situation, again just restricted to the facts of this case, uh
we respectfully submit that the um that the ability of PSENG to maintain its mandate of providing reliable, safe, and efficient uh electric service um surpasses the uh the need for historic preservation. Um, with that aside, I'll
turn it over to Caleb who can uh further explain uh some of the uh challenges that we have with this site. Robert, just before you do that, um I do just want to note we had a few commissioners that were not here on that May 19th meeting. Um Commissioners Gura,
Edgecomb, and Kbatch. Um can you affirm that you have read the transcript for that meeting? Um and Robert, if you feel comfortable with them voting if they've read or watched the video. Uh Commissioner Kbatch. Yes, I did. Commissioner Gera, I've seen the video and the transcripts.
Thank you. And then Commissioner Edgecom, I have not. Okay. Um, would you like her to recuse herself? I think that's Yeah, that's the appropriate procedure. Yep. If you feel comfortable recusing yourself and then we can move on. I'll recuse myself. Okay. Um, so if you could just
You can say Yeah. Okay. You're not going to participate in the discussion or the vote. Sounds good. Uh, continue. Okay. All right. I'll turn it over. And before you start. Yep. Sounds good.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony about given this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do swear. My name is Caleb Peterson. C A L E B P T E R S O N. Before you start, we of the slides, we
also have paper copies that we can mark. And if it's easier to look at paper versus the digital, just let us know. And then if you could uh Mr. Peterson uh state uh your educational experience and background uh for the record. Yes. I have a bachelor's of science in civil engineering from the University of
Nebraska. I have been working in the transmission and distribution space for 12 years with Burns McDonald uh focusing on PSNG projects for the past nine years. And you are currently licensed in the state of New Jersey. Yes, I am licensed in four states including New Jersey and
I've been licensed in New Jersey since 2021. And you're familiar with the report, the facilities report that was uh submitted on May 19th. Yes, I am. Staff recommends the chair accept his qualifications as an expert in the field of engineering. Accepted.
Okay. Mr. Peterson, if you could explain. Sure. Uh so just to give a little bit of of prelim background, uh what we're looking at is uh Google Earth view of the substation. uh the existing building shown here. Uh you can see that the two-tone differences being uh the
existing building is the more hatched looking version and there was an extension to the building that was had in 1916. Um and so with the current layout of the building, uh there are several feasibility concerns that we
have in order to make this um repurposing feasible. Uh first off, there being um concerns for having to take all the necessary circuits out of the building and uh to the surrounding
areas. The main feasible location that there would be to take these uh circuits out would be in this yellow highlighted area, which this would be conflicting with the uh existing building foundation. In order to make something like this happen, they would have to do
what's called a jack and boore method. Uh which would pose risks to undermining the existing building foundation. Uh you need very large and extensive spaces to to achieve this type of uh construction installation. uh we've estimated it
being around a 30 ftx 30 footx 15 ft deep hole that would be needed in order to make sure that they're able to drill uh and install these uh underground duct banks that have conduits that carry these circuits. Um and so as mentioned with the age of the building and the
location of where these need to go, there would be significant concerns with undermining the foundation. The other main concern that is present is in order to fit all the equipment, the wall that is currently separating that extension that I mentioned from the
existing building or the original building to the 1916 extension. Portions of that would need to be demolished. uh further limiting the uh structural viability of the building and would need some extensive reinstallations and um
additional steel concrete that would make it be very challenging. Um additionally the existing building height is not sufficient for the equipment based off of the height of the equipment which is guided by several
codes and standards. Uh in addition to the necessary requirements for access and maintenance of the equipment requires there to be a bridge crane installed. So that way the materials can be first installed but then also be um access and maintained if there was a
failure of a piece of equipment to remove it and replace it in kind. There is a certain height requirement that is needed approximately 5 ft above the equipment. Um, and based off of that location, it would put the bridge crane uh to be in conflict with the existing
girders and overall structure for the roof. So, in order to install this, it would likely require that the roof be demolished and rebuilt, uh, which would lead to more extensive reconstructions uh, for the building, for the walls, uh,
and other parts of the building itself. Um other main notes I have summarized here on the left side with with uh these these six um like I said the superructure would likely need to be uh in a new superructure would like to need to be installed to support the bridge
crane. Uh all of the capable loads for the equipment. Uh I believe in the report it was summarized that the the building is not currently up to code and so in order to bring up uh the building to code there would be significant installation for for steel uh along the walls, the floors, additional concrete
and rebar. Um there's also concerns uh with within the um cable vault uh which is where we would need to be putting equipment um and there not being proper uh room to maintain and and have proper
access around the equipment. In addition, as mentioned to reinforce the the walls, the floors um it would further take away from the allowable space and allowable room and make make it very difficult and challenging to uh repurpose this building.
Um there was the wall I mentioned that would need to be removed. Um this would require s significant upsize of the the wall beams uh and the floor beams to support the control room where equipment would be placed above it as well. Um
additionally the switch gear uh the 13 KV switch gear that is needed to be installed uh which is shown in this long row. Um this is a what's called a breaker and a half switch gear configuration. Um and usually the the
breakers would not be in as long of a row as shown here. Uh and this would create uh very complicated uh designs and challenges for the electrical wiring and connections in order to make this this feasible. Um
uh here's another view showing uh those circuits and duct banks that I mentioned that would be coming out of the uh from the existing building that would be underneath uh portions of the existing foundation. Uh and the concerns we have. Um there's also um very limited uh or
the access and egress is not currently up to code within this building. And so if we were having to um put all this equipment and uh bring it up to code for egress, there's significant concerns of not being able to make that uh feasible with the amount and size of equipment that is is required.
Um additionally, if we were to keep the building uh as is, there's also significant concerns outside of the substation. Um mainly the the biggest one is that the only drive path uh and access to get into the substation would
have to be a single location as shown here, which means that all vehicles coming into the substation for access and maintenance would have to drive in and back out directly. And since they'd be backing out directly onto a busy street like Garfield Avenue, there would be concerns uh for safety uh for any
worker that is is coming into the station. Um yeah, I think that kind of summarizes some of the the major bullet points of issues, concerns that we have uh in order to repurpose the building. Uh and and that goes with why we are requesting
a demolition permit so we can uh build a new building in kind that will properly house all the required equipment that is needed for the substation upgrade. Thank you. Any uh questions for Mr. Peterson?
So, from what you said, it sounded to me mostly like if you were to remove the roof and there's what a bearing wall in the center between the the original building and the second building that was constructed. If you were able to remove both of those items,
you'd be able to accommodate everything. We would still need to do further analysis to verify that the equipment would work within uh the allotted space because as mentioned the building is not up to code. So to install the necessary
beams uh and girders along the walls the the floors it would take away from the necessary space for the equipment. We have not had a chance to do that full analysis because we have not done a structural detailed analysis to know how big these these members would be. Um, but there would be significant concerns
with with needing to do that. Um, additionally, I I forgot to mention that with the new equipment that's being installed, there would be um requirements for much more HVAC systems in order to properly maintain the
temperatures of the building. And so, there would already be um a lot of cing and drilling through the walls. uh that I think would lead to most if not all of the building having to be rebuilt in some in some manner.
Um the building is, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's basically a lot line building on three sides at least, right? It's it covers almost every inch of your lot on three sides. That is correct. So, the only way that you can get really
more space is if you made walls that didn't exist or were thinner or what, you know what I'm saying? Or you build up taller, right, on three sides. That is part of the site plan application that's been submitted is for a taller structure. The only Okay. The only way I'm not the engineer, but the
only way to accommodated is to go vertical. That is correct. And so, what are you talking about? It seemed like he said you said that you only needed like five more feet, right? Well, that's is the in the configuration uh that we're showing uh if we're trying to
make the existing building work. The way that we would like to do this and how we usually like to put these substations is we would have the what we call the GIS equipment on the first floor and then the controls and relays on the floor above it. So that way we are trying to limit the overall footprint of the
building as best as possible. So the proposed building is not going to be just 5 ft taller than this current building. It's currently around, I want to say, 60 ft um to account for the the GIS floor and then the the floor that will house the the main relays and
controls equipment. Have you investigated um a version of this that doesn't expand vertically up but expands vertically down? We have not.
I will caution that there is a high water table from what we've seen on some reports. Uh, so to to go down in that area, we're not up on the Palisade. We're on Garfield Avenue and um going down I'm not sure if that's a feas if
that's feasible. You're not sure or it's not? I I can maybe speak a little bit more to that. Um, he is correct that there is a high water table. Um, to go down deeper, there would be significant concerns about the safety and the reliability of
the equipment. Um, as we all know, water and electricity don't mix very well. Um, and so the typical practice and standard is to keep the buildings completely above the water table as best as possible. Um, so if we're going down deeper, um, it would be not advised um,
and feasible, but but a a design that just opens up uh, a lot of risks and concerns of there being a issue or failure in the future. There's a building about two blocks from
you. It's used to be called it was the North Berg or the Bergen Library and it's on the top of it. It was added on to um but the original structure is there and they just built above it and I think that would be appropriate as
opposed to demoing the entire building. Either way, if you're going to demo the entire building, you have to take everything out of it, don't you? You have to shut this this place down. And that is correct. And as a part of the overall design process, we would be installing a temporary contingency
substation. Excuse me. That would be allow us to transition the circuits over for a period to allow us to demolish the substation and rebuild it in kind. That's part of our site plan application that's pending. Right. But generally, you're in the same footprint
as 60 60 some feet high. Correct. The building is I I I can't say for certain. I I don't know if it's a a complete one to one um if if they are that way. We have um our project manager Frank the
Jakamo who's available to answer that question. And also for the record uh the building that you're speaking about was converted to residential, not to a utility substation. That's right. So there are different, as Mr. Peterson has explained, there are different standards for that. So to say that we can just
slap something on top is not ex is not entirely accurate, but I'll let the experts talk about that. If you could just state your name on the record. Yeah. Um Frank de Jakamoir, the whole truth. I do. and state spelling for me.
Uh, Frank and then Dejakamo. D I G I A C O M O. I live in Paripony, New Jersey. Okay. And Mr. Dak, if you could just state your uh general criteria, your educational background and experience.
Yeah, I I've got a bachelor of civil engineering from the University of Dayton. Uh, I've got 52 years of experience in refineries, power plants, pharmaceuticals, nuclear, and whatnot. And I'm a licensed professional engineer
in the state of New Jersey also. Okay. Staff recommends the chair accept his qualifications as an expert in engineering. Okay. Um, what you're seeing right now is to a picture trying to utilize the building space that exists now. All
right. that prevents us from bringing a road from Harmon Street down the back of the uh uh existing lot. All right. And in order to do that, we shorten up the the length of the uh building, the new
one that we're building. All right. And it's not as wide. So the footprint of the new building is smaller than what you're looking at here. All right. And that gives us access uh from Harmon around the back of the plant and with a street that goes then a road that goes
through the plant out to Garfield A and that and then all the other equipment that you saw. There's three transformers, large transformers really. All right. Um SLMP transformers, there's 4KV switch gear that has to be installed. And with
all of the requirements for safety and reliability in all of our plants, that's why the we got we have to go up rather than staying in the same footprint uh of the building that's that's there right now.
And the other thing I when I if I might when you're talking about going down further into the uh ground. All right. Yes, there's the water problem and everything, but when you we'd have to take out the concrete foundations that exist there that some of them from the
drawings I've seen are five, six or seven feet thick. All right. And with that, you know, that's going to bring all of the we can't save any of the building if we if that was a possibility right now. But in order to go down further to do the new building, you
know, everything comes out. You can't save anything then because you have no strength anymore. And that option was thoroughly researched and studied. No, we would we and you've exhausted all the op options to try that route at this point in time. No, we haven't
looked at digging down. All right. Only because of the problems that you do get into by going going further down in that area. Okay. So, any
questions? Any additional questions? No. Robert, did you have any other testimony? No. Uh these are the only witness witnesses that we're presenting. Again, we've marked uh this presentation as as I believe eight. So, we'll submit a copy. Uh we have the uh paper copies as
well. That will be part of the record. But again, uh the issue here is the functional obsolescence of the building. We understand the desire for historic preservation, but given what needs to be accomplished here and what PSEG's primary mandate is, um we believe that it's appropriate to demolish this
station and uh replace it and upgrade it with a new station that meets uh current codes and standards uh which will be beneficial to the public um even more and we submit even more so than the um historic preservation aspect. Thank you.
