WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=3EAcRV35qH4

Part: 1

1
00:00:02.560 --> 00:00:27.760
I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Yes. Um Kim, before we do a sunshine

2
00:00:27.760 --> 00:00:43.360
announcement, I do want to welcome our two new members. Uh Council Person uh Little and Commissioner um Barnaby. >> Good evening everybody. You've been sworn in and raring a go, right? >> Yes. >> I love it. I love it. Okay. Uh sunshine

3
00:00:43.360 --> 00:00:57.760
announcement, please. >> Yes, chairman. Good evening everyone. Today is Tuesday, April 28th in the year 2026. This is a Jersey City Planning Board meeting with a scheduled 5:30 p.m. start time. And in accordance with the open public meetings act, notice of this meeting has been posted with the city

4
00:00:57.760 --> 00:01:15.200
clerk on the city bulletin and um posted and left with the city clerk on April 24th of this year. This meeting was also posted on the Jersey City Division of City Planning web page and all distribution materials made available to the board were published and made available to the public. >> Okay, thanks Cam. Could we have a roll

5
00:01:15.200 --> 00:01:30.720
call, please? >> Yes. Acting Vice Chair Gangaden, >> I. >> Commissioner Wick, >> I are here. >> Commissioner Hi. >> You're here. >> Or actually, let me correct that. Councilwoman Little. Yes, that's that's how we do it.

6
00:01:30.720 --> 00:01:46.479
>> Either works. >> We stick with >> Commissioner Barnaby >> here. >> Okay. Commissioner Stamato >> here. >> Commissioner Kaplan >> here. >> Commissioner Patel >> here. >> And Chairman Langston >> here. >> Okay. We have eight commissioners present. We have a quorum. >> Okay. Thank you. Could we swear in the

7
00:01:46.479 --> 00:02:07.600
stop, please, Mike? You guys testimony tonight, the whole truth of the truth. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Do we have correspondence, Cam? >> Uh, chairman, for the first time in a long time, we do not have any correspondents. >> All right. >> We do have um the sunshine announcement

8
00:02:07.600 --> 00:02:22.319
marked as B1 in evidence. >> Okay. Excellent. >> So, let's get past adjournments. It's a lot of adjournments. A lot of adjournments. Okay. So, let's uh move right to old

9
00:02:22.319 --> 00:02:40.800
business. We'll call item 8 is case P2026-000046 is a one-year extension for 216 Academy Street. >> Good evening, council. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, other members of the board. Adam Lazarus of Prime TuL, and Misselli. On behalf of

10
00:02:40.800 --> 00:02:56.400
the applicant, we are here seeking our first one-year extension for the site plan approval, which I believe expires May 7th of this year. And what's the reason for the extension? >> Uh primarily it is that once we had our approval and started going through the

11
00:02:56.400 --> 00:03:13.200
construction process, uh neighbor did reach out to ask if we wanted to purchase their property. They are in the middle of negotiating that deal. If we were able to purchase that, we would come back for an amended approval to include that property and if not then they would go through with the current approvals. >> Okay. All right. Thank you, council. Any

12
00:03:13.200 --> 00:03:29.120
questions? Anyone? >> No. >> Okay. Hey, is there anybody here from the public that wants to comment? Anyone from public? >> Chair, see no one from the public. I would like to close the public portion. >> Okay. Motion made and seconded. Public is closed. Um Matt, anything? >> Uh, no further comment from staff.

13
00:03:29.120 --> 00:03:44.400
Staffer recommends approval. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Chair. I'd like to make a motion to approve KP 2026-0046 as presented to the board with staff recommendations and conditions. >> Second. >> All right. Motion made and seconded for approval. >> Uh, Vice Chair Gangadid.

14
00:03:44.400 --> 00:04:00.560
>> I. Commissioner Stamato. >> I >> Commissioner Wick >> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan >> I. >> Commissioner Patel. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Barnaby. >> I. >> Commissioner Council person Little >> I. >> And Chair Langston. >> I.

15
00:04:00.560 --> 00:04:19.120
>> Motion carries. All in favor. >> Thank you very much. Have a good night. >> Thank you council. You too. Let's call item nine is case P206-000035 is a one-year extension for 30 Newport Parkway. Yes. Uh, good evening, Mr. Chairman, board members, uh, board professionals

16
00:04:19.120 --> 00:04:34.639
members. My name is Michael Silver. I'm an attorney Murphy Shils located in North New Jersey. Is that mic on? >> I don't think that's on. >> Sorry. Can you hear me now? >> Perfect. >> Okay. Uh, Michael Silbert from Murphy Schiller and Wilks here on behalf of the

17
00:04:34.639 --> 00:04:52.080
applicant NC Housing Associates number 200 CO. Uh, we are also seeking a one-year extension. Um, we received site plan approval in a memorialized resolution on May 22nd, 2024, set to expire this year, May 22nd, 2026.

18
00:04:52.080 --> 00:05:08.720
Um, we like the uh prior applicant, we are exploring possible amendments to the originally approved site plan application. Um we have worked uh through compliance and are currently working on meeting um the permitting

19
00:05:08.720 --> 00:05:24.800
requirements under the former approval but we wanted to provide a buffer in case we I believe we are filing an amended application. Um so we wanted a buffer with our existing approvals while we come back to this board to seek uh amended approval. >> Okay. Thank you council. Any

20
00:05:24.800 --> 00:05:40.479
>> one year extension we are seeking >> one year. Uh any questions anyone? >> No. >> All right. Thank you. Is there anybody here from public that wants to comment? Anyone from public? >> Chair, see no one from the public. I would like to close the public portion. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion made and seconded. Uh

21
00:05:40.479 --> 00:05:54.560
public is closed. Camp, anything you want to add? Any questions? >> Planning staff would just ask that the applicant's attorney agree on the record to the conditions that were placed on the original approval and >> absolutely. >> Planning staff recommends approval. >> Okay. Thank you. Chair would like to

22
00:05:54.560 --> 00:06:12.080
make a motion to approve KPB 2026-000035 with staff recommendations and conditions. >> Second. >> All right. Motion made and seconded for approval. >> Acting Vice Chair Congadan >> I. >> Commissioner Wick >> I. >> Councilwoman Little. >> I. >> Commissioner Barnaby. >> I.

23
00:06:12.080 --> 00:06:28.400
>> Commissioner Stamato. >> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan. >> I. >> Commissioner Patel. >> I. >> And Chairman Langston. >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, council. Let's call item 10 is case P2025-0224 R two one-year extensions for 16 Van

24
00:06:28.400 --> 00:06:44.800
Ripen Avenue. >> Good evening council. >> Good evening uh Mr. Chairman, commissioners Charles Harrington of Connell Foley on behalf of the applicant. Yes, we are asking for two one-year extensions. Um this uh project was approved in September of 2022 so

25
00:06:44.800 --> 00:07:03.280
with variances. So it uh it was um valid through September 2024. So we are asking for these retroactively which you can request under the municipal land use law. Uh the reason is uh the property is in zone 4 in the journal square redevelopment plan area. Uh there have

26
00:07:03.280 --> 00:07:18.639
been you know discussions over the last few years of possible amendments to zone 4 that would uh then uh incorporate affordable housing. So, um, this client, uh, along with, uh, some others that I have have been following those amendments and they're looking for an

27
00:07:18.639 --> 00:07:35.759
extension through September of 2026 to see see what happens in in that that regard with the the new um, administration and council. >> Okay. Thank you, council. Any questions, anyone? >> No. >> Um, sorry, I have a question. >> Sure. Go ahead. So, if the extension

28
00:07:35.759 --> 00:07:50.880
were granted, that would mean your client would not need to comply with whatever um new requirements for affordable housing might be set forth. >> Well, it's it's >> because they'd be grandfathered or am I misunderstanding? >> They Yes. I mean, they they would be

29
00:07:50.880 --> 00:08:07.919
grandfathered. This is uh it's a the approval for seven stories, 35 units. Um, so but with the with the proposed amendments as that have been kicked around, you would have um yeah, you would you would have a larger building with with uh more affordable housing. And I think that's what they're hoping

30
00:08:07.919 --> 00:08:25.520
for. >> That's what by by they do you mean the council or your client or both? >> Client. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. >> And and so by granting the extension, we enable that larger building with more affordable housing. >> That's right. Okay. That's right. >> Thank you. Possibly.

31
00:08:25.520 --> 00:08:40.080
>> Possibly. >> Possibly. >> Potentially, hopefully. I I mean it's it's not set in stone. >> We keep the option open. >> Set in stone that that happens, but >> hopeful. >> Yeah, that's right. >> Right. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions? Anyone?

32
00:08:40.080 --> 00:08:56.640
>> Okay. Is anyone here from the public that wants to comment on this application? Anyone from public? >> Chair see no one from the public. I would like to close the public portion. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion is seconded. Public is closed. Uh Matt, do you have any questions, comments, problems? >> Staff recommends approval. This is a

33
00:08:56.640 --> 00:09:12.320
pretty straightforward extension request. Um it's, you know, fairly typical for, you know, vest a development with vested rights to want to preserve the applicability of that application as

34
00:09:12.320 --> 00:09:27.760
long as possible. If they're not ready to build for whatever reason, be it economic, practical, or otherwise, staff recommends approval. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve case B2025-0224 is presented to the board with staff

35
00:09:27.760 --> 00:09:43.600
recommendations and conditions. >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second for approval. >> Vice Chair Gangan >> I. >> Commissioner Stano >> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan >> I. >> Commissioner Patel >> I. >> Commissioner Barnaby >> I.

36
00:09:43.600 --> 00:10:00.560
>> Commissioner Council person Little >> I. >> Commissioner Wick >> I. >> And Chairman Langston >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, council. All right. Uh let's call case P2026-000044 is a one-year extension for 216 Palisade app.

37
00:10:00.560 --> 00:10:18.079
>> Okay. Uh again, for the record, Charles Harrington of Connell Foley on behalf of the applicant. Uh here and this this application was approved in May of 2024 and it runs through May of 2026. We are asking for a one-year uh extension. I I

38
00:10:18.079 --> 00:10:32.800
can you know represent the reasons for this and this is an approval for us 51 senior housing units um and it had a one small variances variance uh in connection with the the original approval we are asking for one-year

39
00:10:32.800 --> 00:10:49.200
extension um my client has been busy with other projects uh they they are the developer of the sing tower uh so they have been focused on that that's the one at the end of Summit Avenue uh by Route 139 uh they also would like to take another have some time to to look at

40
00:10:49.200 --> 00:11:05.440
this project at possible amendments and uh they've had uh discussions with some neighborhood representatives about u maybe some changes as well. So we're asking for for the extension to give some more time to discuss that. >> Okay. Thank you council. Any questions? Anyone? >> Um I noticed this is at 216 Palisate

41
00:11:05.440 --> 00:11:21.440
Avenue. Um is there any connection at all with uh Christ Hospital HR? >> No. Okay. That's a good question but no. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Any other questions? Anyone? >> No. >> All right. Thank you, councel. Uh, is

42
00:11:21.440 --> 00:11:37.279
there anybody here from the public that wants to comment on this application? Anyone from public? >> Chair see no one from the public. I would like to close the public portion. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion made and seconded. Public is closed. Uh, Sophia, any anything? >> Staff asks that the applicant continue

43
00:11:37.279 --> 00:11:52.640
to agree to the conditions of the prior approval. >> Yes. >> Uh, staff recommends approval. >> Okay. Thank you. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve KPB 2026-000044 as presented to the board with staff recommendations and conditions. >> Second.

44
00:11:52.640 --> 00:12:08.560
>> All right. Motion and second for approval. >> Acting Vice Chair Gangadan. >> I. >> Commissioner Wick. >> I. >> Commissioner Council person Little. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Barnaby. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Samato. >> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Patel.

45
00:12:08.560 --> 00:12:24.399
>> Hi. >> And chairman Langston. >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, council. All right, let's get into new business. Call case P2025-0225 is a minor subdivision with C variance uh for 55 to 59 Kar Avenue. Good

46
00:12:24.399 --> 00:12:40.600
evening. >> Good evening, Stephen Joseph for the applicant. This is actually a preliminary and final major subdivision with C variances. It's not listed correctly on the agenda, but it was was noticed properly. This is a notice case. Uh I do have notices. >> All right. Thank you.

47
00:12:40.959 --> 00:13:34.639
>> Thank you, council. Did you find one before? >> You're good. Chairman, I receive the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application 55 to 59Q Avenue here in the city. It does appear to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for purpose of the record.

48
00:13:34.639 --> 00:13:51.279
>> Okay. Thank you, council. >> Thank you. Uh 5559Q. This is located midblock on Kedar Avenue between Garfield Avenue Ocean. It's in the R1 zone. It's a 16,000t lot. We're proposing a subdivision into six lots.

49
00:13:51.279 --> 00:14:07.519
Um, all the lots will be conforming with the exception of 4.06 which will be uh undersized and require a variance for lot area. Um, the other thing you need to know about this is we are minimizing the curb cuts. Three curb cuts are proposed for a total of uh six

50
00:14:07.519 --> 00:14:23.360
lots. Jeff Lewis is our architect this evening. He's going to have some brief testimony to describe the subdivision. And then we have planning testimony from Alex Dherty. Okay. Thank you, council. >> Truth. >> Yes.

51
00:14:23.360 --> 00:14:40.399
>> Jeffrey Lewis. J E F R E Y L E W I S. >> Mr. Lewis. Good evening. Your license is current in New Jersey tonight. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. >> Thank you. Okay. So, 55K Avenue is a midblock oversized lot uh located between Ocean Avenue and Garfield

52
00:14:40.399 --> 00:14:57.120
Avenue. Uh we have the cemetery right across the street from us. Uh we are in the R1 zone here. Uh even though it's currently used for kind of storage space. Uh it's a 1600 16,000 square ft lot with a width of 150 ft and then the depth varies a little bit. It's mostly

53
00:14:57.120 --> 00:15:12.880
110 ft deep, but at the end it's uh it goes down to 90 ft. And so we are subdividing into six lots each of which are 25 ft wide. So, five of those lots end up being 25 ft wide by 110 ft deep. So, they're a little slightly oversized.