Okay, if there are no more questions and testimony is concluded, we'll move on to public comment. If there are any members of the public who would like to address the commission regarding this application, please approach the public comment. Mike 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. Thank you. Okay. We'll move on to some staff comments. Um
I if the commission would like I could pull up the 1938 tax card photo and and everything. Um yes. Okay, sounds good. Uh just give me a moment and uh I will pull that up.
[Music] Okay, so we have the tax card up. Let me scroll down just to give you an idea. Okay. So, we have the tax card. Then we also have some
photos when they load. And then I will also open up my staff report or our demo memo. Okay. While those load. So, as you can see on the 1938 tax card,
we have a a pretty good photo. This one was actually a little bit taken a little bit later in 1942, but still pretty close to that 1938 day uh date. So, for this application, um the
property was identified in the master plan uh the historic preservation element. Um it was identified in both the 1985 phase 1 and phase 2 surveys. Um in the phase 2 survey they note that uh and I quote few such structures have
survived in the city uh from the early decades of this century talking about the 20th century and even fewer have survived in such good workable condition. Um speaking about the significance of the building it was built circa 1907 as the applicant discussed there were multiple additions
throughout the years. Um, none of these are are really um noncompatible additions. All of them are from the period of significance. Uh, staff believes they're all from the
period of significance of the property. Um, so this is really associated with uh sign this criterias of significance A and C. A is associated with broad patterns of uh history speaking on the electrification of Jersey City and C on
the architectural um it embodies distinctive characteristics of a type period and method of construction. Uh most essentially if no other or very few buildings of such structures with the same association have survived. And then speaking towards the integrity of the
building. Um, this building staff believes has integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Uh, it really has all seven. Um, as you can see from the photos submitted by the applicant,
um, just going back to the 1938, um, really on the exterior, nothing has been substantially alter altered, um, since that 1942 photo. Um, so the location and the setting are very much intact. Um,
materials and workmanship as well. Um, I think some of the windows have been filled in or replaced with these louvers, but other than that, uh, really has maintained quite a bit of, um, integrity as well as feeling an association. It's still being used as a
substation to this day. Um that's relatively rare uh as far as historic properties within um Jersey City and really you know kind of the country. Um most often when we see these types of buildings they have abandoned their primary use
and uh all of that is kind of laid out through this staff report. Um if the commission has any questions for staff I'd be happy to answer them. But again, staff's recommendation is a motion to prepare a resolution recommending denial of the demolition application uh to the
zoning officer. I'll make that motion. I'll second that motion. Okay. And just be sure you're explaining the reasons for doing so. Sure. As stated by staff, um all seven
of the criteria for consideration appear to be satisfied. Um there's been extense of discussion. Um the applicant has um put forth the argument that um the continued functioning of the building is
is foremost and um takes precedent over uh historic considerations. But um I believe our mandate on the HPC is to consider these seven factors and having done so I'm satisfied that it retains um historic significance and uh should not
be demolished. I mean, I will agree with everything that staff has said and that Robert has said that the building possesses possesses all these levels of integrity and um it's very intact and um you know it's part of a sort of there's
a it's a part of an architectural typology that is present in this part of Jersey City. I'm thinking of the other shed roof structures on Berry Lane and um one that has recently been converted um I think it's Monitor Street where
it's been you know cleverly adapted into a larger vertical development and I think that potential exists on this site as well. Okay, so we have a motion. Um I'm going to do a roll call vote. Uh Commissioner
Sankamp I. Commissioner Gunther I. Commissioner Gordon I. Commissioner Kbach. Hi. Vice Chair Gria I. And Chair Cronin
I. So we have six in favor. Um zero nazs. Uh zero abstensions with one commissioner recused. Um the uh motion to uh recommend denial to the zoning
officer is approved. I'm going to move back to my seat now. And while you're doing that, we'll call our next case. And this is case H-25-000060. The applicant is Jared Pazillo, Esquire applicant on behalf of Warren at Bay LLC
owners, 130 Bay Street in the Powerhouse Arts District Redevelopment Plan/local Landmark. They are here for a certificate of appropriateness for alter alterations to the retail storefront including but not limited to painting the non-historic metaltocurtain wall
blue installation of red gooseeneck lighting and installation of a non-illuminated sign at 13 Bay Street aka the&P warehouse auxiliary building and bakery complex and altered early 20th century commercial building complex with classical elements constructed
1914/1915 carried and this is carried at the request of the applicant from the June 16th meeting of the HBC. Welcome back. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you, chairman. Good evening, chairman. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Gerard Pizzill. I'm an attorney with GOVA Burns
appearing this evening on behalf of the applicant, Daily Provisions, who uh is al appearing with the consent of the owner, Warren Eplc. Uh we did appear before you in June, your last meeting. Uh we did provide a bulk if not a majority of the testimony uh of the
proposal that we're seeking a certificate of appropriateness for. Uh the board did have some questions and some concerns with regards to what we presented at that time. Uh so we did ask to carry as the chairman indicated. Uh since that time we did come up with a
revised uh presentation. We did upload it to the portal, but briefly uh our architect Alberto Pana is here to testify to that. But just briefly, uh the provision or the proposal for you now eliminates the painting of the peers, which we did believe was a
concern of the commission the last time round. Uh the presentation also was updated to include some context of the existing storefront in connection with the existing historic building that uh was recently adapted and you know for a commercial commercial retail and office
building. Uh the only other difference that you'll see um again is just the blueons, the removal of the painting blue molians m u l i ns. Uh the blue mullians that we're seeking on the storefront. uh and then just the
context. So, all that said, uh we'll turn it over to Alberto who also has the uh material board so we could you could see the actual color of what's proposed here. Okay. Um just a note, uh we did again have a few commissioners that were not here for
the last meeting. Um so again, if you could just confirm on the record that you have watched the uh recording or read the transcript. Um, Commissioner Edgecom, I was in the audience last meeting and I saw their presentation.
Okay. Um, so you're good. And then Commissioner um Kabat. Yes, I have. Okay. Uh, Gerard, is that okay if they I don't think it's on. Got a I I tried to turn Okay, acceptable. Thank you. Okay, great. Thank you. Um, and staff will note that Mr. Penna uh, as was
discussed last time uh, is has previously been qualified as an expert in the field of architecture. So feel free to begin. Thank you. Good evening everyone. Nice to see you again. Could you state and spell your name for the record? Sure. Alberto Penna. A lb ber t
n a All right. So since uh as Gerard kind of gave the brief overview since last month when we presented we sort of scaled back. Um I do have I don't know if you want to actually if I could hand this to
you now and go around. Oh, thanks. Appreciate it. Um, so essentially, as Gerard mentioned, we um in in coordination with daily provisions, we removed the idea of painting the peers
and even just the returns, which is one of the options we showed you. Um, so I'm just going to go to the next slide. As some of the U commission requested, we then presented the context in which
daily provision sits and you can see from the three photos to the left and of course the dotted box is daily provisions. Uh to the left are the one bay of the same building and of course the adjacent building. And then the
middle f the second photo is of course uh sort of a straight shot of daily provisions again in the context of the rest of the building to the left and right. Um and then the bottom photo just again a perspective view looking towards
Warren um from across the street from the site. And I know that was a concern or request. So, we provided that uh for some of you or all of you. Uh this I'm just going to go right to the um
rendered photos. I think they speak more volume. So, this is currently what is the existing which is the peers in their original color that was approved by the base building or by you for the base building I should say. um existing black
mullions. Um and so in the next option, which I'll slide over, um what we're requesting in this option A is at the minimum the non-illuminated sign, which is a staple for daily provisions, as well as the gooseseneck
lighting, which will light the one non-eluminated sign. And I I do want to mention in the elevations which I'll show in a few minutes, there is uh something that's important to them is the dog park and a sign for the dog park
which is at the second bay. You don't see it in this view, but I will show you in the in the uh elevation in right here. So if you can see in the second bay of daily provisions, u there's notes
speaking to that dog park. So at the minimum option A is what they're requesting. So which is just a quick recap leaving the existing mullions black uh putting up the non-illuminated sign and the gooseenecks will light that
up along with the dog park which I just discussed. Um, option B is a request to now, um, the difference from option A is to have the Mullions be that DP blue as
well as have their brass staple entry door hardware. So that's the difference between option A and option B in this revised proposal. And again, I'll show you the flat elevation. So that's what you would see in context of the rest of
the building. And going forward, you have the physical swatch. There he goes back at us. So that's the uh DP blue is what it's called. The uh signage detail if you will.
And then in context, top right is really a a uh simple diagrammatic section of what we're requesting, which is both in option A and option B, which is that non-illuminated sign with the red goose necks.
And in basics, that's pretty much I think caps the uh revised proposal at this time. Chairman, that'll conclude our presentation. Happy to answer any questions the commissioners may have. Okay,
no questions. Thank you. Shall we move on to staff comments? Uh why don't we do public comment? Um if there are any members of the public that would like to speak regarding this application, uh feel free to walk up to the public comment. Mike mic.
Staff sees no members of the public uh wishing to speak. Uh staff recommends a motion to open and close public comment. Motion. Second. All in favor? I Okay, now we can move on to staff comments. Um, so just a little bit of background on this application.
Um, the HBC approved a rehabilitation of this building under a certificate of appropriateness in October of 2019. That was H19 398 and then uh there were a few subsequent amendments H19595 and H2239.
Sorry. Uh so the first one is H19-398. The second one is H19-595 and then the third one is H22-239. And those were the site plan of the building. And then um an interior fit out of uh for the tenant space was
approved under a certificate of no effect on June 4th, 2024. That was H-24-013. In reviewing the application, um staff believes that the painting of this non-historic u modern metal storefront system and the installation of the
signage uh is really a relatively uh minimal um application and will not distract from the historic resource. Uh the work is consistent with the secretary of the interior standards for restoration and new construction as well as with the historic design standards and the rules and regulations. Um the
installation of the signage is consistent with similar signage on similar historic industrial buildings. Um and HPC staff does not anticipate an adverse effect adverse impact on either the historic resource or the surrounding resources as a result of the proposed
work. Uh staff does recommend approval of a certificate of appropriateness with a few conditions. Um one all the conditions approved under those previous numbers H19-398, H19-595, H22-239
and H--24-0130 remain in effect for the entirety of this approval. Um and then the rest of them are pretty much our standard uh conditions. Um there are two that are sometimes included. All proposed light fixtures shall be downcast in nature and all proposed signage shall comply with
all zoning regulations and ordinances. And then the rest of them are just our standard conditions. All those conditions are acceptable to the applicant. Thank you. So, um, the signage and the lighting,
those can be removed without and in at some future date without any significant damage to the historic fabric. They can. Yes. Great. Thank you. Okay. So, I'll I'll make a motion to approve.
I'll second it. Okay. I'll do a roll call. Commissioner Sanamp. I. Commissioner Gunther. Hi. Commissioner Gordon I. Commissioner Edgecomb. I. Commissioner Kalbach I. Uh, Vice Chair Griga
I. And Chair Cronin. I. So we have seven votes in favor. No against, no abstensions. The certificate of appropriateness with conditions is approved. Thank you, chairman. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you very much. Thank you kindly. Thank you. Have a great day. You, too.
Okay, moving right along. Uh, is it C Oh, wait. We We skipped C. We're going to go to D. C is being carried. Okay. Thank you very much. No problem. It's been a long meeting already. We're moving right along to our next
demolition, which is 250 Newark Avenue, and this is K B-25-0141. This was carried at the request of the applicant from the June 16th, 2025 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Uh if the chair doesn't mind, first Tom Lean from
Connell Foley here on behalf of the owner. Uh if the chair doesn't mind, uh both of the next uh uh items on your agenda, D& both owned by the same applicant, both have the same issues. If you wouldn't mind if I presented both of them at the same time. Sure.