54
00:15:12.880 --> 00:15:28.399
However, that six lot is uh 25 ft deep uh by 90 ft deep. You can see it here at the end here. You can just see how our lot jogs in kind of perfectly at that last 25 ft. Uh so that ends up being 2,250 ft, which is slightly undersized for the

55
00:15:28.399 --> 00:15:44.240
R1 zone. Uh but the one thing I just guess I would testify to is that as an architect, I have designed homes on lots of this size. Um, and it's certainly uh pretty easy to do without any variances. So, we think we anticipate we wouldn't need any variances to build on this lot.

56
00:15:44.240 --> 00:15:59.519
>> Thank you, Jeff. Um, if there's no questions for Jeff, we could bring our planner up. >> Um, do we have driveway layouts or anything, council? >> We are. >> So, we're not proposing any of the structures at this time, but we have

57
00:15:59.519 --> 00:16:14.560
shown the location of any curb cuts. They're maximum of 10 ft wide and there's three of them for the total of six uh lots. You could see them there centered. >> There you go. C >> can you just uh explain what the current cur cuts are in comparison, please?

58
00:16:14.560 --> 00:16:30.639
>> Sure. Uh currently there are two curb cuts uh one located here and one located here each for these two entries. And so it'll go from two to three. Okay. Mr. Lois, how I don't know if it

59
00:16:30.639 --> 00:16:47.120
shows it on there. Um, what's your distance between the curb cuts? >> Well, I mean, it should be 2550. 40 ft. >> Okay, >> that was quick. >> Yeah. Well, it's 50 ft and 10 foot curve

60
00:16:47.120 --> 00:17:02.639
cuts each. >> We have to do a little bit of math as good. I'm impressed. >> So, we'll get two nice parking spots there. >> Okay, perfect. All right. Any questions from Mr. Can you just comment on kind of the curb cuts look like they're in the middle of the proposed new lot lines? >> That's what zoning has been asking us to

61
00:17:02.639 --> 00:17:18.640
do. So each each two lots will share one curb cut and they're each going to have their own uh driveway and garage. >> Gotcha. Thank you. >> All right. Any other questions for Mr. Lewis? Anyone? >> All right. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. >> All right. Let's bring Alex up for some

62
00:17:18.640 --> 00:17:34.160
brief planning testimony. Um we do want to enter this as exhibit A1. It's uh Alex will describe it after he gets sworn in. >> Sure. >> It's going to be A2. A2. >> You sworn into the truth, the whole truth, nothing. >> I do. >> Your name?

63
00:17:34.160 --> 00:17:51.200
>> Alexander Derty. D O U G H E R T Y. >> Thank you. >> Uh good evening, sir. We've It's been a long time since we qualified you, I think. >> Yes. Um >> it's been a couple years. Yeah. >> Uh so your license is still current? >> Yes, my license are current in good standing. >> Did it lapse at all in that time? Okay.

64
00:17:51.200 --> 00:18:07.840
Thank you're qualified. >> Um so before you uh not to belabor the board um pretty straight down the middle application major subdivision to create six new lots as council indicated and the architect uh for this evening I just prepared exhibit six slides. It's going to be maps and photographs for

65
00:18:07.840 --> 00:18:23.600
orientation and where we are in in the neighborhood context here. Slide one is a a crop out from >> council. We're going to mark it as A2 for purpose of the record. Does it have a title and a date on it? Um it's planning exhibits for five uh 5559 Kar Avenue, Jersey City. And the dates will

66
00:18:23.600 --> 00:18:40.400
be the photos I took. Um which was April 11th, I believe. >> This is Yep. >> A2 and council obviously will submit that after the hearing. >> Yes. >> So slide one is where we are within the respects of the zoning. Um as you can see the light gray, we are in that R1

67
00:18:40.400 --> 00:18:57.200
zone across the street. The green is a cemetery. Um, slide two is an NJ D's geo web properties outlined in red for a little context of uh where we are. And really this map really is just kind of uh to illustrate the various uh building

68
00:18:57.200 --> 00:19:14.480
footprints and and the um the lots that are that are out here. As we can see, it's a pretty substantially sized lot given the context of of the surrounding neighborhoods. And again, the Bay View Cemetery across the street. So, the next couple slides, uh, 3 through six are drone shots that I took

69
00:19:14.480 --> 00:19:30.799
myself, uh, April 11th. This is what it looks like in real time. Uh, and as you can see, there are three structures, as the architect indicated, um, with curb cuts in in between. And, um, what we have here is surrounding residential uh, housing. Again, across the street is a

70
00:19:30.799 --> 00:19:46.000
cemetery. The next slide is, you know, kind of boots on the ground, ground view. really is just, you know, your one-story garage, multiple uh bay doors. Um I would argue that there's more than one curb cut that the whole entire property would be one curb cut because you have

71
00:19:46.000 --> 00:20:02.799
to access the the garage doors. Um the next slide is kind of just a uh zoom out for context of um where we at within the neighborhood. As you can see, there are a few uh residential houses to the left of the site, the large parking lot

72
00:20:02.799 --> 00:20:18.480
servicing the apartment complex uh to the right. So, um, kind of just an an odd piece, uh, in the middle here. And then this is kind of a top down, um, shot, drone shot, top down. And really what the purpose of this, uh, slide is that third building off to the right,

73
00:20:18.480 --> 00:20:35.440
that weird jog, that's kind of, uh, the the issue, uh, with this subdivision. Um, all five of the lots, proposed lots are clean subdivision. They actually exceed the minimum um, lot uh, area for the R1 uh, neighborhood housing district zone. And then this one is just slightly

74
00:20:35.440 --> 00:20:50.640
uh smaller. And when I say slightly smaller, um it's at 2250 and the requirement is uh um 2500. So it's just slightly smaller. With the R1 zoning district, there is no um rear lot depth

75
00:20:50.640 --> 00:21:06.640
um standard requirement. Um so it it is a little bit shorter. If you look on the architectural uh plans, it comes in a little bit. Um but that small deviation I would argue from a planning standpoint um we can justify under the C2 balancing test where the benefits as a whole

76
00:21:06.640 --> 00:21:22.400
substantially outweigh the detriments here. And before I get started on that section 345-41 for the R1 zone, it says the purpose the purpose of this district is to accommodate existing housing, encourage compatible infill, preserve the streetscape and utilize and preserve on

77
00:21:22.400 --> 00:21:38.880
street parking uh where lot frontage is narrow. So, I like to just kind of encourage this idea that we are, you know, bringing in a compatible infill. This is a residential neighborhood district. When I comb over the zone, in fact, I would argue that we're we're we're most likely more than not, and I'll kind of defer to the uh the board

78
00:21:38.880 --> 00:21:55.280
planners on this, we're getting rid of a non-permitted use in the zone for a what is essentially a permitted use, the residential component here. Um, and I say that because point A of permitted uses is first floor commercial provided at the commercial units existed in the 1930s tax assessor's photos. I don't

79
00:21:55.280 --> 00:22:10.559
have clarification if this was here in the 1930s. It's it's it's possible. I would probably guess not, but nonetheless, the intent of the R1 zone is residential and encourage that compat compatible infill. So, when I look at the C2, the positives here, um, project

80
00:22:10.559 --> 00:22:26.159
rationale, we reinforce the neighborhood scale and rhythm. Um, we create context sensitive appropriate infill housing, certainly more efficient use of land. Um, and will it certainly enhance the streetscapes and the visual cohesion here. I think this is a really desirable neighborhood across the streets pretty

81
00:22:26.159 --> 00:22:43.120
quiet. Um, you know, um, as considering most streets in Jersey City and then I would argue that, um, you know, when we talk about the minimal and highly localized block um, here it's it's right in the middle. It's a big section and we can certainly uh, you know, bring that into scale. I would say this advances

82
00:22:43.120 --> 00:22:58.960
purpose a the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. The subdivision creates opportunities for modern code compliant dwellings that meet current fire building safety standards for reinvestment in neighborhood is certainly reinvestments in the community at large. Purpose E for appropriate population densities. These

83
00:22:58.960 --> 00:23:16.000
six conforming residential lots um allow for context appropriate residential uh um intensification as far as fully servicing you know the urban fabric and setting. Um the resulting density is well within the R1 zone's intent and contributes to a balanced diversified housing landscape purpose trees

84
00:23:16.000 --> 00:23:32.400
efficient use of land. Um the subdivision re reuses an existing oversized parcel and established neighborhood ensuring efficient uh land use without consuming new land and expanding infrastructure beyond uh existing capacities. Purpose eye for desirable visual environment. These will

85
00:23:32.400 --> 00:23:48.799
be new homes. Um getting rid of that you know one-story commercial structure garage if you will. Um certainly more desirable vision environment within the R1 zoning purpose. M really um to coordinate public and private development with efficient use of land. Again, this land is here. The

86
00:23:48.799 --> 00:24:05.280
infrastructures here, we can make more efficient use of that. Provide for housing. In conclusion, I believe the subdivision uh meaningfully advances the MLUL, improves neighborhood form, and provides orderly and logical residential opportunities within uh this neighborhood. the deviation for the lot

87
00:24:05.280 --> 00:24:20.640
area, uh, my professional opinion is is minimal. Um, and you know, we have a parking lot next door. So, if there was ever going to be one of our lots that is undersized, I I would give it the lot towards the end the end cap as we have all that open space and and and it's not going to be out of character. But,

88
00:24:20.640 --> 00:24:37.120
nonetheless, that lot size would not, in my opinion, be visible from the streetscape as the lots width are are consistent in rhythm. Um, so with that, I'll conclude. I do not see any substantial detriment. I see this advancing the R1 and meeting the purposes of the R1 zone and I think this uh approval would be warranted on a C2

89
00:24:37.120 --> 00:24:52.240
balance. >> Great. Thank you, Alex. Um that does conclude our direct testimony. This is a major subdivision so we wanted to make sure we put all the proofs that we needed to on the record. Um if questions from the board, we're happy to address them. >> Um thank you councel. Any questions for Mr. Dy? Go ahead. One question, Chris.

90
00:24:52.240 --> 00:25:08.320
Just curious, looking at the survey and this photo, could could you just kind of comment where the I guess northerly side of your property is with respect to the fence and and the the pavement? um >> the northerly side >> or the between lot if you if you go to the um

91
00:25:08.320 --> 00:25:25.039
>> I would argue the northerly side would be >> we could also bring Jeff back up to uh >> yeah bring up his so the norly side would be >> towards the parking lot >> or towards the left of this >> towards the left of the exhibit. >> Yeah. Ju just curious like where your

92
00:25:25.039 --> 00:25:40.320
property line is versus lot three compared to the built environment. I think if you go lower you were showing >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So I would say it's you know property line is probably pretty consistent with the fence line

93
00:25:40.320 --> 00:25:56.799
but I'm not a surveyor existing survey. >> Yeah existing survey will be clear. >> Okay here we go. That's what you want to say if you have some space there. >> Yeah. >> Jeeoff can you uh just comment on that briefly maybe? >> Sure. Uh so right now the existing

94
00:25:56.799 --> 00:26:12.640
building uh that we're showing on the left of the drawing here is it looks like between five and 10 feet off of the property line and until it gets to the back and we are right up against that back property line. >> Yeah. And you could see the the adjacent build the apartment building at the bottom of the of the exhibit as well

95
00:26:12.640 --> 00:26:28.720
where that building comes out. >> Gotcha. But there is a space in this case to the left between tax lot 3 and your property line that is asphalt pavement currently of the current stucco frame building but is on a different property. >> So to the left here what they have is

96
00:26:28.720 --> 00:26:45.279
their parking lot here and then here there's a curb and a little bit of a planting area it looks like. Or is that the mcatam area? I'm sorry that's madam actually. But there is a curb and then it's up a little bit. I think you could probably see that in your picture right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's this right here.

97
00:26:45.279 --> 00:27:00.880
So, our property line is is right in the middle here. >> Okay. >> Just a little odd, but all good. Thank you. >> So, Commissioner, I don't think the fence demarks the property line. I think the fence demarks where that curb is because I believe there's a change in

98
00:27:00.880 --> 00:27:17.360
elevation. That's probably to prevent anybody in that parking lot from >> Makes sense. That explains it. Thank you. I think one of the the more noticeable uh improvements we get to pull those three structures off that rear property line because it's my understanding right now they're going back to the the rear property line up

99
00:27:17.360 --> 00:27:32.960
there. So there's residents behind us so we can you know kind of pull those properties off that line. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you sir and council. That was your presentation. >> That does conclude a direct presentation. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh is there anybody

100
00:27:32.960 --> 00:27:47.440
here from the public that wants to comment on this application? Anyone from public? Chair, see no one from the public. I would like to close the public portion. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Matt, do you have anything you want to add? >> Um staff substantiates and agrees with

101
00:27:47.440 --> 00:28:01.600
Mr. Do's testimony regarding the um the C2 test for the variance. Um so the this is in the R1 neighborhood um neighborhood housing zone. Um the very typical typology in that zone is your

102
00:28:01.600 --> 00:28:19.360
typical 25 by 100 foot lot um with small neighborhood scale housing. Um that's copy pasted all over Jersey City. Um it's your standard residential fabric here. um the applicant's proposal takes

103
00:28:19.360 --> 00:28:35.520
what is a sort of a pre-existing non-conforming deviation from that pattern and is resubdividing the land to continue that pattern. Um and in that sense it's advancing the purposes of the district itself, the purposes of our LDO and our

104
00:28:35.520 --> 00:28:51.200
municipal land use law. Um as Mr. Noles testified, um that non-conforming lot um you will be able to build a conforming structure. so they wouldn't have to come back and go in front of the zoning board for a variance to develop that lot. Um

105
00:28:51.200 --> 00:29:08.640
the um rear yard is set in our zoning code as a percentage of the um percentage of the lot depth and so the required rear yard scales with the size of the lot. Um so there's no situation where our zoning code presupposes that

106
00:29:08.640 --> 00:29:25.919
you're supposed to have 100 ft back there and there's no conf there's no geometric conflict. Um staff prepared a memo dated April 9th, 2026. Um staff just requests that the applicant agree to the two conditions within the memo.

107
00:29:25.919 --> 00:29:43.120
>> Yes, the applicant agrees. Uh believe there was also a forestry memo if I'm not mistaken. >> Correct. Um >> so those uh we will work with forestry

108
00:29:43.120 --> 00:29:58.399
on addressing their comments as as well. So the conditions in the staff report together with the uh comments from forestry which is undated but uh we acknowledge them and and we'll work for addressing those comments. >> Yeah. The substance of that memo is

109
00:29:58.399 --> 00:30:15.200
essentially to you know if and when these lots are developed we would trigger street free requirements here. um you've left adequate space between the curb cuts to provide for conforming tree pits um which um and um just with regards to the

110
00:30:15.200 --> 00:30:30.640
offset shared curb cuts that um Commissioner Kaplan brought up um so that is not only preferred by our zoning code but it's actually in a situation like this it's the only form of curb cut and vehicular access

111
00:30:30.640 --> 00:30:47.600
allowed. Um, and that's in order to preserve on street parking. So, um, previously, you know, normally you cannot have a curb cut and off streetet parking on narrow lots like this unless you're doing a shared curb cut configuration such as the applicant proposes. And with that, staff recommends approval with

112
00:30:47.600 --> 00:31:03.760
conditions. >> Okay. Thank you, Matt. >> Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve case B205-0225 as presented to the board with staff recommendations and conditions. >> Seconded. >> Okay. Motion is made and seconded for approval with conditions.

113
00:31:03.760 --> 00:31:19.360
>> Acted vice chair Gangadan. >> Yeah, I um based on the variance requested um I don't feel that it's any detriment to the general public. So my vote is I >> Commissioner Stamato. >> I'm in favor of it. >> Commissioner Kaplan

114
00:31:19.360 --> 00:31:36.000
>> I. >> Commissioner Patel >> I. >> Commissioner Wick >> I. >> Commissioner Councilwoman Little >> I. >> And Commissioner Barnaby >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor? Oh, and Chairman Langston, my apologies. >> Okay, it's fine. Um, I had a whole

115
00:31:36.000 --> 00:31:51.760
speech prepared, too, Matt. Um, so yeah, I agree with Mr. Dard's testimony. I think he's spot on here. There's, you know, falls onto the C2. Um there's no detriment to the zone plan, the master plan, and uh certainly the

116
00:31:51.760 --> 00:32:08.480
benefit of um you know, losing that full sitewide curb cut is is definitely a benefit to the community. So, uh my vote is I. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> Okay. Thank you. Have a good evening. Um

117
00:32:08.480 --> 00:32:23.120
Mr. Chairman, while I'm up here, there are uh two matters at the end of this agenda which I am told will not be reached this evening. while I'm here. Um, >> you're welcome to stay council. I don't I don't know that we don't >> make them or not. >> Um, >> I can almost encourage you to stay

118
00:32:23.120 --> 00:32:39.440
council. >> My professionals on those are not here this evening as they uh concurge with that with that opinion. So I I would like to carry uh those two cases this evening which are um >> 21 and 22

119
00:32:39.440 --> 00:33:04.320
>> 21 and 22 662 Communal Avenue P2025-0032 and 3032 Waverly Street P2025-0127. >> I think that's August. Um, council, actually, we were going to carry with preservation of notice to May 12th. Um, that's what I was told.

120
00:33:04.320 --> 00:33:21.679
>> Yes, we're going to try and carry with preservation of notice until we can't carry with preservation of notice anymore. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> Okay. So once again, case number P2025-000032,

121
00:33:21.679 --> 00:33:38.240
preliminary and final major site plan with C variances for 662 Communa A uh will be carried to a date certain May 12th with preservation of notice. Uh and case P2025-0127,

122
00:33:38.240 --> 00:33:54.720
a minor site plan with C variances for 30 to 32 Waverly street will be carried to a date certain May 12th for preservation of notice. uh anyone from the public just, you know, for information purpose. Um if you're here for either of those applications

123
00:33:54.720 --> 00:34:10.320
tonight, you will not receive new notice. This is your notice that we will hear them possibly on May 12th. Um but you will not receive new notice on those applications. >> Okay. Thank you, council. All right,

124
00:34:10.320 --> 00:34:27.599
let's call item 14 is case P2025-0180 is a minor subdivision with C variances for 113 to 115 Oak Street. Good evening, council. >> Good evening everyone. Uh Michael Higgins, Castano Quigley, Cherami for the applicant. I have the uh proof of

125
00:34:27.599 --> 00:35:44.359
notices here if I may approach >> please. Council, is there or is there not a variance on the application? >> There is a sideyard variance for the side sideyard setback. I'll see you there.

126
00:36:15.839 --> 00:36:31.119
Okay. Um, understanding that there's a clerical issue with um with this notice, it seems. Um, we're going to have to look into that and and come back. So, I'd request that we carry until the next available meeting. I >> think you're going to have to renotice

127
00:36:31.119 --> 00:36:47.119
it. Can't put it on the 12th. >> Yes. Um, you'll have to renotice. We'll have to work with staff on coordinating that time and date. Um, at this time it would be adjourned to a date uncertain. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you, council. All

128
00:36:47.119 --> 00:37:03.440
right. So, this one's different, everybody. Um, if you're here for that application tonight, we're not hearing it. There's a problem with the notice. Um, you will receive new notice. So, we don't have a certain date that we're going to hear that application,

129
00:37:03.440 --> 00:37:20.240
but if you're here for that, you will receive new notice. So, moving on, let's move on to item 15 is a minor subdivision case number P2025-0131. Uh, minor subdivision for 61 Prospect

130
00:37:20.240 --> 00:37:36.160
Street, Mr. Burke. Good evening. >> Thank Thank you, uh, Chairman. Good evening to all. Um, Jim Burke representing the applicant. It is a minor site plan. Uh, there are no variances in this matter. Um, and I'll just state for the record there is a

131
00:37:36.160 --> 00:37:53.599
curb cut existing which will be closed up. Um, this was carried from another hearing. All right. So, uh, we did notice for that hearing. So, hopefully um, we're in good shape and uh, with that I I would just bring up uh, my uh,

132
00:37:53.599 --> 00:38:46.079
my surveyor. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, Mr. Burke, for purpose of the record, the notice was marked as A1. So, >> thank you councel. Yeah. >> No, I'm sorry. It's Valeri Brigginski

133
00:38:46.079 --> 00:39:03.040
and spell it. V A L E R Y. Last name B as in boy. R A G I N S K Y. >> I >> Yeah, same here. I don't know why you didn't have it. Um, good evening, sir. Uh, you're licensed in the state of New Jersey. >> I am.

134
00:39:03.040 --> 00:39:18.640
>> And that license is current tonight and in good standing. Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. >> All right. Thank you. So, just um briefly walk the board through the uh proposal um and state if you would the current configuration and what's proposed.

135
00:39:18.640 --> 00:39:35.200
>> So, currently there's a um a three-story um dwelling on the property. Um it's a 50 by 100 foot lot. Um we're proposing to subdivide the property, a minor subdivision into two

136
00:39:35.200 --> 00:39:51.440
25 by 100 foot lots and proposing to demo the building um and remove the curb cut that's currently in front of the property. >> And uh and I stated on the record there are no variances. Can you confirm that?

137
00:39:51.440 --> 00:40:09.040
>> Yeah, there are no variances for either proposed lot. I'd like to stretch the soup, but I don't need to. >> Good. I think we have enough. All right. Thank you, sir. Uh, any questions? Anyone? >> Yeah. After the building is demolished, what is what is the proposed use

138
00:40:09.040 --> 00:40:24.880
>> there? At this time, they have not proposed any use. My guess uh from speaking with them, it may be something coming in which are conforming uh structures, >> but that's not in front of us tonight. So, we're strictly hearing the the subdivision and the removal of the curb

139
00:40:24.880 --> 00:40:43.200
cut. >> Okay. >> If any relief is needed, the board, you know, a new application would have to be submitted. >> Okay. Any other questions? Anyone? >> No. >> All right. Thank you, sir. We appreciate it. >> You can sit because we're >> Well, let's finish council. That's your

140
00:40:43.200 --> 00:40:58.079
presentation, though. >> But I don't want him to leave. >> No. No. Me neither. Um, so that's your presentation. Nothing else? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. So is anybody here from the public that wants to comment on this application? Anyone from public? >> Chair see no one from the public. I would like to close the public portion. >> Second.

141
00:40:58.079 --> 00:41:15.040
>> Okay. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Sophia, floor is yours. >> This is a straightforward subdivision with no variances. There's not much to comment. Staff does ask that the applicant agree to the conditions in the

142
00:41:15.040 --> 00:41:31.119
memo dated March 24th, 2026. The applicant agrees. >> Okay. Staff recommends approval. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Chair. I'd like to make a motion to approve KP205-0131 as presented to to the board with staff recommendations and conditions. >> Second.

143
00:41:31.119 --> 00:41:47.760
>> Okay. We have a motion and a second uh with conditions for approval. >> Vice Chair Genghan. >> I. >> Commissioner Wick. >> I. >> Commissioner Council person Little. >> I. >> Commissioner Barnaby. >> I. >> Commissioner Stamato. >> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan. >> Hi. Commissioner Patel.

144
00:41:47.760 --> 00:42:03.920
>> Hi, >> and Chairman Langston. >> Hi. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> Okay. Thank you. So, let's call item 16 is KP2025-0128 is a minor subdivision for 231 New York Avenue. >> Thank you, chairman. Um, same situation.

145
00:42:03.920 --> 00:42:43.079
It's a minor subdivision, no variances. I'm going to hand counsel the uh the notice because uh this is u the first night we were scheduled for this matter. Chairman, I received the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application.

146
00:42:43.680 --> 00:43:05.040
It's 229 New York Avenue here in the city. It does appear to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for purpose of the record. >> Thank you, council. Go ahead, Mr. Burke. >> Um, perhaps the witness needs to be sworn in again. Are you good? >> No, he is sworn, but let's just uh note

147
00:43:05.040 --> 00:43:20.800
for the record that he has been sworn in. Um, and uh, I'm assuming did not lose your license since the last application. So, you are still qualified, sir? No. >> And are under oath? >> For the record, just state your name again, sir.

148
00:43:20.800 --> 00:43:37.920
That's Valeri Brigginski. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. >> Now, in a similar situation, there was a curb cut. There is an existing curb cut and that will be closed. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And so, just give the uh board a summary of what the lot is now and what

149
00:43:37.920 --> 00:43:52.560
the lot will become. >> So, currently there's a two and a half story uh dwelling on the property. Um 50 by 100 for this property. Uh we're proposing to subdivide into two lots 25

150
00:43:52.560 --> 00:44:10.240
by 100 each. Um no variances proposed in or needed in the two properties and the existing curb cut will be removed. >> Again we'll stipulate if the uh when when the u owner proposes to build

151
00:44:10.240 --> 00:44:28.000
something if variance is needed then a new application will be submitted. Okay. Thank you, council. Any questions? Anyone? >> No. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I do have to note for the record that um

152
00:44:28.000 --> 00:44:43.440
this is my neighborhood, but I am slightly outside of the 200 foot mark. So, I'm able to vote on this application. Uh okay, council, that's your presentation? >> Yes. >> All right. Uh is there anybody here from public that wants to comment on this application? Anyone from public?

153
00:44:43.440 --> 00:44:58.720
>> Chair, see no one from the public. I would like to close the public portion. >> Second. >> All right. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Ben, you have anything you want to add? >> Uh yes. Upon review, uh it appears that the proposed lots do adhere to the

154
00:44:58.720 --> 00:45:15.040
standards of the R1 zone as written and there are no variances uh variances associated with this proposal. Uh the application advances the purposes of the R1 zone by encouraging impatable infill uh compatible infill, excuse me. Uh, and staff recommends approval provided that

155
00:45:15.040 --> 00:45:31.359
the applicant agree to the conditions in the staff memo dated April 28th, 2026. >> The applicant agrees. >> Great. Staff recommends approval. Okay. Thank you. >> Chair like to make a motion to approve case 2025-0128 as presented to the board with staff

156
00:45:31.359 --> 00:45:47.040
recommendations and conditions. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion is made and seconded for approval. Vice Chair uh Gangadan >> I. >> Commissioner Wick >> I. Commissioner uh Commissioner Council person Little >> I. >> Commissioner Barnaby >> I. >> Commissioner Stamado

157
00:45:47.040 --> 00:46:01.599
>> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan >> I. >> Commissioner Patel. >> Hi. >> And Chair Langston. >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. And I appreciate the courtesy of putting them back to back. >> No worries.

158
00:46:01.599 --> 00:46:16.640
Okay. Um I think Mike, do you want a break now just so we don't have a an interruption a half hour from now for a break? Um so we are going to take a break right now rather than

159
00:46:16.640 --> 00:46:33.040
taking it uh at 7:00. Uh but we will as soon as we get back we'll case uh here case P2024-0182 is a preliminary and final major site plan and interim use for 200 Chapel

160
00:46:33.040 --> 00:46:49.920
Avenue. Okay, be back in 10 everybody and we'll call the next two items. Uh case P2024-0182 is a preliminary and final major site plan and interim use at 200 Chapel

161
00:46:49.920 --> 00:47:10.319
Avenue as well as case P2024-0229 is the re I'm sorry review and discussion of master plan amendment within Caven point redevelopment plan. Uh council take it away. >> Uh good evening all and uh good evening to the new commissioners. Nice to have

162
00:47:10.319 --> 00:47:25.440
you here. Uh my name is James McCann from the law firm of Conno Foley in Jersey City. I'm here on behalf of the applicant um PY Homes in both of the applications that were called. >> Um I think before we do,

163
00:47:25.440 --> 00:47:42.800
>> let's get council's appearance on the record. I >> was going to say let's do some housekeeping. >> Make sure everybody's eligible. >> Good evening, chairman uh and the members of the board. My name is Martin Cavalar, attorney with Becker NEPC. We are council for Port Liberty Homeowners

164
00:47:42.800 --> 00:47:59.760
Association Incorporated. It is a neighboring property homeowners association. Um, and I'm representing them as an objector in this case. >> And we do have another attorney of record. So, councel. >> Yeah. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Cynthia Hajianis. I'm here

165
00:47:59.760 --> 00:48:17.920
representing Port Liberte Condo Association number one. It is one of the three condo associations within the umbrella uh association represented by Mr. Kabalar. There's about 1415 units within that uh condo association

166
00:48:17.920 --> 00:48:32.559
number one. Thank you. >> Thank you council. >> Welcome council. So uh for everybody in attendance, members of the board, uh both of the attorneys have been participating. Miss Hajianis has just

167
00:48:32.559 --> 00:48:49.680
recently uh come along into the case. Mr. McCann and Mr. Caliber have been here uh throughout the duration of the hearings. We do have some new board members. We have some board members perhaps that had not uh participated

168
00:48:49.680 --> 00:49:08.800
live. So, can can we just go over who needs to attest that they've listened, watched, andor read the transcripts and are eligible to vote? >> So, we would have to confirm on the record that our two newest members have

169
00:49:08.800 --> 00:49:26.400
read and um can or or watched the previous testimony. I have I have read the the transcriptions. >> Same with me. >> Okay. >> But I also think that uh

170
00:49:26.400 --> 00:49:43.520
>> I also can attest that I I have also watched and read them. >> Thank you. >> And there's still a few more. Um I did miss one of those meetings. I am up to speed. have watched the uh video and um

171
00:49:43.520 --> 00:49:58.880
I would vote on this application tonight. >> And what else do we have here? Can >> well the only other thing I think that needs to be stated for purpose of the record, Mr. uh Stamato has left the deis. He's left the building and uh he

172
00:49:58.880 --> 00:50:14.480
has recused himself from this application. So let the record reflect that not only has he recused himself but he has left the building uh for the evening. >> And Vidya, I believe you missed one meeting.