Great. I'm just going to let Mr. Deino uh set up here. And uh ju just for the record, the other property is uh 240 Newark Avenue and that is uh case B-25-0386. Thank you.
Um so I'll just start by saying that uh we are here in front of the board obviously on a demolition review uh based off of uh two memorandums that were issued um by the uh by the historic officer. Uh they are both dated May
15th, 2025. One obviously relates to 240 Newark Avenue. The other relates to 250 Newark Avenue. Um, we are here not only to contend that uh the demolition uh permit should not be um recommended to
the zoning officer for denial. Um, but we're also here to contend that there is a jurisdictional problem with these applications being before the board this evening before the board this evening or at all. Um
the uh I'm sure many on the board are aware that uh there was a prior uh process for uh review of demolition permits uh that went solely through the historic officer. Um it was basically a unilateral decision of the historic
officer to deny or grant a uh demolition permit. Uh and that process was challenged and uh it was visiated and found to violate the MLUL uh in the Bardo vers Jersey City case. Uh in response to that, the city adopted
ordinance um 25006 which lays out the process for uh referrals of uh demolition permits from the historic officer to the historic board. Um, and that was really an
attempt to uh codify uh section 111 of the uh MLUL. Councelor, I will just say this is not the appropriate form to challenge the validity of the ordinance. I I am not challenging the validity of the ordinance. I'm just laying the basis here for the board's understanding of
how our process works and why these applications are before them this evening. I understand this is not a court of law. I'm not asking anybody here to say that the ordinance is or is not a valid ordinance. I'm just simply explaining how these applications ended up in front of the board this evening
and based off of our reading of the ordinance, why we believe that not only should the application be denied, but actually shouldn't be here at all. Is that acceptable? That's what you're that's what you're
going to say. So that's find out soon enough. I just think that I will say the commission is bound to follow what the ordinance says at this point and and I understand that and I I promise I will get there. Let me just
lay the basis for it. Okay. Um section 111 of the MLUL uh states that the governing body shall by ordinance provide for referrals of applications for issuance of permits pertaining to historic sites or property in historic districts. And that's really the the
issue here is that this property is neither a historic site nor is it in a historic district. And I know it's not because in section 651 of our ordinance of of excuse me of the MLUL, it states that all properties shall be within
either a historic zone or excuse me, all historic sites shall either be within a historic zone or within our master plan. This is neither in a historic district nor is it identified in our master plan. There's also another process here to to name historic sites which can be done by
way of a decision of the governing body. For example, phase one, phase two, both adopted by ordinance of the governing body. This property is not in either phase one or phase two. So the issue before the board this evening is we have a process whereby owners are not put on
notice that their property might be determined to be a historic site through a third process mainly referral when it's not on any of these lists to this board and this board determines essentially it's historic and that a
demo permit should be denied. So I'm just putting that in front of the board. There is a process here. It was not followed. There was three attempts at the apple here. You could have you as a board could have referred it to the planning board to been into the master
plan. It could have been found by the governing body in phase one or phase two. It was not. So with that said, I will turn it over to Mr. Deino and he will go over whether the process if we actually accept that the process that's
in the ordinance is permitted and whether that was followed or not which we will contend it was not. Uh before we get into that I just before we get off the jurisdiction issue I just I don't want to jump ahead to staff comment but if you could just address or state what is the basis for our review
of these two applications specifically before we get off the issue entirely. I'll try and answer that one. So, right now, the way the ordinance is written is that any applicant for a demolition permit must first apply to the Division of Planning for a prior approval by the
zoning officer in order for a demolition permit or a construction permit to be issued. If the historic preservation officer recommends that the building should not be demolished, um you know, if they recommend that the
the property Yeah. should not be demolished. Then they issue that recommendation to the commission. The commission reviews it and based on the the factors in the ordinance will either agree with the historic preservation officer or disagree, but in any event will issue a recommendation to the zoning officer who will then make the
decision regarding prior approval. So that's where we're at right now. These properties applied for a demolition permit and the first step was review by the planning officer and the historic preservation officer who then issued a recommendation to this body that said
that should not be demolished for the reasons set forth in the recommendation. So this could apply to all applications for demolition of a property. This does apply for all applications of demolition property. Okay. Thank you for clarifying.
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. And state your name? Dennis Michael Deina. I think it might be best if I work from here. You have testified in front of this board before. Yes. Yes.
You are a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey. Yes, I am. And it is current today? Yes, it is. Okay. Staff recommends that the chair accept's qualifications. Now, you may Okay. Thank you and thank you for hearing our presentation tonight. As uh
was mentioned, this property is um we we requested a demolition permit for 240 Newark and 250 Newark. It's actually two buildings look very much similar. They're um connected to each other. Uh the one you see up on the screen right now is 250.
And I'll go over to the next slide and this one is uh 240 Newark. So on the left side you'll see the 1938 tax card and we took a similar photo so the board can kind of do a comparison while we go through the presentation um
for um for both both buildings. Um, I'd like to start by uh kind of just again um going through the the the me the memorandum. If it's for me, I'm not here. It's in my computer.
Good. Okay. Thank you. No, no problem. So, uh we we did again we made an application for for demo on May 15th. We received a memorandum from um HBO consultants and staff
um in the um I'm assuming the board has that I so I can I can read through it. There's it's a two-page two page for 240 and two pages for 250 Newark. Um the main part of the memo, if you will,
is really the second paragraph uh where and uh in the in our opinion and the reason why we are um we wrote our response letter is there's the only um the only section in in this paragraph
that really has anything to do with um uh the um saving the building really is its uh historic integrity. Um, if you go through the the second paragraph, you see I'll read a couple of lines. So, the photograph attached as
the tax card of 1938 shows the mixeduse building to be consistent in form, massing, and fenestration. I'm reading from the second paragraph about the third sentence down for 240 Newark. And I'd like to stop right there and make a comment about those that statement in
itself. to say it's consistent with the form is saying it's consistent with all the elements that the bu the original building had on it at the time it was uh the 1938 tax card. And you can see in that photograph that there are very few
elements that still exist. And matter of fact, when you go through the memo, the memo itself kind of contradicts itself by saying that um the corners has changed. The siding has been altered. The uh commercial u
the commercial strip along the bottom uh has been completely changed. And yet it has it makes a statement that says that it's consistent in form massing and fenistration. And again, I'll go through this in in a little bit. Um
um so the present day alteration of the first story uh which are typical changes of commercial storefronts of the time. Currently the property exterior material comprise replacement um including vinyl aluminum siding. As
you can see, all what was there before on 250 and uh and and 240, it used to be horizontal um siding, horizontal clapboard or or horizontal siding, cedar most likely.
And you can compare that photograph. It's pretty evident of all the uh compromises that were made in this building over the years. The storefronts had um extended bays with a cornice roof. You can see the elaborate corners and freeze work at the very top of the
building along with the fenestrations of all the windows uh were substantially reduced in size when they were replaced. And I say the same thing to it goes to 250. There's actually a whole section of windows here that have been removed. And
the windows you can see there's substantial reduction in size of these windows as well. So, uh, the memo seems to to, um, kind of, uh, uh, not really tell the true story of what has happened over the course of the
years on this in this building. Um, on 250, it makes reference to um that the that the storefront has been changed to a modern um, a modern first story exterior. I'm going to let the board
kind of take a look at some of these other uh more recent photos of the building. Kind of a so this is considered a modern storefront. Um this is a 240. You can see the the the
condition of it and what they actually considered to be a replacement in in in our uh in our world or in our architectural u career and world. We we said when you replace something, you replace it with something that's similar, same size, same shape. When
you're ren when you're going to um alter something that you're going to change, you're not only going to change uh you take take a an element out of a building, but you're going to you're going to alter it substantially. And that's what this building really has hap has uh amounted to. It's a series of
alterations. It's not a series of replacements which the memo continues to allude to but a series of alterations which is evident from this slide. Uh continuing on this slide
uh these are the window alterations and the cornice alterations. Uh there's no cornice at all. When you can see that that um the 1938 tax card, the elaborate cornis work uh is no longer uh no longer
exists. This is on the second street side. There was most likely um a we don't have evidence. We don't have tax cards from 1938 on the second street side, but there is most likely this was
an also a storefront extension which has now completely been uh blocked up. This is also on Second Street. This is also on the Second Street side. You can see some remnants. And now we're This is
um moving on to to the existing uh facade of 250. You can see the condition of the facade, how it's starting actually to bow out, the smaller cornice windows, the minimal uh corners. Now, the the memo continues when it it it
identifies corners, but it's really the only component, the only element left on the corners all around the building in some cases are the brackets. The freeze board is completely gone. All the dental moldings are gone. And this is kind of gives you a
condition of the facade material. And then here is a modern storefront. This has uh removed the store existing storefront removed completely. And essentially they're used and and it's not don't believe it's the pre the the current
owner that did this work. I I don't know who did uh use basically residential materials to do uh to do the alterations to this building. I mean, here's another example of residential materials where they put uh
I tried to identify a an entry door where they just simply put a u old man Mansard style roof with uh uh aphalt shingles. And now this band, you remember the 1938
uh tax card? This was almost a marquee style u bottom cornice. Okay. So I I just wanted the board to get a a a feel for what the building has come into and turned in turned into. So these
are maybe some remnants of a former um um kind of uh commercial roof line along the first along that first level. So that kind of the board gets a feel for what has what h how how this
building has lived its life. Uh, I'm going to like to uh go through uh we um respond u did a four or five page letter response to the memo and I'd like to go through a couple of items if I
may. Uh again, getting back to how what the memo with the consultant identified on reasons why the building shouldn't be taken down. We really only essentially came down to integrity and there were only two items on of seven members of SE
seven criteria um items uh on integrity that they even brought up and um again I'm I'm assuming the board has this and had a chance to read it. So the seven items uh Mr. Lean
identified the fact that we're we are not in a historic zone. So there is seven items of crit seven criteria items for non-historic district demolition criteria. The one being age is the building is over 50 years old. Um it's
probably over 100 years old. But again, it's made of it's it's a wood construction. And when a a complete wood construction buildings really aren't uh designed to last for, you know, a 100red or 200 years, we've been in the
building. Uh you can see the condition of the of the facade. You can see the alterations of the facade on the inside of the building. There are substantial deflections in in floors. And this building is has not it's not that it's been neglected because this building is
occupied. It has uh commercial uh um commercial occupants as well as residential occupants. And so the owners are trying to keep it up the best they could. But as you could see through the years and the condition, it's make it very difficult to to to keep the
building um uh operational. So um a again aged um the memorandum u itself states that there are no significant historic association with important people or events. The architectural
style of the properties are unex are unexceptional uh with like kind buildings found throughout the throughout the city. As I mentioned it's a woodframe structure. Item number two, whether or not the building is uh identified in the master
plan. Well, as Mr. Lee uh indicated, the building is not identified in in the master plan. Um let's just see. So um in table uh three of the master
plan there the um the authors of the master plan identified over 10,000 properties uh in in appendix A and we're not in it. 240 and 250 I I highlighted buildings that are around it. The
neighbor next to us they are in it. Uh 240 and 250 is not in the in the in the table. Not to interrupt. Sorry, if we could just mark this in the previous presentation. I don't know if you have any other presentation pieces that you're pulling up.