173
00:50:14.480 --> 00:50:28.960
>> I believe it was in the >> uh August meeting 12th >> and subsequently we had another one um after that. So I did watch and read the transcript. >> Okay. Thank you. Gold star, Liz. You

174
00:50:28.960 --> 00:50:44.960
were at all of them. Gold star. Okay, council. >> So, confirming everybody's read the transcripts or watched them and is familiar with the case at this point. Yes, correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. So, um just a brief introduction. Um

175
00:50:44.960 --> 00:51:00.240
this property is 200 Chapel Avenue. It's block 27503, lot 15 on the Jersey City tax map. It's a 9 and a half acre portion of land. Um it is between the Port Li the Port Liberte community which

176
00:51:00.240 --> 00:51:17.280
is represented by the other two council who have appeared here and it is adjacent to the Liberty National Golf Course. Um the property is vacant land except for an MUA pump station, a garbage dumpster that is uh immediately off Chapel Avenue and a temporary dog

177
00:51:17.280 --> 00:51:34.960
run at the rear of the property. It is in the Caven Point redevelopment plan. The the proposal before the board previously and tonight is 168 stacked town home style condos um situated in 19 fourstory buildings.

178
00:51:34.960 --> 00:51:49.839
Each unit will have two parking spaces, one on a driveway, one in a garage. Uh the development also has 80 guest parking spaces. As the chairman mentioned, the application is for the

179
00:51:49.839 --> 00:52:07.520
initial one on case 182 is a preliminary and final site plan approval um with an interim use approval to have a sales trailer on the property for 3 years. Um so testimony was taken initially in this

180
00:52:07.520 --> 00:52:23.119
case on May 27th, 2025. Um the case was continued um during the summer. Uh there were procedural motions made by both sides. Um and testimony was then again taken on

181
00:52:23.119 --> 00:52:40.640
September 9th of 2025 and testimony by um PY Holmes's civil engineer, their project architect and their traffic expert. And at that time, um, the homeowners association was already involved in the case and they

182
00:52:40.640 --> 00:52:58.960
were already submitting comments to the applicant's plans to this board um, and to the applicant. And so when we testified at the September when my experts testified at se the September hearing we had said we had addressed

183
00:52:58.960 --> 00:53:15.920
some of their comments but due to time constraints we had not been able to address all of their comments. Um they were under consideration. We had also told you that we had addressed many comments from the department of infrastructure as well as the MUA but there were still comments to be dealt

184
00:53:15.920 --> 00:53:33.680
with. Um the hearing ended that night. There was some cross ex there was cross-examination by the HOA. The case was carried with um with preservation preservation of notice and the next time we appeared before the board was on October 28th.

185
00:53:33.680 --> 00:53:49.280
And what we had told you at that time was that between the September hearing and the October hearing, we had been had the opportunity to address many more comments of the homeowners association as well as the review agents that were

186
00:53:49.280 --> 00:54:05.119
participating in the application. However, we did not have testimony that night because there was a procedural issue. So, the case was carried with preservation of notice again. It was carried a number of times over the winter with preservation of notice and

187
00:54:05.119 --> 00:54:22.720
now we're back here for to continue testimony. What we're going to show you tonight um are a new set of plans that were filed with the planning division and this board in October of 25. And those plans do their best to address

188
00:54:22.720 --> 00:54:37.920
the issues that the homeowners association has with the project as well as they address comments from department of infrastructure and um there's a arrangement made with the MUA to make some improvements on

189
00:54:37.920 --> 00:54:53.680
this property um for the purpose of sanitary sewer um pump station uh sanitary sewer pump station. So we're going to show you what we've done. We're going to introduce a new set of plans. I have three witnesses. The project, uh,

190
00:54:53.680 --> 00:55:09.760
the project traffic consultant, um, project engineer, and the, um, project planner. Uh, so my first witness is, um, Mr. Carl Pinky, um, the traffic expert. So, council,

191
00:55:09.760 --> 00:55:25.680
before we get to that, let's just do some further housekeeping. So, sir, you can have a seat. It's probably going to be a little bit of uh time before we get to you. Specifically, council, I am up to and have marked

192
00:55:25.680 --> 00:55:43.119
A14th, which was the Langan traffic study uh last dated September 6, 2024. Is that >> Yes. >> accurate? >> Yes. I was I can tell you that um we

193
00:55:43.119 --> 00:56:00.559
have exhibits A1 through A14 um which we've collated I think they're posted on the portal I'm not sure but we sent them into planning they were all documents that were introduced and marked at the hearings either in May of

194
00:56:00.559 --> 00:56:20.400
2025 or September of 2025. Now, council, I received a letter from objectors council dated April 21st, 2026. Did you receive that letter as well?

195
00:56:20.400 --> 00:56:37.760
>> Is that the letter that questions the expir or raises the expiration issue of the redevelopment? >> It is. >> Yes, I received that letter. >> Okay. So, I think it appropriate that we start there. council, if you want to uh be heard on that, we'll hear you on that

196
00:56:37.760 --> 00:56:58.799
first. >> Thank you, council. Uh Mr. Chairman, fellow commissioners, good evening. As you know, the applicant has introduced in its submission exhibit A5. That's the Caven Point redevelopment plan. Last

197
00:56:58.799 --> 00:57:16.640
revised October 13, 2022. um and that is the basis on which applicants application is based. That redevelopment plan as explained in the memorandum that I submitted to the board has an explicit expiration date of

198
00:57:16.640 --> 00:57:34.000
40 years from adoption of that plan. Now, while I understand that the board's planner has advised that there is no authority that permitted the city council allegedly to put an expiration on the redevelopment plan, that is really a legal matter, particularly as

199
00:57:34.000 --> 00:57:49.599
there's no authority which prevents the city council from putting in such an expiration. To the contrary, the law and the case law interpreting it supports the authority of the city council to put in such an expiration as was done here.

200
00:57:49.599 --> 00:58:03.520
So given to this given this prior to this hearing tonight about a week ago we submitted a legal uh memorandum on this point which I provided to your council to your planner um and I would like to mark that into the record um as exhibit

201
00:58:03.520 --> 00:58:26.480
01 if that is okay with the board. >> So Mr. McCann I have no issue with the letter being marked as 01 for purpose of the record. Calibar's letter. I have no issue with that. >> Okay. So 01 is the Calibar

202
00:58:26.480 --> 00:58:45.680
letter dated April 21st, 2026. >> And council, are you going to read that letter into the record or >> I'm not going to read into the letter. I'm going to make the argument before the board what is in that letter. Essentially highlight the key points for you. You will obviously have a copy of

203
00:58:45.680 --> 00:59:03.079
that record. If you want to go back and you want to see a copy of that letter to see what's in there, ask your council about it. Anything of that nature, you have it before you'll be able to do so. That's the intent of marking it. >> Council, give me one quick second, please. >> Sure.

204
00:59:04.319 --> 00:59:22.559
>> Yes, we're comfortable without having uh been given the opportunity of the board members to read the memorandum. >> So, let me ask my questions on record. Um, I haven't seen the exhibit. The board hasn't seen the exhibit. Um, council,

205
00:59:22.559 --> 00:59:39.920
you're well, I I welcome your highlighting the key points for us, but I think we should see the letter. >> Do you want have copies of it, which you can certainly >> sure have. >> If you want to read the letter, absolutely. Council can pass it around.

206
00:59:39.920 --> 01:00:13.359
It's a legal memorandum of council's position. Uh, >> I have them. Thank you. Thank you. So, just to highlight some of the key points in the memorand memorandum and and really talk to you about what this

207
01:00:13.359 --> 01:00:30.799
issue is. Um, the redevelopment plan has a very explicit provision that reads, "The provisions of this plan specifying the redevelopment of the project area and the requirements and restrictions with respect thereto shall quote shall

208
01:00:30.799 --> 01:00:45.920
be in effect for a period of 40 years from the date of approval of this plan by the city council of the city of Jersey City." >> That language is pretty clear. There's no ambiguity there. It says it shall

209
01:00:45.920 --> 01:01:02.480
expire. That's a mandatory limitation of 40 years from adoption. Local redevelopment and housing law. Pursuant to that, these plans are adopted by ordinance. That means they carry the same forces of the law. Means they have to be enforced by the

210
01:01:02.480 --> 01:01:17.040
municipality. The plan was adopted November 7th, 1984. No one can reasonably disagree with that. says right on the plan, that's when it was adopted. None of the amendments to the plan

211
01:01:17.040 --> 01:01:32.640
altered, changed, extended, or otherwise impacted this explicit 40-year sunset provision. No one can reasonably disagree with that. At no point in time was the

212
01:01:32.640 --> 01:01:50.079
redevelopment plan readopted. No one can reasonably disagree with that. And you can discuss this point with your council, but as cited in the case law in our memo, redevelopment plans are legislative instruments and therefore

213
01:01:50.079 --> 01:02:07.760
they can be revised, they can be amended, and they can be abandoned as this sunset provision does as adopted by the city council. The issue here is not whether there is any implied expiration date or implied

214
01:02:07.760 --> 01:02:22.559
extension. Even the express legislative language of the redevelopment plan was to implicitly and directly include a time limitation. The city, the planning board legally

215
01:02:22.559 --> 01:02:42.960
bound to honor that limitation. The city of Jersey City cannot on the one hand select pro provisions of a legislative enactment and at the same time ignore other provisions. You can't ignore this 40-year expiration. I want to be clear about something in

216
01:02:42.960 --> 01:02:58.720
our position. This is not a request for the planning board to impose some temporal limitation. It's simply a request to enforce the law. The limitation that Jersey City itself enacted when it adopted the redevelopment plan. There's no question that the plan expired on November 7th,

217
01:02:58.720 --> 01:03:14.640
2024. None of the amendments extended the expiration date or otherwise revived the redevelopment plan. Because of that, and I mean this with all due respect, but because of that, the planning board lacks authority to consider the application.

218
01:03:14.640 --> 01:03:31.920
The application is based on the redevelopment plan. The redevelopment plan is expired. any hearing would be premature and should be deferred unless and until the city adopts a new or readopts or amends this reel redevelopment plan.

219
01:03:31.920 --> 01:03:48.400
Now, you will you will also recall that you heard from Councilman Solomon on this issue, how it is the regular practice of the council to adopt sunset provisions because it properly serves as an enforcement mechanism to reassess zoning and redevelopment plans after 30 or even

220
01:03:48.400 --> 01:04:04.880
in this case, as he stated, 40 years. As members of this board, if you agree that the redevelopment plan has expired, then that alone is a basis for you to vote to deny this application right now

221
01:04:04.880 --> 01:04:20.240
at this time. You need not wait until the matter is concluded and you need not continue to waste what we believe is precious, precious municipal resources. So with that, thank you for your time on this issue and if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

222
01:04:20.240 --> 01:04:36.880
>> Okay. Thank you, council. Thank you. Um, >> got to give Mr. McCann an opportunity to have questions. >> Mr. McCann, >> so it's gonna take me a minute because I have a few exhibits that I'd like to show the board as as a rebuttal to this. >> Okay.

223
01:04:36.880 --> 01:05:02.520
>> Um, Carl, I think you can sit down. >> Sit down. >> Advance it first though. How do you advance? >> Right there. Keep going. >> Got it.

224
01:05:08.720 --> 01:05:38.640
Need to go back one. Okay. Got it. Okay. I'm just >> Yeah. Thank you, >> Cameron. Can we Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Um, in response to the HOA,

225
01:05:38.640 --> 01:05:56.799
council, you want to ask you want to ask a question first? Go ahead, council. Let's let's go through your position first. >> So, there's a process here

226
01:05:56.799 --> 01:06:13.760
um that's been followed by the city of Jersey City since by the planning board of Jersey City, not the city of Jersey City because this is about the planning board. There's a process that's been followed by planning for five years now.

227
01:06:13.760 --> 01:06:32.160
And um what I did on behalf of the applicant um was obtain a zoning determination from the Jersey City zoning officer asking for an interpretation of whether the Caven Point redevelopment

228
01:06:32.160 --> 01:06:48.960
plan expired. And I provided the zoning officer with a fee, which you have to do. I wrote a letter and that letter was submitted to the planning board to the zoning board the zoning officer and the response that

229
01:06:48.960 --> 01:07:04.480
I got from the zoning officer is posted on the screen now. It's a formal zoning determination from the Jersey City Zoning Officer stating that the 40-year expiration

230
01:07:04.480 --> 01:07:22.559
period does not invalidate the zoning regulations of the Caven Point redevelopment plan. The zoning regulations of the Caven Point redevelopment plan survive the 40-year expiration period.

231
01:07:22.559 --> 01:07:40.559
Now, that letter is part of a procedure that starts out with the New Jersey municipal land use law because under the land use law, the zoning officer is the first stop if a property owner or an

232
01:07:40.559 --> 01:07:56.480
interested party or anybody has a question regarding the interpretation of a zoning regulation, which is exactly what a redevelopment plan is. So, council, for purposes of the record, I want to mark it as A15.

233
01:07:56.480 --> 01:08:15.440
>> And I was getting there, but this letter has been posted on the portal since November of 2024 as part of our application. >> So, this is the November 12th,

234
01:08:15.440 --> 01:08:35.759
2024. Uh, >> no. >> Zoning officer determination >> and we're marking it as A 16 >> A15 >> A15. Right. So,

235
01:08:35.759 --> 01:08:55.480
>> Mr. McCann, before we because I want to keep this clean. I thought I saw it on the portal. Did you also submit your letter requesting the determination by the zoning officer? >> I did not. >> Okay.

236
01:08:57.679 --> 01:09:13.600
I have a copy of it somewhere here. I could I could tender it as an exhibit if it pleased the board. It's your case, council. If you want it in the record, we'll >> Doesn't need to be, I don't think. No. >> Okay. So, that's A15. Continue, please.

237
01:09:13.600 --> 01:09:28.560
>> Okay. So, why is this letter significant? Because, as I said, under the MLUL, the zoning officer is the first stop for the interpretation of a zoning regulation. So, the applicant followed the law. They

238
01:09:28.560 --> 01:09:45.600
wrote a letter to the zoning officer and got the zoning determination. Now, once that determination is issued, my client, whether they got the result that they want or the reverse result, they're bound by that. Taxpayers are bound by

239
01:09:45.600 --> 01:10:02.560
it. Politicians are bound by it. The city of Jersey City is bound by it. Any interested party in this case is bound by that zoning determination. Now, and that's because the MLUL says so. and so does the Jersey City land

240
01:10:02.560 --> 01:10:18.640
development ordinance. By the way, there's provisions in that or in the ordinance for the procedure that I just described to you. So now that that letter can be appealed, the place it gets appealed, if there is

241
01:10:18.640 --> 01:10:34.239
an appeal, is to the zoning board of adjustment, not to the planning board. Why is that? Because the municipal land use law says that if there's a question regarding a zoning interpretation from a

242
01:10:34.239 --> 01:10:49.520
zoning officer, it should be appealed to the board of adjustment. Um the land development ordinance in Jersey City says the exact same thing. You appeal to the board of adjustment. Now, this letter has not been appealed

243
01:10:49.520 --> 01:11:05.520
by any interested party. So as of right now it is valid in full force in effect and this board is bound by it. Now this is a letter from the zoning officer but if you look at the screen you can

244
01:11:05.520 --> 01:11:22.320
see that the letter refers to a zoning board of adjustment decision because this is not the first time this issue came up. This issue came up in 2021 where on behalf of an applicant, I wrote

245
01:11:22.320 --> 01:11:39.679
a letter to the zoning officer asking for a determination as to whether the village redevelopment plan in Jersey City had expired or whether those provisions, the zoning regulations in that redevelopment plan remained in full

246
01:11:39.679 --> 01:11:55.600
force in effect. In that case, the response that I got was the exact response that Mr. Calibar is suggesting that the redevelopment plan had expired. So, my client could

247
01:11:55.600 --> 01:12:12.800
not proceed with a site plan application that was before this board. The planning division staff stopped my application, told me I could not proceed. So, I went and I wrote for the letter. I wrote and got the the letter from the zoning

248
01:12:12.800 --> 01:12:28.960
officer in that case. Now, in that case, the zoning officer said exactly what Mr. Calibar is suggesting. However, I followed the law of the city and I appealed that decision to the zoning board of adjustment

249
01:12:28.960 --> 01:12:43.280
and the zoning board of adjustment reversed the decision of the zoning officer in that case in the village case and determined that redevelopment plan

250
01:12:43.280 --> 01:13:04.480
zoning provisions do not expire. They remain in full force in effect despite the expiration of the term in the redevelopment plan. Now, keep going. This is that decision.

251
01:13:04.480 --> 01:13:22.080
This is the decision in the 303 First Street case. And I presented an argument with the professional planner before the board of adjustment who is charged with overseeing decisions of the zoning

252
01:13:22.080 --> 01:13:37.040
officer. The the board the full board was there. The board's attorney was there. Legal arguments were made. And in this case, in the village case, the board

253
01:13:37.040 --> 01:13:52.400
determined, as I said, the redevelopment plan zoning regulations remain in full force in effect. It may be that ever other components of the plan have expired, such as the right to condemn, such as the right to give tax

254
01:13:52.400 --> 01:14:08.159
abatements, but the zoning regulations remain in full force in effect. So, the letter that I obtained for this case relies on the zoning board of adjustment case. And when the zoning

255
01:14:08.159 --> 01:14:23.199
board of adjustment makes an interpretation of a redevelopment plan and a zoning regulation, my client was bound by it regardless of which way the decision went. All the taxpayers were bound by it and there

256
01:14:23.199 --> 01:14:39.120
were people there that um commented. The planning division is bound by it and this board is bound by it because under the MLUL and New Jersey City Land Development Ordinance, it's the board of

257
01:14:39.120 --> 01:14:56.159
adjustment that has the power and authority to make these kinds of decisions. Politicians are also bound by it. Councilman Solomon at the time is bound by it. So when I'm standing here and and I will point out to you that the

258
01:14:56.159 --> 01:15:13.199
planning division in this case has has allowed my application to complete to move to completeness and we've presented um our case. We've already started our case in May. So the planning division

259
01:15:13.199 --> 01:15:30.880
has not taken any action to stop this application from moving forward. So, I'm relying on the zoning officer's determination based upon the board of adjustments decision and that's the way this should be. That's the way the MLU

260
01:15:30.880 --> 01:15:47.440
works and that's the way the Jersey City land development ordinance works. And until that decision is appealed to a higher authority, it's the law of the land in Jersey City and it must be followed by everybody in this room. Um, now there's

261
01:15:47.440 --> 01:16:02.400
some good reasons why the board of adjustment came to that conclusion. I'm not going to go through them all because I'm relying on the determination and the and the decision of the board of adjustment, but next page. One more that way.

262
01:16:02.400 --> 01:16:29.679
Keep going. Keep going. One of the reasons the board of adjustment ruled the way that it did is because the municipal land use law at section 90 says that moratoriums

263
01:16:29.679 --> 01:16:47.920
imposed upon development so that zoning ordinances can be amended. is not permissible. It couldn't be any clearer. That's the municipal land use law up on the screen

264
01:16:47.920 --> 01:17:05.520
in front of you. So section 90 says exactly contrary to what Mr. Cavalar said. He said that you can't hear this case because the redevelopment plan expired. You have to hear this case because the board can't impose de facto

265
01:17:05.520 --> 01:17:20.960
moratoriums on development. um to give the city council a year, two years, three years to either amend the redevelopment plan or change the zoning. That's one of the reasons the board of adjustment came to the conclusion that

266
01:17:20.960 --> 01:17:37.520
they did. There are other reasons, too. Another reason is that in 2001, the Caven point redevelopment plan was incorporated into the city's zoning map as the permanent zoning for this area.

267
01:17:37.520 --> 01:17:53.920
when the city adopts its zoning map, anything on the map becomes part of the zoning ordinance. That was the other reason that this that the board of adjustment made that ruling. So, there's a lot of reasons and there's a lot of process. It's not as simple as saying

268
01:17:53.920 --> 01:18:09.600
the 40-year expiration period has passed. There's much more to it than that as and I'm asking you to I will tell you this the 303 first street case after that zoning

269
01:18:09.600 --> 01:18:25.679
determination by the board was given by the board of adjustment was given this board approved the site plan application for it only a few months later this board honored that board of adjustment decision and I can tell you that other projects have been developed in the city

270
01:18:25.679 --> 01:18:42.239
in the past five years based upon a zone zoning determination exactly like the one that we marked as A15. So, and this board has approved those projects based upon zoning determinations and those projects have been built. So, this is not a case of

271
01:18:42.239 --> 01:18:58.800
first impression for this board. Um, I'm asking you to honor the president and honor the municipal land use law rules and regula rules and regulations and the process that we followed to get to this point. >> Mr. McCann, I suspect you want to mark

272
01:18:58.800 --> 01:19:16.320
the 303 First Street Resolution A16. >> I do, sir. >> So, marked. >> I would have one last thing to say. If if the redevelopment plan has expired,

273
01:19:16.320 --> 01:19:29.520
there's no zoning applicable to this property. >> I don't think that's been considered by my adversary. Um, but there is no underlying zoning here.

274
01:19:29.520 --> 01:19:47.199
If there's no zoning is a a legislative creature. So, the MLUL gives a municipality the authority to adopt zoning ordinances.

275
01:19:47.199 --> 01:20:03.360
But municipalities don't have to have zoning ordinances. And if they don't have zoning ordinances, then property owners can develop their property any way that they want without regulation. So when the board of adjustment made

276
01:20:03.360 --> 01:20:21.600
their decision in 2021, that's now A16, that was another factor that they considered. Redevelopment plan expired, no zoning. I would argue you still have to give me a site plan approval. If I comply with the procedural requirements

277
01:20:21.600 --> 01:20:36.880
of the municipal land use law by proposing a site plan application, there's there's no zoning to compare it to. So, I'm still entitled to develop my client's still entitled to develop their property. So, for all those reasons, I'm asking you to honor the zoning

278
01:20:36.880 --> 01:21:03.360
determination that was issued for this project. You want paper copies of >> I if you want paper copies of the resolution for 303 First Street, we can definitely make that available to you.

279
01:21:03.360 --> 01:21:49.600
Mr. Chairman, I do believe So it's not available on the portal. Correct, >> council. That wasn't submitted to the portal. Correct. >> So, I think I

280
01:21:49.600 --> 01:22:12.080
So, Mr. McCann, I don't The internet's slow in the room, Mr. McCann. That's why the pause. I'm waiting for the tablet to load. I see you looking at me as though I want to say something. I do want to say a lot

281
01:22:12.080 --> 01:22:37.440
of things, but it's why there was nothing wrong with paper. >> Of course, it's the last thing on the board. >> So, >> hold on, Mr. McCain. >> I'm just going to say I do have a hard copy with me. you want to take the time to have

282
01:22:37.440 --> 01:22:53.679
somebody make copies, we could do that. >> So, council, the reason I asked for it is I just asked um Mr. Cavlar's uh or I asked that of Mr. Cavlar a few moments ago because I don't think I should take

283
01:22:53.679 --> 01:23:09.679
anyone's word on the highlights that they want to give us. No offense, I'm sure you're >> No offense taken. >> I'm sure you're, you know, we don't >> I'm famili familiar with what you're saying. >> It's old business. Um, so you know, I'd like to thumb through that

284
01:23:09.679 --> 01:23:25.679
determination, that that record. >> Cam, is it on the portal? Do you know? I happen to have a copy of it. I also happen to have a copy of Mr. McCann's letter submitted October 2nd, 2024.

285
01:23:25.679 --> 01:23:42.800
Request for a zoning determination. And that letter, >> the zoning determination letter is on the portal. >> Okay. Exhibit A to that letter, I believe is the resolution for 303

286
01:23:42.800 --> 01:23:57.920
First Street. So, Mr. Chair, while we try to ascertain that for you so that you can read it, uh, do you need to hear from Mr. Caliber? Do you want to

287
01:23:57.920 --> 01:24:14.719
give Mr. Caliber the opportunity to respond to Mr. McCann's argument? I'm sure he would welcome the opportunity. >> I would like to give that um opportunity first to Miss Hajianis if you have

288
01:24:14.719 --> 01:24:30.639
anything to add. If we could, let's get you up on on mic with your answer just so the internet can hear you tomorrow. >> So, she should get a chance. She should get a chance. >> Okay. Well, thank I'm sorry I always

289
01:24:30.639 --> 01:24:47.360
have trouble with this microphone, but just um rather and apologies Cam in advance. Um just rather briefly um and I did not I also did not receive a copy of the letter I the that um Mr. Cal Cavalar submitted and I believe it was not

290
01:24:47.360 --> 01:25:02.560
uploaded to the portal, but I've listened to the arguments and I I just would say that the Caven point redevelopment plan is a legislative act. I don't believe that the zoning officer has authority and I was just looking at

291
01:25:02.560 --> 01:25:19.679
the MLUL to see what the powers of the zoning officer are, but I don't believe a zoning officer they may be able to interpret the legislative acts. I don't know that they can contravene them. So I believe um you know maybe this will ultimately be determined by a court but

292
01:25:19.679 --> 01:25:39.120
I I I don't know that reliance on the zoning determination is going to be an airtight uh legal argument. Thanks. >> Just just to point out that it's the board of adjustment decision that was

293
01:25:39.120 --> 01:25:54.880
the basis for the >> Yeah. Again though, yeah, I don't think they can contravene alleged an ordinance that the redevelopment plan is essentially a mini zoning ordinance and I don't know that the zoning officer can alter

294
01:25:54.880 --> 01:26:11.520
that redevelopment plan that was a legis legislative act of the council. >> All right. Thank you, council. >> Chairman, you can ask me any question you want. I have an opinion obviously, but do you want to give Mr. Kavlar a

295
01:26:11.520 --> 01:26:29.040
chance to retort? >> Absolutely. >> Mr. McCann's position. I think that that would be >> fair and appropriate. And then whatever questions the board is struggling with, I'm going to be happy to to help them. I'll be very brief. Um,

296
01:26:29.040 --> 01:26:45.679
I know we have a lot of talk about this letter from the Division of Planning. The rebuttal to that is the fact that it was done prior incorrectly doesn't mean we should continue to perpetrate that. Doesn't mean the planning board is bound by that. Um

297
01:26:45.679 --> 01:27:02.239
the point about you know the MUL says that the planning board cannot put in place a moratorum. Planning board's not putting in place the moratorium. The city council put in place that moratorium. City council has that legislative authority. That is the

298
01:27:02.239 --> 01:27:20.639
law of the land. And then in terms of the comment that once a determination is issued by the city of Jersey City, you're bound by that if that prior determination from 303 First Street, you're bound by that. You're only bound by that if that determination complies

299
01:27:20.639 --> 01:27:36.239
with the law. At the end of the day, this does not comply with the law. Stated all the reasons why. And if you determine or if it's determined that it doesn't comply with the law, then at the end of the day, it there's no time frame

300
01:27:36.239 --> 01:27:51.679
in which to appeal anything. If it's doesn't something if something doesn't comply with the law, this plan expired, there's no time frame to appeal a planning zoning um division letter in terms of uh the application or interpretation of the law by the zoning board of adjustment. something either

301
01:27:51.679 --> 01:28:08.719
does or does not comply with the law. And if the ordinance expired, it could be raised at any time. And we raised it at the start of our case and we said we would raise it in our objector's case. We've done that. We knew we're object uh placing our objector's case on the record. We've done that. Um and you

302
01:28:08.719 --> 01:28:24.400
know, we asked the the planning board to make a decision in that regard before continuing further. >> So, Mr. Cavalar, based on your position, is it safe to assume that you did not take any action regarding this issue in front of the zoning board?