I have I um I um have a uh flash drive to give you of everything I'm presenting. Okay. So, you can put when we're all done. Yeah, we'll just mark it all as Yeah. A1. Sounds good. Okay. Thank you. Um
um so materials we identify that the the that the materials have been compromised workmanship has been compromised uh association it says the uh HBO consultant memo even states that there are no significant historic association
as we and then we go to feeling and I think it's important for the board to take a All right. So, you identify a feeling of a historic building or historic elements. It's really you what
when you when you visit the site or you walk by the site or you're in inside the building, you want to be able to feel the the the the life of it. You want to be able to feel the history of it. So, in and around I we took photos in and around the neighborhood of buildings
that do give you that feeling. This one is right is adjacent to us. I think this is um 230 Newark A. This one is across the street from uh on from across Second Street. These are all buildings within the
neighborhood within the immediate neighborhood. Also across the street on Second Street, these all give you uh the feeling of of of the history of the building. and we get to our building and I
honestly don't believe you can honestly say that you feel where the the um the era and the the historic significance of this structure. So in in closing, I just wanted to um
identify in the memo in the memo itself uh and compared to the tax card of 2000 of 1938 rather all the fenestrations all the windows the sidings were were altered. The form of the building was
altered. a commercial facade was was completely um removed and altered and the cornice was altered. So you have four major components probably all of all of the major components of of the facade of a building have completely
been altered. So um my last statement is what was lost in the years of modification is the true feeling and harmony of the structure. The historic and architectural proportions and elements that once identified the true meaning of the building no longer exist.
Thank you, Mr. Deino. Uh I'll just wrap up here. Um, one thing that uh we did not mention is in that both memos uh part of the um reasoning for uh this referral is that these properties are listed as appearing in the village
historic district and the Newark Avenue Historic District. Um neither of those are historic districts. They are eligible historic districts, but they're not historic districts. So again, we we have a real problem here if in process.
It it is really it comes down to a due process issue and a fundamental right issue. Somebody could be living in a property for 30, 40 years, want to sell it to somebody who wants to demolish it and tear it down and they find out through this process and this process alone. Even if they went to the phase
one and the phase two, even if they went to the master plan, they would have no way of knowing that their property was historic and not eligible for demolition unless they go through this process. And again, it's it's important because the process that's outlined in section 111
of the MLUL is not like most of the applications where you guys hear it where you're making a recommendation to another board. In this process, the determination you make here, the zoning officer has no choice. It says in the in section 111 that the zoning officer
shall deny it. So again, based on what you heard from Mr. Demino and when you've heard from me, we hope you deny this uh recommendation. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Uh I was just going to ask if you guys
did any like um uh um exploratory movement of any of the of the existing siding. Um, I happen to have a building that was it was cocooned like what I would call this building is cocooned. My building was cocooned in concrete. This
one's cocooned in vinyl. But all the all the original fabric was underneath the cocoon. I just wondering if you guys did any exploratory. Uh, no, we have not. We would have to get it that would be the next step. We'd have to get a crane, get up on get up on
the siding and see. But we're looking at the condition of the facade and how it's essentially looks like it warped in some cases and you know so I'm pretty uh confident that the condition itself is
in bad is is in u you know dire repair. So uh but no we have not done any exploratory. Yeah. Is mine my building Yeah. My building had every window was changed. They were all vinyl. Mhm. But when I pulled the concrete off,
the original window frames were still there. The original window casings were there. All the siding was there. Everything was there. So it's kind of like to me I kind of I'd kind of prefer to see that and say, "Okay, I see that it's
gone." Well, we we can rest assure um um Mr. understand Gant that that the um commercial is there's there's no way to to honestly say that there's anything left of the commercial uh components and if you look at uh really focus on that
1938 card I mean there was there were they were main architectural elements in that era and main architectural elements of that building and they're not there at all. So that would have to be somehow duplicated or or replicated. I would agree that's missing. Yes, it's gone. So,
I would disagree that it's entirely missing on at least one of the buildings. Um I think it's 250 is the corner building. You can see that on the second street side there are these projecting what looked like would have been storefront cornises. Yeah, I think and that they were clad over with metal,
but because it wasn't the sort of primary street, uh the owner, whoever had that building at the time, didn't take the effort to take it off. They just covered over it. I so I do think there likely could be historic material under those metal
those metal components were the roof the roof edge of that um of that storefront. What was below that was the actual storefront which was removed and then it was brought back to the actually um main
part of the of the um what I'm saying is I don't assert the assertion that it's all gone. I I don't think that that's entirely I don't necessarily believe that because I think that there's a chance that there are still commercial uh the store the storefront cornises present on the second street facade of the corner
building. So uh the answer is I didn't do any there was no exoratory uh work done. Um, so, um, I could, it seems as if, however, all the cornis
work on 240, uh, was completely removed cuz there right now it's just flat aluminum. So, I wouldn't think that that I mean, we can do an uh, exploration on that, but I know that all of those brackets, the dentals, uh, whether or not the freeze board is underneath the
siding, I I I'd have to get in there and take a look. But no, and again I know um you know historic is not necessarily supposed to look at the structure but you can tell from just the facade itself the condition of the structure. Well, but I would Oh, sorry.
Oh, that that raises another process question for me because if this were an application pertaining to a historic property, it's not uncommon for us to expect an applicant to do exploratory demolition to look for artifacts or evidence of the historic condition for
potential restoration or renovation. But this is not So, this is not a historic property. So is this an application where we have to kind of take the building as we find it or is there an expectation that the applicant would do exploratory de? I have been asked to do that for
buildings in historic um areas. I have not had actually this is actually the first building we've had and asked for a demolition that has it been in this kind of condition. So I'll answer that for us. Right. This is
not a certificate of appropriateness. This is not a certificate of no effect, right? We cannot condition this. We cannot um you know ask the applicant to do exploratory demo and then come back, right? I I would strongly recommend looking at the application that is
before you. Um what is there on the building, right? The the application is to completely demolish these properties. Yeah, that that was my suspicion. And if I suspected there were something nefarious going on like demolition by neglect, I would, you know, go down a
different path. But as I understand it, these um changes to the property happened long ago. It may not have even been the current over many years. Okay. This is not something that you can tell from just the wear on the material that
you see there, how long it's been, how long ago it's been. It's been uh you know it's been like this. So um I don't I don't know how long the client owned the building. Do you know off hand? I I do not know the answer to that.
Yeah, I we've looked at quite a few of these demo applications now and from the photographs and evidence that um Mr. Deino presented and my own anecdotal experience living downtown for 15 years and walking past this building many thousands of times. it it to me it
doesn't retain any historic significance. Um, but I'm curious to hear what everyone else thinks. Any additional questions, comments for the applicant? Um, okay.
I think it's uh interesting to hear how um the anis historic sense of the building. I actually have a different feeling of it. If I think that this building was built around the 1870s, 1880s,
especially the corner one, I think if someone from that time would walk the street, they could very likely recognize the building because it has a very interesting and very um uh defined um shape,
which makes it very special, I think. which will not which would whatever building so a person from a person from that time would recognize the building as it is even though it was altered so I personally have a historic sense of the building
yeah may I um the the site will not the configuration will never change whatever building you put on that will always it's just that's the result you get when you when you put a diagonal path through a a through grid
pattern and it's evident in New York they and it's it's a um and so that form that pieshaped site whatever building get does get that will always be there and it would most likely take a very a very similar massing and
this very similar form to what's there now because it's the site um the site can't really can't you can't go into another building it's bas you have a a large building on one side and then roads all around it. So I agree that the
configuration is is unique and someone from that that era or would may or someone that that remembers what the building looked like may understand that but it would if you put a new building there it would it would still have that same form.
So was like second tired or whatever you call it like how you call it when it's like on the corner. I I I think I understand what you're saying and I I disagree that the any new building would necessarily have the same massing um
because right the storefront level has a prow that goes all the way to the sidewalk whereas the upper stories does not and I don't think it's likely a new building would necessarily follow that massing you know paradigm. Okay. Um but so I see what you know is
being said about someone would recognize that building by its form and I think that that form would go away if a new building were built. Okay. I I I um I have thought about the design of a building that would go there and I I can
tell you that it's a neighborhood commercial zone. You're allowed to do five stories and the form and the and the the form would be very similar to what's there now. No. Any additional questions or comments?
Good. Move on to public comment. If there are any members of the public who would like to speak regarding this application, please approach the public comment mic. Staff sees no members of the public present um and recommends a motion to open and close public comment. Motion.
Second. All in favor? I I Okay, so Mr. Deino had up the 1938 and you know a number of uh current photos of the property. Um so I I don't feel it
necessary to go down there and plug in again and and show everything. Um but if anybody would like to see anything specific, please feel free to to say stay say so and I I would be more than happy to. Um I will state um so the
reason that the memos both state that they are both in districts that are mentioned in the Jersey City historic preservation master plan uh element uh they are both within the boundaries of the Italian village historic district uh which had a New Jersey historic
preservation office uh opinion in 2019 and then the lower Newark a historic district which had an opinion in 199 1990. Uh, and this is just a little snippet from the master plan. Um, it says it, this is talking about
specifically the uh, lower Newark A historic district. Uh, it says uh, the boundary extends down to Newark A to include the four properties at 244, 250, 240, 236 to 238, 229, 231 Newark A. Um,
so I do agree it is not listed in that bottom section. It's not in the chart of all the historic properties or identified properties within the uh Jersey City. Uh but staff contends that it is mentioned within the historic within the historic uh preservation plan
element. Um and uh you know that is one of the major things that we look for when reviewing these applications uh to see that it has been previously identified um by whether it's the uh FA 1985 phase 1 and phase 2
whether it was by a state level survey uh such as these uh or if it was through the city's own um survey work such as um the ward D survey that we did in 2022 or
um the some of the other surveys that we've done throughout the years. Um additionally, uh so as far as like significance goes, uh staff contends that both of the applications uh really focus on uh criteria C, the
architectural um elements. They both embody distinctive characters of a type period and method of construction most especially if no other or very few buildings or structures within the same association has survived. Um staff also feels that uh they maintain integrity of
location, design, setting, feeling and association. Um I do agree with Mr. Deino uh that there have been alterations to the exterior of these buildings, but those primarily affect the um materials and workmanship of the
building. Um and that it does maintain five other of the criterias of integrity uh which I personally or professionally believe that uh reaches the level of significance. Uh so again, staff's
recommendation is a motion to prepare a resolution recommending denial of the demolition application to the zoning officer. Um please feel free to continue this discussion. I have a question for staff. Do you feel that one of these properties retains
more historic integrity than the other or would you say they're roughly equivalent? Um I think I think 250 the corner um definitely has a more unique um situation. I think the form is much more unique. Um the massing is much more
unique. Uh and and specifically kind of ties into that idea of you know very few we don't have many of these kind of corner properties within Jersey City. Um I think that one retains some of those levels of integrity more. But I think as
far as particularly setting, location, um, as Mr. Deino pointed out, right, when you're walking around that section of, uh, Jersey City, you have all of these buildings that are surrounding it uh, that have really high levels of integrity. And,
you know, if you remove these two buildings, I think you start to unwind the entire uh, surrounding area. um you really have kind of a cohesive district right there which is what the state opinion says and I think these kind of
anchor that district. So I think removal of these uh would change as commissioner Kbach was saying kind of the feel of walking around and what somebody from yeah the 1880s would feel like walking around these properties.