303
01:28:24.400 --> 01:28:39.360
>> We did not take any action regarding this issue in front of the zoning board. Correct. >> And you have not filed an action in the superior court regarding this? >> We have not filed an action in the superior court regarding this. Um, this will certainly preserve the record obviously in that regard.

304
01:28:39.360 --> 01:28:55.120
>> But th as we sit here today, those two things have not taken place. No, they have not taken place. >> And in response to Mr. McCann's position that if it's determined that the plan has expired,

305
01:28:55.120 --> 01:29:09.920
what is your position with respect to what the zoning is for this property? >> Sure. I haven't gone back and looked at that. I will do that and see what the zoning was prior. I'm not familiar with what Jersey City zoning was 40 years ago. I do know this redevelopment plan

306
01:29:09.920 --> 01:29:24.239
has expired. So if there was some zoning applicable to it, perhaps it reverts back. I haven't gotten that far. I haven't researched that, but I'm happy to address it and we'll address it in our opposition. >> So the board of adjustment decision

307
01:29:24.239 --> 01:29:43.840
points out that Jersey City's 1970, I don't remember exactly. I know you'll check me for >> Thank you. zoning ordinance was repealed and replaced by the 2001

308
01:29:43.840 --> 01:30:00.239
zoning ordinance. So any zoning that applied to this property at that time in 1977 is gone. No other zoning was adopted for this property other than

309
01:30:00.239 --> 01:30:16.639
the Caven point redevelopment plan. That's another reason the board of adjustment came to the decision it did. There is no other zoning. That's why it's the permanent zoning. When the city council adopted the zoning map, they made the Caven point redevelopment plan

310
01:30:16.639 --> 01:30:39.040
zoning regulations permanent. I have Mr. that issue >> which if I could suggest politely as politely as ever could be said,

311
01:30:39.040 --> 01:30:54.800
this is not an issue that this board should decide tonight like this. The board should rely on the zoning determination that was submitted as part of the application. The

312
01:30:54.800 --> 01:31:10.800
application was deemed complete and we've already started a hearing. I understand Mr. Cavalar's objections, but the zoning board of adjustment is the place where this issue was decided

313
01:31:10.800 --> 01:31:27.840
rightly or wrongly. And if Mr. Cavalar has a problem, he can appeal that to the superior court after this case receives or doesn't receive I don't know what the answer would be a site plan approval and I'm making that really pol I can't

314
01:31:27.840 --> 01:31:43.600
be any more polite but it's my suggestion >> you could have said please >> I I would just quickly respond to that point that whether it's now or at the conclusion of the case you have a decision to make and if your decision is I'm denying this application because I

315
01:31:43.600 --> 01:31:59.679
believe this plan has expired. That's your decision and that's your right to make that decision. You can pick any reason whether it's the reasons that will be raised by my expert or reason that we've raised here tonight in terms of the expiration to deny the plan. >> If Mr. Right.

316
01:31:59.679 --> 01:32:14.960
>> Sorry. >> If Mr. Keller is right, what is the point of zoning determinations at all? And what is the point of bringing cases to the board of adjustment when the land development ordinance says that's what you're supposed to do? It can't be a situation where any board

317
01:32:14.960 --> 01:32:34.960
can ignore the decision of any other board >> president. >> Gentlemen, I've given you way too much leadway in arguing back and forth. So, >> so council my

318
01:32:34.960 --> 01:32:54.159
>> council me. >> Sure. >> Okay. Um, do we know what the underlying zoning was before this redevelopment plan was adopted? >> Who are you asking the question to? >> That would be you. Yes.

319
01:32:54.159 --> 01:33:08.639
>> Or or planning staff. Do we know what the zoning was? >> So, go ahead, Sophia. It should be >> I'm not aware of what the zoning plan was before.

320
01:33:08.639 --> 01:33:24.880
I do know and I have the map up here on my screen. This is the redevelopment plan that is on our zoning map and this is what we would refer to. >> So, chairman, I would say that I don't

321
01:33:24.880 --> 01:33:42.880
know its relevancy for dealing with the actual question and position of the parties. So, we have to deal with >> You're right. >> The objection being >> the redevelopment plan says it's

322
01:33:42.880 --> 01:34:01.199
expired. It's been more than 40 years. >> Council, >> a weird twist of faith. Council, I'm really sorry about this. But before you do this, we have another argument um that was going to be part of my

323
01:34:01.199 --> 01:34:18.960
proofs, but we filed our application before the redevelopment plan expired. If it I don't I don't concede that it expired first of all, but our application was filed on September 18th,

324
01:34:18.960 --> 01:34:34.719
2024. >> What's the expression? You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Why wouldn't you have led with that and dealt with that issue? >> Well, because belt and suspenders. Okay. >> Okay. >> So, then we're going to talk about it

325
01:34:34.719 --> 01:34:49.760
all. >> Let's talk about it all. So, >> and by the way, I was aware with that, but I'm making you do your job. >> Why don't I bring up Mr. Lean, who is going to >> Why? >> Well, because he's going to ask the questions to our witness to confirm for

326
01:34:49.760 --> 01:35:06.000
you that we filed our application, a substantially complete application on September 18th, 2024, which is almost two months before this redevelopment plan allegedly expired. >> Let's see if we can do it a little faster. I'll acknowledge. >> You have it.

327
01:35:06.000 --> 01:35:22.000
>> You got it. Done. >> How's that? Council stipulates to that fact. Now, that's a gentleman, Mr. May stipulates to the fact that your application was filed prior to the

328
01:35:22.000 --> 01:35:39.360
calculating of the 40-day >> 40-year >> uh 40-year date. >> 40 days would be nice, but it's >> that would be unrealistic. So, >> I know it's shocking. >> It is shocking. >> I >> I can explain why if you'd like.

329
01:35:39.360 --> 01:35:55.120
>> Do you want to know? >> Well, >> do you want to know? >> We must. >> We The time of application rule. >> You want to know why you stipulated? >> Sure. >> Sure. Sure. Yes. I want to know why. Go ahead. >> The the time of application rule applies

330
01:35:55.120 --> 01:36:11.120
to changes in the law. There was no change in the law. The plan expired when it expired. his application had to be completed by that time. He knew the law when he filed. The law is the law. There was no change in the law. So there's nothing to consider in terms of the ch time of the application. If for example,

331
01:36:11.120 --> 01:36:26.639
he filed his application in September and Jersey City Council decided to further amend the redevelopment plan, he would not be bound by those amendments because time of the application goes under what it was at the time that he filed. The law was it expires in

332
01:36:26.639 --> 01:36:50.480
November. It expired. >> You guys questions you want. Let's get them out. I have opinions. I don't want you to think I don't. >> Okay. I guess my question um is is partially for um planning staff and

333
01:36:50.480 --> 01:37:09.760
partially for um the board council. Um we hear a lot about this expiring at 40 years. Um but then we also heard that it was sort of enshrined in this 2021 um map. And so this map was voted by voted

334
01:37:09.760 --> 01:37:25.679
on by the council at that time. >> Correct. And um would that map would the vote on that map and and the zoning on that map is identical to the zoning in this redevelopment plan that we're >> correct

335
01:37:25.679 --> 01:37:42.800
>> arguing whether or not it has it well it has alleg allegedly expired. But then is that expiration valid? But so the map would the map then even if it had even if it has expired. Right.

336
01:37:42.800 --> 01:37:57.520
>> Right. >> Um would that map would the zoning on that map continue to be in effect? Would would the map supersede the expiration I guess is what I'm trying to ask. >> Great question. So

337
01:37:57.520 --> 01:38:15.040
the MLUL has various provisions and various sections. So what Mr. McCann is advocating is under the section of the statute,

338
01:38:15.040 --> 01:38:32.320
it's section 70. There's three subsections. 70A, 70B, 70 C, 70 D. Then you get into section 72 A and a B. And in those sections, when

339
01:38:32.320 --> 01:38:50.320
you hear the I need a C variance, that's under 70A. When you hear I need a D1 use variance, that's under 70D. The D variances under section 70, there's six of them. exclusive

340
01:38:50.320 --> 01:39:06.320
jurisdiction before the zoning board of adjustment. We will never hear those at this board. This board does not have the statutory authority to hear those. Cvariances, sometimes called these bulk variances,

341
01:39:06.320 --> 01:39:22.159
sideyard, front yard, things of that nature. They get heard here all the time in conjunction with various site plan applications. None of that is really what this is about. This is about okay.

342
01:39:22.159 --> 01:39:39.679
The zoning officer made a determination. The zoning officer has that authority exclusive to make that determination under the MLU. When that determination happens, if you are agrieved by it, whether it's in

343
01:39:39.679 --> 01:39:57.199
favor of somebody else or against you, you can appeal that decision. You can only appeal that decision to the zoning board. The map can only be interpreted by the zoning board. This board can't interpret

344
01:39:57.199 --> 01:40:16.159
the map. So, usually the situation with the map that becomes problematic is where is the zone line? Is this a split property? Is the zone line in the middle of the street? That's generally the most

345
01:40:16.159 --> 01:40:34.560
common situation of map interpretation, but it's all at the zoning board. It's not here because the statute doesn't allow it to be here. The map, like the legislation, is absolutely controlling. And if the map says something, it's been ratified

346
01:40:34.560 --> 01:40:50.639
by the council vote adopting the map. Then it goes online. It's there. It's dated. It's stamped. and it lays out all of the different zones and what controls those zones. So, yes, the map is absolutely an

347
01:40:50.639 --> 01:41:06.080
authority for this board and the zoning board, but if there's a question about that map, this board can't decide that. This board has to allow the zoning board to make

348
01:41:06.080 --> 01:41:23.920
that determination. And the zoning board can only make that determination if somebody brings it to the zoning board. So if the zoning officer makes a determination and says this property or this parcel is in this zone based on my review of the map

349
01:41:23.920 --> 01:41:39.440
and nobody does anything about it, then that moves forward with that determination. The zoning board can't say, "We don't agree with what the zoning officer did. We're gonna somehow

350
01:41:39.440 --> 01:41:56.400
pull this from them and hear it and decide it on our own." It's got to be brought to them for them to have that jurisdiction. So, I think that may have gone a little further than the question. >> This is my first planning board meeting, so I appreciate the in-depth

351
01:41:56.400 --> 01:42:13.040
explanation. >> Happy to do it. >> Thanks, C. I'm sorry. Um, council just to I guess clarify and you can confirm the question before that's being raised today is does this date expiration date

352
01:42:13.040 --> 01:42:29.920
apply for zoning purposes which is also not the sole purpose of a redevelopment plan or redevelopment ex designation. Correct. >> So that is part of the package. >> Yes. Okay. Um

353
01:42:29.920 --> 01:42:47.560
>> but that issue right is not the question is >> the zoning of >> and it's not germanine to the board's decision on whether or not to approve a site plan or to hear a site plan. Correct.

354
01:42:48.639 --> 01:43:05.199
>> I would agree with that. >> All right. Thank you. >> Counselor question. Um, I understand that someone who receives a zoning letter could appeal it to the zoning board, but would an objector or a member of the public have standing to do the same?

355
01:43:05.199 --> 01:43:21.360
>> They would. They're an interested party. They can bring that objection. The real question becomes, are they bound by that 20-day time limit to file that appeal to the zoning board? And I think the courts give them the concept of when did you

356
01:43:21.360 --> 01:43:37.360
get notice in order to file that appeal. But we just had this issue raised in another case uh where a determination was made

357
01:43:37.360 --> 01:43:52.719
and the way the application was brought forward was it was an appeal of the decision and a variance case to expand something. and

358
01:43:52.719 --> 01:44:09.679
that application was brought forward at the same time. If you deny this and continue to agree with the zoning officer, then we're opposing the application that they're also bringing based on that determination. Uh not this

359
01:44:09.679 --> 01:44:26.320
board, not here, but and there are cases that deal with this. There's a case out of Colts neck that deals with this and there's the DPRO case out of Wayne uh that deals with

360
01:44:26.320 --> 01:44:43.040
some of these issues and u you know if you want me to go further on that I'm happy to at this point but yes uh it's anybody that gets u or is agrieved by that decision. So that's why I had asked Mr. caliber if he

361
01:44:43.040 --> 01:45:03.840
moved in those two forms. >> Santo, can you go into the time of application rule on this? What's the what's the precedent there? Is there one? The >> time of application rule doesn't change.

362
01:45:03.840 --> 01:45:18.480
It's the date that you file your application. and whatever law is in effect at that time is the law that governs your application. It used to be the time of decision rule and we've gone through this, you and I,

363
01:45:18.480 --> 01:45:36.320
>> probably three or four times a year over uh over the years. >> Yeah. >> So, they changed the law. It used to be the time of decision, but obviously what the legislature determined was

364
01:45:36.320 --> 01:45:52.080
applications are being filed. People are reacting to that and changing the law. So, we're going to make it the time when the application is filed. And uh the most recent case that this board has been involved in in that

365
01:45:52.080 --> 01:46:09.199
interpretation was the Canvas Police Corp case >> uh with Kushmart and the court and the appellet division determined that this board was absolutely right >> and still one of my favorite dispensary

366
01:46:09.199 --> 01:46:26.400
names across the city. But um >> the statute itself is on the screen at this point. Thank you. >> Just so you know. >> Thank you, council. Um, so to Mr. Cavalar's point

367
01:46:26.400 --> 01:46:44.320
does the does the time of application is that affected whatsoever because of no new legislation being added, changed,

368
01:46:44.320 --> 01:47:02.159
revised in the redevelopment plan in question. Well, so the redevelopment plan has been amended over the course of its life. >> Sure.

369
01:47:02.159 --> 01:47:22.719
>> So the redevelopment plan was adopted obviously as we sit here today more than 40 years ago. Uh there have been a bunch of amendments. the most recent one being I believe in in 2022.