I frankly I had a little trouble following that last um comment where you said these buildings have less historic integrity but they anchor the district and I don't think they have less in I think they have I think um as far as form like
specific factors of integrity like uh form and massing I think the 250 the corner property has a little bit more I think as far as setting and they both have maintain the same amount and I believe
that's a very strong level of integrity due to the surrounding historic properties. Okay. So within with are you're saying that there's this sort of um almost symbiosis between these properties and then the other
surrounding properties that have that that have retained their historic. So for me, when when I'm looking at a historic property, that is what I judge setting based off of. Um how much of the surrounding setting of the property has
maintained historic integrity um and can kind of evoke that same feeling of uh the period when it was constructed. Um obviously all of Jersey City has been altered in some form or another. Uh, but I think particularly in this setting,
you have a pretty dense cluster of historic properties that surround these two buildings. And I think that's an interesting um I guess take on what that what that is because I was thinking about for 240 similar to 250 if you look at the second
street facade the brackets are all still present and possibly the fascia is behind the siding because once again that was just like not the primary street where the modernization concerns were less for the building owners at that time. Um, and it speaks to the
buildings on the Second Street side. Like those buildings are in conversation on Second Street in a way that they might not be on Newark Avenue. Any further comments, questions for staff? Um, you you mentioned um that they that
these properties, their addresses were mentioned in the narrative for What what was it that you that you said it was? What was the Can you just refresh me on what what it it was? It was part of the master plan. Yeah. So, there's a section in the master plan in that narrative section,
the first however many, you know, 100 pages of it or whatever. Um that's has uh one specific section that's on historic districts within Jersey City. In that section, kind of the the subheading is below is a description of each of the identified and eligible
historic districts in Jersey City that have not been designated at a local level. Then it goes through each one, one of which is the lower Newark Newark A historic district. And at the end of that one, it has the the juris the boundary justification for it. And it
states uh the boundary extends down Newark A to include the four properties at 244 to 250, 240, 236 to 238, and 229 to 231 Newark A. So, it's just detailing what would be
the perimeter of a proposed historic district that is an eligible one. So, I would argue that it's specifically stating those properties for a reason, not just the bound not just strictly the boundary because that is not the the
exact boundary of it. It's just justifying why those properties are included. But it's not but it's not an actual historic district right now. It would be eligible to be able that is correct. Yeah, that is correct. They're not locally designated. They are they have a
state formal opinion. If we have no more questions or comments, I we can move on to a motion for each one. I think going one by one probably makes the most sense. And again, staff's recommendation is a
let me get the wording. A motion to prepare a resolution recommending denial of the demolition application to the zoning officer. And uh we will start with B-25-0141. This is 250 Newark. So this is the one on the corner. I guess I'll make the motion.
Can you state what the motion you're making is the to deny the uh demolition? Okay. And can you just explain why? um not not in the most technical terms
but just it's does seem historic to me and it seems like within the character of being historic I don't know how else to put it I mean the criteria that the commission is supposed to yeah the the criteria that the commission uh put forward having you know five of the seven I believe was
said that seems to me a fair enough reason to to deny the applicant I will second it. Um, citing integrity of location and setting, feeling, and association.
So, four of the seven criteria. Okay. So, we have a motion to deny uh to prepare a resolution recommending denial of the demolition application to the zoning officer. Um, Commissioner Gucciardo is absent. Commissioner Sanamp.
I'll vote I. Commissioner Gunther. I. Uh, Commissioner Gordon. Nay. Do you need me to state a reason? I think it would be a safe bet. I say it wouldn't hurt.
Yeah. Uh, I would just say that I found Mr. Deino's testimony and report to be persuasive. Um, I take, you know, staff's comments um about uh the the setting and um Commissioner Gunther's comments about the uh conversation that
these buildings are having with the surrounding buildings. However, I feel in an area where we have a high density of um well-maintained and restored uh historic buildings, these buildings um really pale in comparison. And I don't believe
that there is an integrity of of workmanship materials. Uh, as I referenced earlier, I do not get any kind of special historic feeling when I walk past these two particular buildings. And I I do think that there would be a loss to the area if they were
demolished, but it would really be minimal. Commissioner Edgecom, I. Commissioner Calbot. Um I Vice Chair Grigga
I'm going to agree with uh Commissioner Gordon literally everything he said. Chair Caron. Oh uh I'm sorry. Was the correct vote I or N? Nay. Right. Nay.
Gotcha. Comm. Uh Chair Cronin. I Okay. So we have one, two, three, four, five. We have five in favor, uh, two against, zero abstensions. Uh, the motion to prepare a resolution recommending denial of the demo
application to the zoning officer is approved. And now we will move on to 240 Newark. Again, this is B-25-0386. Again, staff's recommendation is a motion to prepare a resolution recommending denial of the demolition
application to the zoning officer. I'll make the motion um citing integrity of design, setting, uh materials, workmanship, and feeling and association. I think
that this that building is has more in common with the buildings across Second Street and is in than it does any about any you know thing than it does relate to the buildings on New York Avenue which are new modern tall buildings.
Um, and I think they're just part of that smaller scale and you can see that the fenestration pattern is is retained on the building. Um, and I agree with what Commissioner Sancamp has said that I think a lot of the material may be
cocooned behind modern cladding. Do we have a second? I second um and agree to um what Commissioner Gau says about the um distinctive our integrity of location,
the historic sense and um it's also mentioned in the historic um preservation uh master plan um as part of the Italian village. Okay, I'll do a roll call. Commissioner uh Samp
I again. Commissioner Gunther I. Commissioner Gordon. Nay. And I'm not going to repeat my earlier commentary. I'll just add that um arguably this building has less um
significant historic significance um because it does not have the unique lot size and um pulled back second uh floor that the corner lot has. So uh for those reasons, nay. Commissioner Edge, I vote I.
Commissioner Kbach I. Vice Chair Gria, no. Any comments? Same as Commissioner Gordon, I I agree with what he said with what he said at
the first time. Um, and yeah, great. Uh, Chair Cronin. Uh, no. Okay. Any want to add anything or Well, I agree that uh with what Commissioner Gordon said that this has even less. The other one I thought was passable even though I didn't articulate
it very well, but I think this one I agree with him on this that it's not. Okay. So, we have four in favor, three against, no abstensions. Uh the motion to prepare a resolution recommending denial of the demolition application to
the zoning officer is approved. Thank you. Uh if we would like take a quick break, maybe a 10-minute break. a 10-minute break or five minute break, guys. We'll do five.
Okay, we'll make it 10. All right. Uh, we'll come back at about 8:37. Okay. Some one of our commissioners has a newborn to get home and take care of. So, in the interest of his sanity and
doesn't miss one commissioner here. I have a four-year-old, so keep me here. Okay. Uh it is 8:40. If uh you want to call the meeting back to order. Well, calling us back to order. Uh we are looking at uh new business now.
And our next case is H-24-0451. Charles Harrington III, Esquire, applicant on behalf of Mansion Capital LLC owners, uh 231st Street. This is in the Haramus Cove Historic District. They're going for a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of
a new four-story, 4-unit residential building and associated site work. Recommendation to the Jersey City Planning Board. Okay. Thank you. Uh yeah, for the record, Charles Harrington of Connell Foley. Uh on behalf of the applicant, as
chairman just mentioned, this property is within the Horseman's Cove Historic District. It's a vacant uh lot. It's been a vacant lot for for some time. Um and uh the proposal is to provide for infill here, four stories, four units.
Uh we have been working uh with staff for some time on on u the project and which has resulted in what's being presented to you tonight. Um we um we will be uh asking um for two variances.
Um although I know that's not the jurisdiction of this board, but just uh for full disclosure, uh it's a height variance and and a building coverage. Uh the height variance, as you'll see during the presentation, is really associated with the stoops. Um because there's there's a stoop or a pattern of
stoops along this street. So by bringing the building up uh we can we can accommodate that uh so that it has the same look and feel um down the street. Uh and so I I have you will our architect here and he'll walk you
through this and kind of explain how this all you know came about and you have you'll see you have you have different heights of buildings on the street as well. It's not, you know, some some historic blocks are just static uh across the the way, but we're we do have
some deviations along this block front. Thanks, Jeff. Yes, I do. Sure. It's William Wackenman. Last name is we cn mn. and staff notes that uh Will has
previously been qualified in front of this board as an expert in the field of architecture. Feel free to begin. Thank you. Um yes, as uh Chuck mentioned, this has been a uh um a long journey to get here. So, we're happy happy to be presenting
this to you tonight. Um this is uh an infill uh project on the uh north side of uh First Street. Um you see here with the block plan um it's an existing vacant lot and uh we are
proposing a new uh fourstory building here um which has a uh zero front yard setback to match the adjacent buildings and is uh generally in keeping with the the massing of the block with regards to
uh rear and sideyard setbacks. Um uh I just want to call attention uh Chuck mentioned the stoops and the increased heights of the first floors along this block. Um uh in addition to these these projecting stoops, we also
have a a continuous um front yard on all of the properties um on on this side of of First Street. um which is also another um unique factor which you'll see um uh we're maintaining uh on on the
site plan. Um we have two variances. Uh one related to the height and the the second related to building coverage. Um which again is it it's kind of a quirk with the with the zoning um where the uh
a building that's compliant with the the bulk uh uh bulk regulations and the setbacks with a zero front yard uh will have a a 70% um uh uh building coverage. So um in this
case we we worked very closely with staff to um keep that number under 65% which is closer to um the 60% which is um the underlying standard for this zone. So moving on we have uh this is an
existing site plan here on your left. Um it's a it's a a surface parking lot currently. There are some remnants of a garage um towards the rear of the property. Um there's a a very large curb cut and a chainlink fence and gate along the front property line. All of that
will be removed as part of the application and the site will be cleared for the new building. Um so uh starting from the the street and working our way back um we are proposing a series of uh sidewalk and uh street
improvements which include removing the curb cut uh and planting a new street tree. Um we are proposing a new stoop uh for the building which is in line with the uh adjacent stoop and um uh the the
other adjoining buildings on the block. Um in addition to that, we're matching the uh fence line uh that exists um with uh with the neighbor. Um so we're going to be providing a small uh landscape
area in the front yard. Um, and we do have an access um passageway uh which leads to which runs the entire length of the first floor and um uh leads to the the rear yard of the building. That's a
building code requirement um that's been changed in recent years. Um so we are providing that on the on the first floor level of the building. Um, we're proposing four floors um with a an occupied roof deck on the on on the
roof. Uh, we do have a a green roof buffer towards the front of the building with the occupiable deck areas uh towards the center. And then we do have a uh rooftop uh bulkhead for accessing the roof with a sloped um roof above the
stair to uh minimize the the visual impact of this uh the rooftop pertinances. Um and I'll speak more on that um on a a later slide. Um, we're also proposing um uh permeable
pavers and a new patio for the rear yard as well as uh some additional landscaping and uh green space. These are just our uh some of our standard site details. Um lighting selections. I won't I won't spend too much time on these. And then these are
the uh city site details. Again, I'll skip over those. Um as I mentioned, we are elevating the first floor uh to be in keeping with the um with the uh surrounding streetscape.
Um so as a result, we have an opportunity to uh provide a a cellar in this building which will be used for um storage, refuge room, as well as a sprinkler uh and utilities. So that'll all be in the cellar level of the building.
Um the uh moving on to the first floor, we have a a small vestibule and stair up to the upper floors. And then um the first floor has uh a single um two bed, two
bath unit uh with a bedroom in the front um bathrooms and a second bedroom towards the center and then a uh uh kitchen and living area which opens up to the rear yard. The second floor plan is uh similar
configuration in that there's one unit uh on the second floor. Uh this is a three-bedroom, two- bath unit uh which is flipped. So on this floor we have the living room and the kitchen in the front, second bedroom and bathrooms in the center and then two additional
bedrooms towards the rear. We are providing uh cutouts in the floor plate to allow for um uh light and air to uh these bedrooms and then also provide um
uh required uh cord um uh ventilation for the existing buildings. So that's why we have these two there are lot line windows here on the west side and the east side. That's why we have these uh small cutouts in in the floor plan.
The third and fourth floor are um the configuration of the building is a little bit different here. We split the the floors in half and we have a a duplex unit in the front uh and then another duplex unit in the back. Both of
these apartments have um a third bedroom on the lower level as well as a kitchen and uh and living room. And then moving up the building, there are uh two additional bedrooms uh and two additional bathrooms um with a
staircase up to the roof. Um this the roof plan is very similar to site plan. Um the only so I won't go into any additional detail here. The only difference is that you can see the small um uh uh
uh amenity space and access to the uh to the roof deck. The uh the building elevation is uh fairly simple. Um we are proposing uh a face brick as the
primary facade material with um punch window openings. Um the windows are a modern configuration but are proportionally similar to other buildings that are found on the block. Um,
we are also uh installing these eyebrows, these castone eyebrows on the facade which are uh referencing referencing the building next door which does have some horizontal uh brick detailing. So that's kind of a nod to the to the building next door. Um we are
also providing a brick masonry cornice uh which is detailed on a a following page. uh but it is you know proportionally similar to what would would have been found on a on a historic building but it's a contemporary take on on the cornis design.