370
01:47:22.719 --> 01:47:41.199
Uh but I may be incorrect about that. So is it a ratification of the redevelopment plan every time an amendment is made to the redevelopment plan and the redevelopment plan is subsequently adopted? How does the redevelopment plan interact with the

371
01:47:41.199 --> 01:47:58.719
concept of the master plan here in the city? Uh these are all really good questions. I think the answer is every time an action is taken in furtherance of something, there's a

372
01:47:58.719 --> 01:48:14.080
recognition that that is valid. You don't go and amend something that's invalid. But but but but

373
01:48:14.080 --> 01:48:31.520
Does that mean that if you amended it and three years later it expires that it doesn't expire? I don't think that I would go that far, chair. I think if you amend it and it still has that sunset, I think that sunset is still there.

374
01:48:31.520 --> 01:48:46.800
The question is what happens when it sunsets and is the sun seting of it valid or is the zoning component of the plan still

375
01:48:46.800 --> 01:49:04.760
valid? Does it exist until the zoning component is changed or do you have a situation where okay the underlying zoning in the Caven point in the 70s was

376
01:49:04.960 --> 01:49:20.480
what what could it have been? It was a landfill. >> We going back to landfills. Didn't they build the land in the 70s? I'm not that old. Mr. McCann. Uh, I don't know if you were around in the

377
01:49:20.480 --> 01:49:35.920
70s, but >> I thought I thought they created the land. >> So, can can I have another turn? >> Sure, council. >> So,

378
01:49:35.920 --> 01:49:52.000
the statute that's up there is crystal clear. That's the time of application statute. It says that the law that any board, the board of adjustment, the planning board should apply

379
01:49:52.000 --> 01:50:08.400
to an application is the law that was in effect at the time the application was filed. It doesn't matter if the redevelopment plan expired. It doesn't matter if the city council

380
01:50:08.400 --> 01:50:26.560
adopted an amendment two weeks after this was filed that said we're voiding the Caven point redevelopment plan. The whole point of the statute was put in place to protect applicants who rely on a

381
01:50:26.560 --> 01:50:43.600
zoning regulation and invest hundreds of thousands of money of dollars in preparing plans to comply with those zoning regulations and then having a legislative body either through action or inaction pulling the rug out

382
01:50:43.600 --> 01:50:58.480
from under them. That's what the statute was adopted for. It was adopted in 2010. I think that's not that long ago. >> So, council, I don't disagree with what you're saying. And I think to your point, uh,

383
01:50:58.480 --> 01:51:14.400
yeah, the exact thing that happens or was happening that the law got changed to prevent was applications were filed. They were pending before the board and governing bodies were changing the law on

384
01:51:14.400 --> 01:51:31.119
application pending applications and that's what was changed but I understood the question to be does the amendment restart the 40year >> I >> provision of the plan >> I would concede that the previous

385
01:51:31.119 --> 01:51:48.400
amendments through whatever it is 2022 did not extend the 40-year period. I would concede that, >> but I think that was the question. >> Okay. Well, we have that one answered because I don't think it did either to be perfectly honest with everybody in this room. >> This is crazy. So, me and Mr. Caval are

386
01:51:48.400 --> 01:52:04.000
agree and me and Mr. McCann agree and whatnot. >> It's time to go home. >> Baffling, >> but it doesn't matter. The time of application rule is fabulously clear and it was there to it's there to protect applicants exactly like my client

387
01:52:04.000 --> 01:52:20.480
who spent a lot of money to comply with a redevelopment plan and filed the application before it allegedly expired. I don't concede for one minute that it expired. I made that argument. The other thing is whatever the zoning was in 1977

388
01:52:20.480 --> 01:52:35.920
is completely irrelevant at this point because the city council repealed the old zoning ordinances and put the 2001 zoning ordinance in place with the Caven point redevelopment plan as the zoning.

389
01:52:35.920 --> 01:52:52.320
There is no other zoning. None. Zero. Those kids over there can research the crap out of this. They're not going to find They're not going to find any other zoning that they can say is in effect to replace the Caven point redevelopment

390
01:52:52.320 --> 01:53:08.639
plan. >> I know that. >> Council, I'm looking at your application, your general development application. I don't see a date. Can you provide me something?

391
01:53:08.639 --> 01:53:24.239
I see Mr. Lean jumping into action. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Mr. caliber's already stipulated to it. He can't unstipulate. >> I'd like to say it. >> Okay. >> Like to see. Yeah. For the record, I'd

392
01:53:24.239 --> 01:53:40.000
like to say it. So what I can offer to council very simply is a screenshot of all the documents that were filed as

393
01:53:40.000 --> 01:53:58.480
part of our application along with our cover letter. >> What's the date? >> The date of the cover letter is September 18th, 2024. Now once this letter gets filed on the portal with the planning division

394
01:53:58.480 --> 01:54:13.360
the staff uploads all the documents that were filed and they have dates on them. So what I'm can give to council is a snapshot

395
01:54:13.360 --> 01:54:28.639
of all the documents that were filed under this cover letter and show you that all the dates are well before the alleged expiration date of the redevelopment plan. They're all in September.

396
01:54:28.639 --> 01:54:46.239
>> We're going to mark it as A17 and A18. A17 will be the Give me the date of the cover letter. September 18th, 2024. >> September 18th, 2024 cover letter. >> And we'll put into evidence if you want

397
01:54:46.239 --> 01:55:01.119
every single document that's under this cover letter. Mr. Lean is prepared to do that. You didn't ask for that yet, but if you do, we'll do it. >> Why does Mr. Lean have to do it? >> Because I need a break. I'm old.

398
01:55:01.119 --> 01:55:17.280
>> A18 was what? The screenshot of the documents. >> Yeah. Do you want to mark these? You want me to mark them? >> Why don't I hand them to you so you can look at pass? >> I'm going to mark them. I was hoping you

399
01:55:17.280 --> 01:55:46.199
had a copy for Mr. Caliber cuz he's going to want one next. >> I'm good. I'm not a fan of paper. Sorry, you need to add one more exhibit. There's another There's another screenshot. >> A19.

400
01:55:55.920 --> 01:56:33.840
Sorry. Jump is up. Council >> Commissioner >> just one one other question for you. Um I'm just reading the language as was provided from the redevelopment plan about the expiration. Um I was wondering if you could just clarify, you know, as

401
01:56:33.840 --> 01:56:50.239
I read it or or I'll read it. The provision of this plan specifying the redevelopment of the project area and the requirements and restrictions with respect there too shall be in effect for a period of 40 years from the date of approval from this plan by the city council of the Jersey City. Can you clarify for me? It as I read that it says it's affirming that in 40 the first

402
01:56:50.239 --> 01:57:09.920
40 years after the passing these will be in effect, but I'm trying to understand how to interpret that beyond the 40 years and if it's clear that they're no longer in effect beyond the 40 years. So I think that's exactly what we've

403
01:57:09.920 --> 01:57:27.520
been discussing and council has been arguing about. I think the question has to be narrowed. You can't take the entire

404
01:57:27.520 --> 01:57:44.080
plan, look at this provision, and try to figure this out without understanding what the zoning board determined after the position of the zoning officer was

405
01:57:44.080 --> 01:57:59.440
given the first goaround. So the first goaround was here's our zoning determination. It is these plans expired. There's no

406
01:57:59.440 --> 01:58:16.960
zoning in place. Mr. McCann has a client who becomes the unlucky recipient of that determination. Mr. McCann says, "Okay, I am sure he

407
01:58:16.960 --> 01:58:34.960
screamed at the zoning official in the nicest of ways possible, trying to convince the zoning official that he was wrong. When the zoning official would not back off of the decision, Mr. McCann appealed him,

408
01:58:34.960 --> 01:58:50.400
said, "You're wrong. I know what I'm talking about. I'm going to the zoning board." He gets to the zoning board and he gets his vindication. The zoning board says, "MCAN, you're right."

409
01:58:50.400 --> 01:59:08.639
And now the zoning officer says, "Okay, I don't necessarily agree or disagree, but that's I have to continue to follow that. I'm bound by that." And the cases, the statute is clear, the cases are

410
01:59:08.639 --> 01:59:24.239
clear. Once the zoning board issues their determination, the zoning officer is bound. This board is bound. The only place to go from there is into the court. The

411
01:59:24.239 --> 01:59:39.679
zoning board may be wrong. The zoning officer may be wrong. But this board doesn't have the authority under the statute to do anything about that. This board has to accept whatever

412
01:59:39.679 --> 01:59:57.520
determination the zoning board makes or the zoning officer. If Mr. McCann in this situation got a favorable decision from the zoning officer, he's not going to appeal that to the zoning board. Which is why I

413
01:59:57.520 --> 02:00:14.719
asked council for the objectors if they had appealed it because if that was pending at the zoning board and the zoning board was maybe going to revisit this and change its position and give reasons why it felt that way.

414
02:00:14.719 --> 02:00:32.320
Maybe we would have something to to say, well let's see what the zoning board does. We don't want to rush into this. But uh the law is the law is the law is the law. So until the judge tells

415
02:00:32.320 --> 02:00:50.480
the zoning officer and the zoning board they were wrong and here's the reasons why that that's where we're we are. But I don't know that you have to get

416
02:00:50.480 --> 02:01:06.960
there because you have the time of application issue. I think it's best practice to deal with both of them. Uh how do we feel about the time of

417
02:01:06.960 --> 02:01:25.679
application? How do we feel about the determination of the zoning officer? I would advise the board that these are legal determinations

418
02:01:25.679 --> 02:01:42.639
and they get reviewed by the court without, you know, they're a day review. It's a matter of law. You either were right or you were wrong. But the court doesn't

419
02:01:42.639 --> 02:02:03.040
really give nearly as much weight to your legal mind as you give to your legal mind. >> Very little to begin with. >> So Santo, I have one last question on the time of application rule.

420
02:02:03.040 --> 02:02:21.520
I I do see Mr. McCann's submission to the planning department, the cover letter dated September 18th, 2024. When is how is the application date determined?

421
02:02:21.520 --> 02:02:36.880
Is it by cover letter? Is it by when you submit a complete application? So, if Mr. Macan's application was complete upon submission and it followed the checklist. >> Mhm. >> That is the date.

422
02:02:36.880 --> 02:03:02.960
>> So I would go to staff. Can we determine if the application was complete when received? you speak to each case separately or >> I would say that depends on what's

423
02:03:02.960 --> 02:03:19.199
considered complete. So >> what was missing from the checklist I guess is the best question. >> Sure. >> And if it was fees >> so if we're going to go down this road I want to put all the documents and have them all marked as exhibits. I'm not sure what's before Sophie says

424
02:03:19.199 --> 02:03:35.679
anything. I mean plus Mr. Cavalar stipulated. So I mean I don't want to put Sophie in a bad position but >> I don't disagree. >> Yeah. >> And Mr. Caviular stipulated. So

425
02:03:35.679 --> 02:03:54.480
>> the operative date is >> September 18th. >> September 18th. And the redevelopment plan was first approved on November 7th, 1984. >> Okay. So allegedly it expired what I thought it November 6th

426
02:03:54.480 --> 02:04:10.239
>> 19 >> 20 24 >> alleged >> up before to make this point and I just want to make sure because I think Mr. Mr. Lampy understands my argument. Whether you agree with it or not, fine. But I just want to make sure the commissioners understand my argument because what is on the screen says the

427
02:04:10.239 --> 02:04:26.560
law in effect at that time, right? So the law in effect at the time of the application was that it was going to expire in November. It doesn't extend that expiration date. What that law means is the law in effect at the time that you apply is the law you must

428
02:04:26.560 --> 02:04:43.760
apply. Right? That's the law you must apply that expired. It means the zoning can't be changed on them at the last minute. That's the rug being pulled out from under them. They knew the expiration date the time they filed. That was the law in effect at the time

429
02:04:43.760 --> 02:04:59.599
they filed. That's our argument. I understand council's argument is different than that. I just want to make sure for the record the board understands our argument and if you have any questions obviously happy to answer those. >> Mr. Chicago, can you point to anything

430
02:04:59.599 --> 02:05:16.800
that I'm looking at right now that supports that? >> Yeah, the the regulation says it. They're subject to the law in effect on the date of submission of an application. The law in effect on the date of the submission of their application was that redevelopment plan

431
02:05:16.800 --> 02:05:31.760
expires 40 years from its original adoption, meaning in November. It expired. They're subject to the law in effect at the time of their application. And that's why I wanted to get up here and reexlain that because

432
02:05:31.760 --> 02:05:47.520
it is easy to look at that and think under the normal circumstance time of application all we look at is what was in effect at the time because normally the time of application rule is designed to prevent a change in the law. For example, if Jersey City decided to get

433
02:05:47.520 --> 02:06:11.040
rid of the redevelopment plan after the application was filed, they wouldn't be subject to that. But the law in effect at the time they filed was this expires in November. But >> does that go back to the other point though that

434
02:06:11.040 --> 02:06:27.119
uh eventual um that shouldn't disrupt any developments in process. Um I think that there was another

435
02:06:27.119 --> 02:06:46.320
point that was up on earlier essentially saying that it it can't disrupt any development. >> I think Commissioner Wick, you're talking about the moratorium section. >> Thank you.

436
02:06:46.320 --> 02:07:07.119
>> Right. >> Does that override that? >> I don't you know what I'm >> Yes. I understand what everybody is saying. >> Okay, >> this is, you know, >> this is Tuesday night.

437
02:07:07.119 --> 02:07:23.920
Speaking of two, no, just to follow the opposition council's argument through for a moment, in this scenario where an application was submitted immediately following the expected sunset of a a redevelopment plan, would that preclude, say, city council from extending the

438
02:07:23.920 --> 02:07:41.119
redevelopment plan and the applicant would then be able to allow it to, you know, file it knowing that it would sunset to lock in its conclusion if that's to their benefit? Would the city council >> or or whoever would extend the date

439
02:07:41.119 --> 02:07:59.360
>> by >> I didn't follow the question. >> Sure. Sorry. >> By filing an application immediately prior to the conclusion of the redevelopment plan. >> Got it. Does that prevent the redevelopment plan from then being extended

440
02:07:59.360 --> 02:08:16.800
or to to therefore continue >> prevent the council from taking the action as it relates to that application? >> I would say no. So there's a case uh Sam Ramy that stood for the

441
02:08:16.800 --> 02:08:33.119
proposition that when the ordinance changes in the favor of the developer you no longer need the variance, >> right? Which everyone's like, how could that be? You filed it before time of application rule. But when you when you

442
02:08:33.119 --> 02:08:50.719
think about it, it makes actual sense. The governing body decided that what we said wasn't permitted in a zone. We've now made permitted in a zone. Why would you get a variance for that? We've changed it to make it permitted.