Uh I do want to address the first floor uh because Michael did note that in the staff report. Um so because we have to provide the alleyway to the rear yard um we have a little bit of an imbalance in the facade
meaning the the openings are um you know traditionally you would see these openings all fall in line down the building. But because we have this um this alleyway on the on the far side of the building sort of throws off the the rhythm. So, um, what we're doing is is,
um, creating a a thicker caststone banding above the first floor to divide the lower level of the building from the upper floors. And, um, we also shifted over the uh, the main entrance door to the building to match uh, this side. So,
um, you know, doing so is a little bit atypical, but it does provide more balance um, within the the the facade itself. Um the rear facade is um similar design although we're using uh brick as well
but we do have some larger windows uh on this elevation. Um it's a bit more of a contemporary configuration but the materials and the windows themselves are consistent with the front of the building. This is the uh east elevation which is uh
uh the majority is right on the on the property line. Uh but we do have these uh this recessed area for the courtyard and the alleyway to the rear yard. Uh so we are using lap siding as the the primary materials for for this um for
this alleyway. Though we do plan on enclosing it with a gate. Um, so this this won't be visible from from the street. It'll be concealed behind the the gate. Um, and uh um this obviously is in the center of
the building. So again, it won't be visible from the from the street. the west elevation um is a little bit different because the west elevation is partially visible from
uh Eerie Street. Um I'll show it on a later exhibit, but you can see a portion of this facade um from directly from Erie Street and then obliquely as you walk down the block um away from the building. um this bulkhead uh none of
the rooftop appearances will be visible from directly across the street but this wall this facade here and portions of the bulkhead will be visible from Eerie Street and like I said obliquely as you move down the block. So what we're doing here is uh continuing the brick um as a
as a primary material on the on this side elevation um so that the building has a a cohesive uh appearance uh when you look at it from the side. Um for the design of the bulkhead we took
cues from um the the building next door which also has an obliquely visible bulkhead. Um, and what we did was we set it back slightly and we're using the lapsiding material on the on the bulkhead itself to um make it appear
visually lighter and detached from the primary massing of the building. So again, that was designed to uh minimize its visual impact as you see it from further down the block. We also reduce the height of this substantially. So um we have a seven foot, we're at code
minimum here for the height of this. So, we did pull this down substantially um to try to make it as as as small as possible. This is the uh building section. As I mentioned, you know, none of the the rooftop um
uh bulkheads or screening or HVAC equipment will be visible from from the street. And um here we have the proposed and uh existing and proposed block elevations.
And um you know as you can see here um oops too far um all all of these uh stoops are elevated. So all the first floor um of the buildings on the block are elevated. So, um uh we worked
closely with staff at the onset of this project to determine the correct height for this for for the first floor of this building. And um we felt that 48 in or about 4 feet was um uh consistent with
with the block front um and helped create a more harmonious um streetscape at the at the sidewalk level. Um even though we are asking for uh the height variance um there are four and five story buildings on this block including
uh the the building immediately next door. So the um you know this building at four floors even though it does have the additional height um is consistent with the the other four fourstory building on the block and really helps
to transition from these um lower three-story buildings uh closer to Erie Street um and this this five-story building uh these two five-story buildings at the center of the block. So kind of has a nice um step up as you as you go down the block.
This is uh just our standard shadow study. Um pretty straightforward. The um shadows and the massing of the building are consistent with the other buildings on the block. So the the impact from this building is is fairly minimal.
Um we do have materials here. So, so we have samples of the the the face brick and the mortar. And then we have two two different options that we're considering for the for the cast stone.
um as well as the the brown um uh for the for the windows and the the black that we're using for uh the railings and um the the iron work on the project. So I'll I'll just end with the with this
final exhibit here. Um this is the view. I'll start over here. This is the view of the of the block through from Eerie Street. It's visible over this one-story uh section of the building on the corner.
So, you know, you can see the the two other buildings on the block. So, we'll be kind of somewhere, you know, in in this general vicinity. Um it's a common uh it's common condition here on Erie Street. This is the opposite side of the
block over Tico's um where the the new construction building is u somewhat visible through through the gaps in in the buildings. Um I do have this diagram here indicating
the extent uh of the building which will be visible. So um again it's only directly visible when you're looking over this one-story section. um and uh it's also partially um obscured by the the the
neighbor next door. So when you project these sight lines onto the side elevation um you know this this is the section of the building that that will be visible from um from Eerie Street.
And finally, we have some other contextual photos. And um this uh this detail here is kind of what we were what we were referencing uh for the design of the bulkhead. So we're pulling the same same idea um uh
from the from the building next door uh to help minimize the the visual impact of that uh of the bulkhead. um similar similar material laps siding and then um similar transition from uh the the main
brick massing to a lighter uh frame material above and uh that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? I have a question about the windows. So, I don't have a problem with the sort
of more modern take on the windows that are too late when you think about the whole assembly. Um, but the the operable sash, is that an awning window that's hinged at the top and comes out from the facade? Sure. Um, so these these windows will be
provided with a with a limiter. Um, so they could only open about 4 in, which is enough to meet the code requirements for light and air and ventilation, but it's it's not so much where you'd have these big projecting awning windows out
on the street. It keeps the the facade fairly um keeps the look fairly cohesive between windows that are open and windows that are closed. Yeah. I was wondering is there a reason you didn't uh propose sort of in tilt in like hopper windows so that it wouldn't
break the plane of the facade when the windows are open? Um I can't recall the specific conversation that we had about the windows but um I I believe we would be open to that um suggestion if the commission prefers tiltin windows or in
swing casement we could accommodate that. Yeah. just think about when the windows are open. That's a very modern condition to have, you know, them open that way. And if at least if they tilt in, you're not breaking the ma plane of the masonry. So, just something to think about. Sure. I don't know if anybody else has an
opinion on it. Could we um focus for a moment on how far into the donut the building, the proposed building will extend and how that compares to other buildings on the
block. It does seem like quite large. Um especially with the height. Um, I don't think I have a problem with the height, but when you combine it with the size of the building intruding to the donut, it seems like a lot.
Sure. Um, so, um, we we do have a 30 31 and a half foot rear yard. Um, so the the rear yard is is compliant. Um, so from a zoning perspective, there's there's no variance
associated with it. Um it does project beyond the um buildings to to the west simply due to the fact that this is a deeper lot. Um but we do have
it's it's the condition on this side of the block is different from uh even even this this side where there's a more uniform rear yard setback here. You know, it's it it varies from building to building. And you have uh additions on
on these buildings that encroach into that uh donut. You have this big, you know, um uh building here on the opposite side of the block. So, and it is um shorter than
the buildings next door. Could could you explain what those are because those don't seem to be full width extensions. No, they're they're they this building does have a slight um setback for the
the rear 15 feet or so. Um but this fivetory massing continues up the full height of the building. It's not like a a building where they they put an addition on at some point that was that's lower than than the main
structure. That these buildings were actually constructed this way. um uh at at full five stories. So, uh we do have a deeper rear yard than than the adjoining properties. And this neighbor does have an accessory building, a shed
of some sort in the in the rear yard here. So, um we are further back than than you know either either adjoining properties. a photo of this, but I I don't I don't think I have it with me.
And that the on the primary facade, the um that second door that leads through to the back of the building, is that just a solid steel sheet? What is that? Yeah, it's a it's um
I'll go to the elevation. It is a a solid U steel panel with a we have two sections for it and then we have a glass a frosted glass transom um above. Um so it's it's a
fairly contemporary gate design uh as opposed to maybe a more traditional design that would have bars. Um um but um we wanted to sort of maintain the solidness of the facade and again
obscure some of the the views through to the to the backyard. So we went with a more solid configuration for that gate. Okay. Thank you. Um, so I guess I would put it to staff or to other commissioners if they have any opinions on, you know, the propriety
of that. And then the other um item I wanted to put to staff was I saw it looks like the the gates and the rails are proposed to be steel. I know for I I've seen for historic properties that would typically be iron, but this is not
historic property. So is is steel appropriate here, you think? Yeah, steel's appropriate. Most a lot of what we see for the new construction properties are are steel steel gates and and steel iron uh steel work. Um
I'm a blacksmith, so I'm trying not to get too much into the weeds of the difference between steel and iron is very minimal at this point. So it could be, you know, historically it would have been cast iron. Um I don't know if cast iron is something that the
applicant would be willing to explore. Um, but I think more and more on new construction, we're seeing steel steel gates. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? No. Does that conclude your testimony?
Does anything else? Thank you very much. get it. Uh that concludes uh the presentation and just for the record, in the event the commission were to uh vote in the affirmative, uh the conditions listed in the staff report would be
acceptable. Okay. Uh we'll move on to public comment. Uh if there are any members of the public uh wishing to speak on this application, uh 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 will move into staff comments. Um so in the 1938 tax guard photo, we actually have the building that was here. Uh but it was demolished in 1938
right after the photo was taken. Um it was a very small uh building that got de demolished and it has been a vacant lot since. Uh vacant pave lot since. Uh staff finds the application to be mostly consistent with the secretary of the
interior standards for historic preservation and the Jersey City uh zoning ordinance chapter 345-71 historic design standards. Uh kind of looking at the two proposed variances uh that the applicant is seeking. Uh the
first is that building height uh 40 ft is permitted. They're proposing 43 feet and 11 in. And then the other variance is for that maximum building coverage. 60% is permitted, 63.8% is proposed. Um
when I look at the height, I agree completely with what the architect was saying that, you know, you see the building step up on the other side going up towards that fivetory middle midblock building. And I think that this provides uh kind of a step down back towards
these smaller threetory threetory in a basement buildings. Um so I think it kind of creates a cohesivity to the cohesion to the entire block. As far as the maximum building coverage,
uh the applicant did work with staff to bring down that coverage. Um I think initially it was in like 65 67 range and uh you know I do see the 63.8% as a good
compromise. Um as the applicant stated uh the two buildings to the right do extend slightly further in. Um and really 3.8% is pretty minimal uh when it comes to uh the st the whole of it. uh
they are maintaining the bulk uh st um uh the setback requirement of 30 feet of over 30 feet. Um so staff does not see an issue with the proposed variances. Um,
additionally, uh, you know, as they stated, they are including the stoop, which is elevating the first floor a little bit, which also accounts for that increase in height at the top. Um, as again, the applicant stated, I, you
know, one of the things that I worked with them a lot on was that first floor, you know, kind of maintaining that rhythm. And I do feel that with the addition of the transom light as well as the uh the two transom lights, it does help to really balance out the first
floor. Um I think that the solid steel gate uh kind of mirrors the door on the other side probably a little bit better than a um you know metal panel or like mesh
gate would. Um, I think that would read um kind of slightly misbalanced or almost unweighted uh with the mesh on one side and then a solid door um solid glass door on the other side. Um,
additionally, you know, as far as all the exterior building, uh, materials, uh, I feel that they applicant has done a good job using, uh, the extent materials on the surrounding historically significant buildings to, uh, influence this and really kind of
pull in some of those design details from, uh, the neighboring buildings, particularly that horizontal, uh, banding as well as the kind of brick articulation from the building next door. Um, so, uh, you know, they have two proposed
roof decks at the top. Uh, but these are pretty consistent with similar proposals, uh, seen throughout the historic district. As the applicant noted, uh, they will, the bulkhead and the building will be slightly visible through that alleyway or above that first four first story building. Uh,
but, uh, staff does not believe that this will cause an adverse effect to the surrounding historic districts. Um, one thing that I will note that is on the plans, the applicant didn't bring up, um, something that was discussed was
the conduit that's on the, uh, right hand side of the building. Um, recessing that within the building. Um, the applicant is going to work with uh, the power company, the utility companies to see if that is a solution that would be
attainable. Um and as such that is the first condition uh that is proposed in the staff report. The applicant shall work with the utility company and HPC staff to recess the utility mass into the exterior wall assembly. If this is not permitted, the applicant shall run the utility lines into the PVC conduit
and paint the conduit to match the brick and facade materials, which is kind of the standard condition that we see. Um but if they can recess it, that would be preferable. Um again as uh proposed HBC staff finds the
project uh will not cause an adverse effect on the character and/or integrity of the surrounding historic district and the Haramus Cove historic district. Um the HP uh HPC staff recommends a motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness and recommend approval to the planning board with the following
conditions. That one that I just read out. Additionally, they also will require a franchise ordinance for that front areaway, the fence, the plantings, as well as the stoop. Um, so the applicant shall seek approval of a franchise ordinance for the construction
of 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 the HPC to seek approval of changes. Um, I did note Commissioner Gunther's proposed condition that the applicant shall work with HPC staff to revise the front
facade windows to inswing windows prior to the submission of construction documents. And then the remaining uh conditions are our standard conditions. Um if anyone has uh any comments or additional conditions I can add
otherwise again HBC staff's recommendation is approval um and recommendation to the plan approval of a certificate of appropriateness and recommendation of approval to the planning board with those conditions. I'll make the motion um for
um referral to the planning board and then what was the other part? Approval of a certificate of appropriateness with conditions. Okay. Approval for the COA with conditions. Great. Do I have a second? Second.
Okay. Commissioner Sanamp. I. Commissioner Gunther. I. Commissioner Gordon. I. Commissioner Edgecom. I. Commissioner Kabach. Hi. Vice Chair Griga.
I. Uh, Chair Cronin, I. So, we have seven in favor, no against, no abstensions. The certificate of appropriateness with conditions, and recommendation to the Jersey City Planning Board is approved. Thank you, gentlemen. And so, now we're moving on to a demolition review.
No problem. And our first and only demolition review is uh 738 Garfield Avenue. And this is uh B-25-0832. My name right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to
give in this proceeding will be the truth. The whole truth. Yes, I do. And your full name? Brett Shundler. B R E T. Shundler is S C H U N D L E R 299 Varic Street, Jersey
City. Thank you. I'm speaking tonight on behalf of Friends of Quality Education, which is developing the charter school campus uh canal crossing. It if you've Let me ask if you've had a chance to
actually see the document that's connected to this. It's the demolition permit. Otherwise, if it would be helpful, I have 10 copies with me and they do have pictures and maps and diagrams. So, that might be helpful. Yeah, I'll take a copy, please. All right.
And we will just mark that as um A1. Yeah. And it's in your packet as well, but I know that might not. Oh, yeah. Never mind. Sorry, I strike that. You did. I uploaded that. Sorry. Yeah,
we we don't have to mark it. Sorry. and get I must say I was surprised uh when uh Mr. Akimoff recommended against the demolition, but I guess that is because I was not uh aware of some of the um new
ways that we're looking at uh properties because this again is not a historic district. But I know that uh when you look at properties that don't have historic associations and that are not in historic district,
you do have different criteria. And when I look through the seven criteria and the last of the seven criteria of course is seven subriteria, I would think that if you're going to look at a property as being something that is to be protected, even though
it's not in a historic district and doesn't have historic associations, it would be because there's a number of those criteria that it met and it really doesn't meet hardly any. It does meet arguably some of the subriteria of the
seventh criteria because you can say I think pretty much about every house in Jersey City that it was built in the style of the time it was built. Now if you talk about things like historic setting, we talked earlier tonight about
let's say the house that was in downtown uh on off of Newark Avenue. It is surrounded by, you know, older buildings. This property, as mentioned by Mr. Akimoff in his um memo to you,
there's been a lot of new construction in the neighborhood. Uh, and if I was um appreciating the degree to which, you know, you can't just have uh well, let me put it this way. I would normally think that if you're going to say
something is going to be by a particular criteria protected, it would be because most of the criteria apply to it. But if the issue is that most of the criteria don't apply to it, but some criteria might apply to it, then the issue
becomes well should those criteria be enough in a particular instance that makes you want to preserve that property. Now in this particular case I think setting is an issue that would be important and setting I think would be
an issue where if you have a lot of houses that are of a similar era you begin to get a a feel when you come upon that. But that's not what you get here. You know on one half let's say in one end of the block you have a gas station
which is a large large gas station and car wash. On the other you have a, you know, automobile, uh, used car dealership. Then you have a lot of different houses with very different, you know, looks to them, some of which are more recently constructed.
So yes, it is a house that does um, it was built in the 1920s and it was built in the style that houses were built in the 1920s. And so you can say that you know elements of the house you know meet the particular um you know they're
evocative of a particular house but the house itself and the context that is in doesn't give you any great sense of history whatsoever and for that matter neither does that side of the street. Now, it would be another question if you go across Garfield Avenue and you go into the neighborhoods of Greenfield uh
Greenville and Bergen Lafayette. And where this is located is right at the intersection of Greenville and Lafayette. And where the 2500 students who are going to be at this campus live, half of them live in this immediate
neighborhood of Greenville and Lafayette. And it is in the his it's in the redevelopment plan which this school campus was constructed to fulfill that they would take a property right where
we're proposing to take a property and demolish that property expressly so that kids in the neighborhood could go to the school 100 feet from their house. Right now, kids who are in Greenville might have to walk an extra seven blocks
to get to the school that is 100 ft from their house. This particular area is one that you can't approach from the south. There is no approach from the south. You have Garfield Avenue is on an, you know, a cliff at a certain point and you have
the elevated uh Bay View Avenue access road that leads from Garfield Avenue to exit 14B on the turnpike which is there. There's nothing that goes under that. You also have the Conrail and the light rail tracks on the
east side. There's no access from the east side. There's no access from the south side. And on the west side you have a threeb block long, you know, group of houses and there's no cross streets because there's, you know, a steep hill on the other side. It was
never developed on the other side. And so when they created the redevelopment plan that this uh campus is directly fulfilling, they created it as you'll note on the you know um on the drawing
of the acquisition plan for the canal crossing redevelopment area. They created it with a property on Garfield to be taken to be turned into an access way. And actually when Mayor Phillip came up to me and said, "This is where you should put your campus. we need
schools here, he said. And there's a, you know, there's a a parcel that's open and that you could, you know, that's part of that you could buy and you could create what has been planned to be an access. What he did know was already
sold and there's a house on it now right next to us. brand new house, not one that's uh exactly supporting the setting and the feel, which is actually noted by Michael Akimoff in his memo to you that there
have been these new properties developed that kind of takes away some of the feel, you know. Now, I point that out though because there's a reason the redevelopment plan had that. It is incredibly important. We literally again
we'll have 2,500 students here. Half of them live in Greenville and Berg and Lafayette. And when the master plan when we were reviewed for section 31 review by the Jersey City Planning Board and you see their comments in the back of this, their comments focus on how
important it is to have excellent schools in these neighborhoods and to to allow, you know, the children in the area to have something like this. And if you know I I I was um I I must say and I noted in the letter
that I had before I was mayor of Jersey City, I was the president of the downtown coalition neighborhood associations. And my greatest achievement while I was mayor was getting Glenn Cunningham, who was in a runoff for mayor in 1989, to pass the
historic preservation ordinance. I proudly have an 18 uh you know uh 60 um 8 house 1867 house with a historic plaque on it. And I love our historic
neighborhoods. Uh first thing I did when I was mayor was actually buy the Lowe's which the uh Harts Mountain was going to destroy and which the city council had no interest in buying. But I filled the room with hundreds of people and they saw things my way
and I didn't think that was appropriate tonight. But you know the reality was we saved the Lowe's and the next thing we did at the towards the end of my administration was we bought the apple tree house. Historic preservation is very important, but the way you save
historic neighborhoods and the way you maintain the social fabric, not just the buildings, is to enable people in those neighborhoods to have great schools for their children. That's what makes it so that people don't move away and you save the social fabric and that's what makes
it so people reinvest in their properties and you save those properties. What results in abandonment and vacant homes and historic neighborhoods being lost is when you don't have that. Which is why when the u this section 31 review
by the planning board of this public school campus, you know, was held. They have such glowing comments and what they all focus on is that these historic neighborhoods will now have immediate access to this campus. But if they only knew
that you could live if you're this is a long very narrow it's a threeb block long narrow campus that's behind this threeb block long wall of houses for and there's no going through them. So, if you happen to live, you know, on the
south side next to the elementary school that a kindergartenner is going to go to, they have to walk seven blocks to go up to Caven Point Avenue across and back down through the campus to get to their elementary school. If we don't do what the redevelopment plan forsaw as being
important, which was create an access access way to the middle of the campus directly from Garfield Avenue so those children could have direct access to the campus. The master plan, you know, uh, and the planning board loved it. Uh, the
neighborhood associations loved it. Jersey City needs it. But the reality is, you know, without taking a house, it can't exist. And you instead are saying that yes, we have these great schools. The these are some of the these are I would argue, and of course, I might have
a little pride in these schools. I would argue they're the best public schools in Jersey City. 70% lowincome. And yet we have every single demographic cohort at our schools outperforms the state averages. You know, there's a huge
there's a a 29% what's called achievement gap between poor children and non-por children in this state. And yet our kids, every single demographic group, they're outperforming the state's performance in
terms of learning growth. Now, these are excellent schools and these are schools that will make people want to live in our communities and want to invest in their homes. But it's important that they be able to get there. Now, we provide bus transportation throughout
the city. So, we do have students from all over Jersey City, but 50% of them live right there. When we were originally planning to open Beloved, we thought we'd be at the Greenville Hospital, and they ultimately decided they would adaptively reuse that structure as a community health center.
So, it didn't end up becoming available to us. But while we were recruiting all our students, you know, uh we expected to be there. So our children are from Greenville, from Bergen, Lafayette, and that's why we're there. That's why
the city made that area. Uh they said, "We're going to reserve this for a public school campus." It wasn't just to provide support for the new construction that'll happen north in the land. Uh when you drive down Garfield Avenue and
you see all that, you know, land which is presently mud, you know, that's going to be 32 blocks of brand new construction. But they didn't reserve this property just to support that new growth in
population. They wanted it to also be able to help Greenville and Bergen Leafy head, not just that section to the north of us. So, this is an important decision you're making. It's a decision to actually
realize the vision of the redevelopment plan and frankly realize the vision of the master plan for the city of Jersey City, which always appreciated that you'd have to create an access way directly from Garfield Avenue to the middle of the campus if you don't want to end up
having to be that, you know, kindergarteners have to walk seven blocks to get to a building that's, you know, right next to their home. And let's say you're living a little bit further south in Jersey City. You know, maybe it's one thing to walk six or seven or eight blocks. It's another to
walk 15 or 16. So, it's important, I think, that we allow this demolition to occur. Allow the redevelopment plan to be fulfilled. Allow the master plan to be fulfilled. Allow these schools to have the impact that they can have.
Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Shler? Uh, what's the nearest school to uh 738 Garfield? I've never taken, you know, I've never measured it. It might be school 38 which is on Kennedy Boulevard, but it's
probably there's there's probably there I know there's a street there's also school on Union Street. That's a little bit farther northeast of it. I think there's one on Wilkinson in Bay View. 41. Yeah. Center for the Arts. Yeah.
Which isn't too far off. Maybe four four to seven minute walk. Yeah. But realistically I Yeah. I mean that I think you're thinking about things a little bit wrong though. Remember these are not um
I show you where our population comes from in the back page. That's our our students. So you could see that we're right in the middle of it all. But don't think of well the kids could go somewhere else. The kids could go somewhere else but
that's not where their parents may want them to go. you know, we have um we've now got our kids, our low-income kids are at every Ivy League school except for Yale right now. This year, we got my alma mater, which um
you know, I'm proud of. But we have, you know, I think we're changing lives and that's one of the reasons the neighborhood was extremely excited by her being there. But I do think they want to be able to be able to get there easily and they don't have to walk that
far to go to a school that close. It's just wrong to have a situation where if you're in the brand new housing construction that'll be much higher, much more expensive to the north, you have you could just walk across the street. But if you live in the historic
neighborhoods that you have to walk that far wrong. Um, is this not a lotterybased Jersey City public charter school? It is. Yeah. So then students come from all over, right? Anyone who's in Jersey City is
eligible to apply to the lottery. That's right. So it's not really a neighborhood school the way you're not a sending district where it's just the immediate neighborhood, but 50% of the kids are from Greenville and from Bergen Lafayette. That's just a fact.
Okay. Um and then in that case my question is um way it appears that there are 1,200 that's 1,250. So then this leads me to my next question which is um there appear to be several lots further up the street that
abut the property um where there aren't historic structures present. These are appear to be vacant lot used for parking. Have you investigated? You're talking about the park. You're talking about the used car dealership. Several empty lots further west on Garfield Avenue
within the next sort of Garfield's north or south to the right to the right of the property. There are several looks like three empty lots. I need one speaker. Go ahead. There appear to be three empty lots with no structures on them. Have you
considered uh acquiring one of those lots that you don't have to demolish a historic property? There aren't three empty lots, but there are lots further north. There is a lot further north, but if you're the whole reason why the
redevelopment plan had that access in the middle of the north south was because they appreciated the goal was to make it so that kids coming from all directions from the west would be able to come into the middle of the campus. And I could say you can't do it further
south because those you're you're basically up on a cliff there. Again, it's a it's a twotory high, you know, um cliff if you were where the park where the let's say the used car dealership is at Bay View Avenue to get to the ground
that the school's being constructed on. Now, if you go north, then you're getting close to Caven Point Avenue and we have access from Caven Point Avenue. Now, the goal is to create, you know, midcampus access from the west.
I'll take that as a no. Thank you. No, I did I did look at them. We rejected that for that reason. There's a lot there's not three lots, but there's a lot that's further north, but we rejected it for that reason, and that's why it's also not part of the redevelopment plan that they put it up there.
I had a question about the the lottery, the neighborhood nature of it, right? Um where would you say the majority of the applicants come from? From Greenville and L. Yeah, that's where more than half. Now they do come from everywhere. We have a small number of students who come down from the Heights. But the again because we
originally planned to open in Greenville. That's where the vast majority of Beloved's children come from. And um you know the way the first thing that happens with a school like Beloved is people tell their friends.
Sure. So you end up having this extended, you know, now 13 years in, we still have more than half of our students from Greenville and from Bergen Lafayette. Okay. Yeah. I would encourage you to focus on the demolition application portion, which is
what you're reviewing right now, and just focus on those factors that the ordinance lists. And I do want to focus on those factors. You know, it says um let's say historical associations. Now u uh a significance of the building or
structure. U it talks about being identified with a component element of the master plan. We are and the master plan says give us an access way. You know it says whether the building or structure associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our local state or
national history. No. That's what the ordinance says. uh um whether the building or structure embodies distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction that represents the work of a master. This building does not represent the work of a master if you take a look at it. Uh
you know possess high artistic value. It doesn't have that or represent a distinguished you know entities whose components may lack individual distinction most especially if no other or very few buildings or structures with the same association has survived. That's not the case. you have many
buildings like this including as pointed out that there's a building across the street that you know is a similar kind of architecture. So there's a lot of different kinds of buildings but this is not the only one like this. And then if we look at um you know whether the
building or structure can yield or may reasonably likely yield information important in prehistory or history. No. So criteria criteria criteria. No. No. No. And then we have whether the building or structure maintains
integrity of location, design, setting, um you know, materials, workmanship, feeling, association. Yes, on some of those, you know. So is the issue that if you meet at least one of all these criteria
that that's more important or is that are you meeting the criteria if you meet only one of these sub there's seven different you know um sub sections of criteria seven and I would think if you say you're
meeting the criteria that means meeting more than just one or two of subsections of one of the seven criteria. I'm looking at photos that show this building um as probably the most intact
um on the block and also I see that there is a crosswalk that is in front of this property which is maybe not part of our purview but it is an official crosswalk. there is a curb cut and the proposal is to demolish this historic resource which is intact and retains
many original features and materials um and to create a driveway at in a position where there is a crosswalk and I'm really struggling with this request. The crosswalk is one of the reasons why this is the perfect location. You want
children to be able to walk from a crosswalk into your access uh plaza. You don't want them to walk into a building, you know, into a house and then walk down the block to get to the access
plaza. You want them to walk take the crosswalk right into the access plaza. It's the perfect location and it's like again it's in the middle of the block. That's why in the redevelopment plan they envisioned the access being in the middle of the block. And this is as
middle of the block as you can get and it's right where a crosswalk is. How could you get more perfect? It it seems like there's a genuine public interest here and it makes me think on the earlier demo application we were considering pertaining to PSENG where there was also arguably a public
interest uh there. However, as has been stated numerous times, that is beyond the scope of our review and you know, maybe there's a political solution to what may be a political problem. That being said, I thought you made an
interesting point or argument um about uh the access point being contemplated in the master plan. could I wonder if you could speak more to that um and whether uh the master plan identified any specific parcel or building or just
generally spoke about access. So the redevelopment plan looked at a lot that was uh one door one building away from this lot and they identified that lot because at the time that lot was available.
Now that lot has a house on it. We looked for two years to find someone who we could get the building under contract. We have this building under contract. Uh, and you know, what can I say? That house is not available. And it's actually not as ideal either because the
other nice thing about this particular property is that the elevation of Garfield Avenue at this location is equal to the first floor or let's say the roof of the first floor of what is going to be behind it. So allows
students to walk levely right into an o you know um an entryway to the school. An entryway will put there you know expressly is the size the crosswalk is there and this is the perfect location
for that access way. I think if we were looking at the neighboring property it would be a much stronger argument. Of course they were both built in 1926. The one that's to the north is a little bit older or I think maybe 192 maybe
it's 1928. It's the one next to that which is brand new. And we we have yet to hear from staff on this, but um just pulling up the tax card photo and the current photo and flipping back and forth.
Mhm. The building looks to be in pretty good shape. There is it does even to my untrained eye there's there's a lot of integrity to this building. So, um we'll have to hear from staff. Yeah. Well,
the staff has said he thinks there's integrity and I'm not disputing that this building, you know, has uh this building built in 1926 has elements that were left over from that were built in 1926, right? I'm not disputing that. What I'm
saying is that your criteria, that's not the only one. There's a lot of criteria here and it only meets some subsections in effect of the seventh criteria. It doesn't meet the others. So you you are authorized to make
decisions on the basis of this and the majority of these say this isn't significant. If you take that criteria that a building is, you know, let's say intact and is evocative of the time it was built, every house in Jersey City that's
not in terrible shape meets that criteria. But that's not your remitt here. When when I pushed the historic preservation ordinance and we actually passed it, our goal wasn't to say that every house in Jersey City could never be changed. Our
goal is to save historic neighborhoods that truly have integrity as a neighborhood and in and buildings that have historic significance. That's what this ordinance speaks to. That's what you should be focusing on, I
think, especially when the public interest is so greatly, you know, asking for uh an appreciation that not not every building that is in decent shape should be saved. Any further questions?
Okay. Does that conclude your testimony? Okay. We'll move on to public comment. Um, if there are any members of the public, staff sees no members of the public and recommends a uh motion to open and close public comment. Motion. Second.
All in favor? I Okay. Uh, I am just going to go down there. I'm going to plug in the iPad just for this one just so we can all look at the photos together a little bit and then we can talk through some of the staff comments together. So cold.
Okay. So, it should be pulling up on your screen just for a little reference. Um, I know we've been talking about the property for a little bit now, but we're about almost exactly midblock on Garfield. Um, right across from Myrtle A
where the little red dot is, this is the 1938 tax card photo that we have. And then this is the photo that the applicant submitted. And we have the staff report or the
demolition memo. So, this property was mentioned as uh within the historic preservation pres uh element of the Jersey City master plan. Um it is within the Sherard Claremont historic district that gets mentioned. Um and
um so this was uh built circa 1926. Um, as far as when I review the ordinance and I look at it, um, if you're going through kind of
those different criteria, um, you have the first four criteria that are set out. Um, outside of age, you have if it's associated with events, it's associated with people, it's associated with like an architectural special
specific architectural style. and then um if it's potential to yield any information. So if there's potential for archaeology or learn about the building style at all. And those four criteria are then influenced by the integrity standards
which are the seven further uh location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Um so when I look at this I see that this property from my
professional opinion h maintains uh or or meets the criteria for the architectural style. This is a pretty unique architectural style um very distinctive very evocative of a specific time and period. And then further in reviewing
that we have the standards of integrity and seeing which of those specific seven that it meets. In my professional opinion it meets location, design. I agree that the setting has been diminished and then materials, workmanship, feeling and association are
really all met to in in staff's perspective. Um, I would again request that the commission, you know, speaks on what they see and, you know, has any questions or comments for me, please put
them on the record. Mike, could you go back to the Google map view? Of course. There we go. Could you just elaborate a bit on what makes the architectural style of this building
kind of unique or stand out in your opinion? Of course. Um, so I think that, you know, you have a uh really interesting kind of um cornis line with this kind of like uh
dentilated dips below. You have this really unique porch with the veranda on top. Um, as well as some brick fenestration that you can see if you kind of zoom in. Um, you have these rotated square designs as well as uh,
you know, the brick lintils and sills. And I think, you know, you can see next door it's been stuckcoed over. Um, but this one maintains a lot of that brick facade. Um, that is really unique and
interesting. um and very very distinctive of 1926, you know, 1920s architecture. I I would just add that those that's the krenolated parapit. This is the one thing that I do know because that's so that archers can duck behind defending
the castle. Exactly. Yes, that is right. Thank you for that correction. I would add a comment that um the second floor tripartite window um even if the sashes appear to have been replaced that um it maintains the wider central window
and the flanking narrower windows where a lot of times in Jersey City they get ripped out and three equal width windows are put in like the building next door and um that's really remarkable that these mullions are still here almost a hundred years later. Okay, if there are no further questions,
again, staff's recommendation is a motion to prepare a resolution recommending denial of the demolition application to the zoning officer. I'll make the motion to um prepare a resolution recommending denial.
if you can just elaborate what criteria you're relying on to to make that motion please. Certainly. Um so looking at the uh the criteria uh the age of the building
um the sty the distinctive characteristics and style of architecture the it maintains integrity of loc of location design materials workmanship and feeling.
Do we have a second? I'll second it. Citing the um sorry, citing uh integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, and feeling. Okay, I'll take a roll call vote.
Commissioner Sankamp, I'll vote I. Commissioner Gunther, I. Commissioner Gordon I. Commissioner Edgecom I. Commissioner Kbach I. Vice Chair Gura.
Uh before I give my vote, I just want to state real fast um while I I do admire the competitive um nature of of what you had mentioned. There's not another school around for blocks, that type of deal. Um I
completely understand that and I appreciate that. Um, however, due to the integrity and just as Michael has pointed out, certain key elements of the building, um, I'm inclined to side with
my colleagues on the board and vote I and Chair Cronin. No. Would you like to I thought he made his case. Okay. So, we have one, two, we have six in favor, one against, no abstensions.
The motion to prepare a resolution recommending denial of the demolition application to the zoning officer is approved. Okay. our next item. Uh so I I think that is all everything. Yeah, that that last application has
been carried. So we have made it through all of the applications. Um some updates on tabled cases. I still haven't heard from 172 Belmont. That one Dan is working on. Haven't heard anything. Um 24 Bright Street. Uh we heard a little bit of
their presentation. They are working on changing some things uh and are planning on being here in the August 18th meeting. Um again 300 central a has carried. I have not heard from 384 commun
um if I do I will let everyone know. Um we do not ha need to introduce any resolutions. We don't have any uh resolutions to memorialize. We do not need an executive session, which just leaves adjournment.
Um, does anyone want to make a motion? Motion. Second. All in favor? It is 9:55 p.m. Okay. Thank you.