443
02:08:50.719 --> 02:09:15.199
So if the governing body were to extend this redevelopment plan or remove expiration dates from all redevelopment plans, it would be very helpful. But no action doesn't stop

444
02:09:15.199 --> 02:09:35.679
things from happening, right? or inaction. My kids are struggling with that concept. >> Santo, if I may, um, based upon the opposition, um, attorney >> Mhm. in his interpretation of it. Um is

445
02:09:35.679 --> 02:09:50.079
it possible to say that his interpretation is at the time of application and the sunset of the law, the project should have been somewhere started completed within that period of time since the law since it expired

446
02:09:50.079 --> 02:10:09.119
within that 40-year period of time? >> I don't think he gets to that point. Right. I think his argument is the law at the time expired two months after they filed their

447
02:10:09.119 --> 02:10:28.480
application. They knew that it happened and the law didn't change. It expired. That's his argument, >> which is actually no different than when an applicant knows that the planning

448
02:10:28.480 --> 02:10:45.360
board is going to recommend the zoning change in a particular area and refer it to the city council and the applicant files their site plan application before the legislation is adopted by the city council. The time of

449
02:10:45.360 --> 02:11:01.520
application rule applies >> I do I want to hear you but I don't >> the time of application rule applies. It's like he's trying to say because we are on notice of the expiration of the redevelopment plan that it's still expired. That's not what that says right

450
02:11:01.520 --> 02:11:16.239
up there on the this that's not what the statute said. You can be on notice of a zoning change. You could be on notice of a zoning expiration. But if you get your application filed while the law is still in effect, that's the law that applies.

451
02:11:16.239 --> 02:11:32.560
That's the end of the story. >> Council, >> he said a key word there. If they know it's going to be adopted, this already was adopted. The law in effect at the time. This is not the situation. And that's why I keep making that distinction where there's going to be a change in the law and you rush in to get

452
02:11:32.560 --> 02:11:48.239
your application. The law already exists. It's there. This is a different scenario >> entirely. So chairman, I'd respectfully say this. If you allow me, Mr. McCann, and Mr. Cavalar to argue, we will do this.

453
02:11:48.239 --> 02:12:06.440
>> I know that about the three of you. >> Okay. So, it's time to make some decisions. >> Yes. >> We've got a lot of positions put forth. >> How can I help the board?

454
02:12:07.199 --> 02:12:21.920
Uh, >> chairman, I just want to make sure we have a second opposition to council. I I don't know if you wish to give them an opportunity before we conclude. >> I would I would like to give Miss Hajianis the final word here before we make any

455
02:12:21.920 --> 02:12:46.639
kind of decision. >> Thank you. Um, I I appreciate that and I don't know uh that I have anything really definitive to say. Um, but I did want to just point out I think there had been a question about the underlying zoning and the first paragraph

456
02:12:46.639 --> 02:13:01.360
of the red of the Caven point redevelopment plan does say that it serves as an amendment to and a sub substitute for the Liberty Harbor redevelopment plan.

457
02:13:01.360 --> 02:13:18.719
um that and it affects the Caven Point area and that plan was adopted in 1973 according to the Caven Point redevelopment plan. Now this becomes complicated because I know that plan has undergone many amendments

458
02:13:18.719 --> 02:13:35.440
uh since 1973. But I think if the Caven Point plan is uh expired, what what you might be left with is a prior iteration of the Liberty Harbor redevelopment plan. >> Thank you.

459
02:13:35.440 --> 02:13:52.800
>> Okay. Thank you, Miss. >> Yes, I have a question here. Um, I hear about zoning officer, zoning officer signing a letter, but the only letter that I saw here that came out of division of zoning is signed by a planner, assistant planner.

460
02:13:52.800 --> 02:14:18.719
>> Am I missing something? >> To my knowledge, Eric Beasley was the zoning officer at that time. And yes, he is a planner. So, um, Mr. Beasley in his capacity as a staff member in both planning and zoning

461
02:14:18.719 --> 02:14:35.520
authored that letter on behalf of the zoning officer which the zoning officer approved um, which is routine practice that staff Eric Mr. Beasley was under the supervision of the zoning officer.

462
02:14:35.520 --> 02:14:55.119
>> Okay. And the zoning officer was Tanya. >> Miss Tanya Marion. Yes. >> Okay. Understood. Okay with that. >> That's what it is at this point. >> So, does the board have any other questions

463
02:14:55.119 --> 02:15:14.000
for our council before we make a determination here? >> Okay. Um, I I guess the the map that the council voted on did not have an expiration date. Correct. >> Correct. >> Correct.

464
02:15:14.000 --> 02:15:30.079
>> And by the way, it has all I think there's like 58 redevelopment plans on that map. And as Mr. McCann indicated, there's a good amount of them that are >> allegedly expired.

465
02:15:30.079 --> 02:15:46.880
>> Yeah. So, I I'll start and then I'll open it up for everybody. Um, I believe this is rightfully in front of us right

466
02:15:46.880 --> 02:16:06.840
now. Um, based on time of application role and that alone, I don't think I need to go further into the weeds on Mr. McCann's original argument. Um,

467
02:16:06.880 --> 02:16:23.760
that being said, that's that's my interpretation, council. That's your interpretation. Um, but you know, this is the Jersey City Planning Board, not Chairman Langston's planning board. So if anybody else wants

468
02:16:23.760 --> 02:16:40.800
to chime in, disagreement, agreement, >> chair, >> open book here, >> chairman, in in concurrence, it seems like the juris appropriate jurisdiction for the questions raised as a zoning board, not here. So even if we were to opine and make a decision, it doesn't seem like it would >> matter. So I think for those reasons, I

469
02:16:40.800 --> 02:16:58.639
I'm in concurrence with you. >> Absolutely. >> Yeah, >> I agree. >> Agreed. And if >> we're wrong on that determination, >> let someone let a higher authority tell us that. >> Correct.

470
02:16:58.639 --> 02:17:15.519
>> So, so the board has spoken. I think we need to give Mike a break. Mike, >> so that just to be clear before the break, you're you're rolling you're determining that based upon the time of application rule, the application goes this application goes forward.

471
02:17:15.519 --> 02:17:31.280
>> And if we're not correct on the time of application rule, the jurisdiction to hear the issue on the expiration is with the board of adjustment. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> All right. I could use a break, too. So, I'm I'm with Michael.

472
02:17:31.280 --> 02:17:53.200
>> I think everybody needs that right now. So yeah, let's take a break everybody. >> Mr. McCann, I believe the floor is yours. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, so I think the place that we're at is I'm going to introduce my first witness. I don't remember if I introduced him yet, but uh

473
02:17:53.200 --> 02:18:08.240
he's our traffic expert tonight. His name is Mr. Carl Pinky from Langan Engineering. Um he's he's going to provide some supplemental testimony in addition to what the traffic expert testified to in

474
02:18:08.240 --> 02:18:31.519
September. >> I do. >> Again, my name is >> Name is Carl with a K. Penke. P is in Peter. E H N K E. >> Mr. Panky, always a pleasure to see you. Uh, your license is current tonight. >> My license is current. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified.

475
02:18:31.519 --> 02:18:48.800
>> Thank you. >> So, um, Mr. Pinky, I'm just going to ask you a couple of quick questions. Um, can you confirm for me that you reviewed the transcript from the September 9th hearing before this board? >> I did. >> Okay. Um and at that time um your

476
02:18:48.800 --> 02:19:04.080
colleague Carrie Panki uh testified regarding a traffic study that was marked in uh as exhibit A14. Um for the record, I'm going to show you a copy of that and ask you if that could you just open that up and confirm that's

477
02:19:04.080 --> 02:19:21.359
the study that was introduced at the last hearing. >> That is correct. Dated September 6th of uh 2024. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, and then I'm going to show you one more thing. Um, this is a letter from the Jersey City Department

478
02:19:21.359 --> 02:19:49.920
of Infrastructure dated October 8th, 2025. Um, have you seen that letter before? >> I have. >> Okay. Uh, council marked that as A20. Okay. And at the September,

479
02:19:49.920 --> 02:20:06.000
>> thank you. At the September hearing, there was traffic testimony and the board raised the question of whether the traffic counts um could be relied on by this board because they were taken when school was

480
02:20:06.000 --> 02:20:20.960
out. Um a number of board members raised that issue and then a few days later um the applicant received uh A20 which is the letter from the department of uh infrastructure and they raised the same

481
02:20:20.960 --> 02:20:37.359
issue regarding the parking counts. So the applicant um uh so now I'll turn over the presentation to Mr. Panky. Mr. Panky, what did the applicant do um in order to update the traffic counts um for the project? >> Mr. Can just give us the date of that

482
02:20:37.359 --> 02:21:04.880
memo again. >> October 8th, 2025. >> Good. Okay. So certainly uh as you heard at the testimony in September, uh Kerry reviewed the traffic impact study that was submitted and offered testimony that

483
02:21:04.880 --> 02:21:20.560
the uh results of the uh traffic study confirm that the driveway for uh the project will operate at good levels of service and safely and that the uh key critical intersection of Chapel Avenue and Craraven Point Road would be modest

484
02:21:20.560 --> 02:21:35.520
modestly impacted but really would not change in terms of level of service operations. Uh but as uh as was just discussed, there was some question raised as to whether August data is representative of data at other times of

485
02:21:35.520 --> 02:21:51.920
the year, particularly when schools are uh in play. Uh and I would offer two things uh in response to that. Uh one, in terms of uh evening peak hour traffic, that's really not influenced by school traffic. So the August data would be representative. Uh in fact what I

486
02:21:51.920 --> 02:22:07.280
would argue that it probably uh is generally higher because of other activities that we all are involved with in the nice in the warmer months particularly in this portion of the Jersey City. But also then to validate our conclusions we did take the opportunity to conduct additional

487
02:22:07.280 --> 02:22:22.080
traffic counts uh which we did in October uh of uh of 2025 October 7th specifically. We verified that school would be uh in progress. Uh and uh uh we went out and recollected the data and

488
02:22:22.080 --> 02:22:38.560
did an updated supplemental analysis to recheck the intersection. Uh the the response or that information was uh documented in a uh supplemental traffic statement dated October 17th of 2025. Uh

489
02:22:38.560 --> 02:22:53.040
>> that a copy of your >> that is a copy of that the memo that was prepared. Uh to put it uh straightforward uh if you had a chance to review that uh in this particular case the the October data actually uh

490
02:22:53.040 --> 02:23:08.800
came out to be either dead on or lower than the August data. Uh in fact, if you uh looked at the data, the intersection during the AM peak hour uh during back in August when we originally counted it in 2024,

491
02:23:08.800 --> 02:23:24.240
uh there was approximately 1,300 vehicles traveling through that intersection during that peak 1 hour period in the morning. Uh when we went back out in October, uh we basically found 1,300 vehicles traveling through

492
02:23:24.240 --> 02:23:39.840
that intersection. ex almost exactly the same volumes almost exactly the same uh traffic patterns uh occurring through the intersection. So that was a verifiable count of our prior data. Similarly in the PM hour the traffic

493
02:23:39.840 --> 02:23:56.319
patterns were observed to be uh relatively the same in October uh except that they were probably overall through the intersection a little more than 100 vehicles per hour uh less. Uh we then took the next step. We took that data, replplugged it into our models and

494
02:23:56.319 --> 02:24:12.560
rechecked the analysis. We also took the opportunity to observe the traffic signal operation and timing just to make sure that we were running the analysis with what we were observing in the field. And basically, we reconfirm that the intersection generally operates at

495
02:24:12.560 --> 02:24:27.840
good levels of service and we'll continue to do so uh when this project is is completed. And that's all documented in that supplemental uh memo. So, uh the uh the September 6 traffic data is verified uh by the latest

496
02:24:27.840 --> 02:24:44.800
traffic study and that's that that's I think the update that we have to offer. >> Thank you. Um and just to add the supplemental traffic study which is dated October 17th, 2025 and is being marked as A21 has been posted on the

497
02:24:44.800 --> 02:25:06.640
planning portal since October of 2025. >> Okay. Thank you, council. Any questions for Mr. Thank you. >> Anyone >> council? Any cross? >> Miss Hajianis, any cross? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank

498
02:25:06.640 --> 02:25:27.920
you. >> Thank you. >> Board has no question. >> Board has no questions. >> Uh, next witness is the my civil engineer for the project. testimony tonight. The whole truth. >> I do.

499
02:25:27.920 --> 02:25:57.600
>> My name is Brian. B R Y an W A I S N O R. >> Mr. Wazner, good evening. Your license is current tonight as well. >> It is. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. >> Thank you. >> Did you swear? Mr. Wazner, you testified before this

500
02:25:57.600 --> 02:26:14.560
board on September 9th, 2025. Correct. >> Correct. >> And have re you reviewed the transcript from the September 9th hearing to prepare for tonight's hearing? >> I have. And at the time of that hearing, the civil site plans that you testified

501
02:26:14.560 --> 02:26:33.120
regarding was a series of civil plans with 37 sheets starting at CS001 and ending at CS503, last revised October 26th, 2025. Correct.

502
02:26:33.120 --> 02:26:48.000
>> That's correct. And you've reviewed the record from that hearing and those plans were marked A3 for identification. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. And at the time we advised the board on

503
02:26:48.000 --> 02:27:04.240
the record that those plans addressed some of the comments that we had received from the division of infrastructure. Is that correct? >> Correct. And we also advised them that we addressed some of the comments that we had received from the Jersey City

504
02:27:04.240 --> 02:27:21.280
Municipal Utilities Authority, but not all of them. Correct. >> Correct. >> And we also advised them that we had addressed some of the comments from the HOA's uh experts that had submitted comment letters, but we had not had the chance to consider them all. Is that correct?

505
02:27:21.280 --> 02:27:36.880
>> That's correct. >> Okay. So when we came to So you were also in attendance at the October 28th, 2025 planning board hearing. Is that correct? >> Correct.

506
02:27:36.880 --> 02:27:51.920
>> Okay. And between that date and the September 9th date when we presented our set of plans that are A3, we made more revisions to those plans to address the comments of the um persons

507
02:27:51.920 --> 02:28:09.359
and entities that I just referenced. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. So what we are offering the board tonight is basically another set of plans that we're going to ask them to approve in lie of the A3 plans. Correct.

508
02:28:09.359 --> 02:28:24.800
>> Correct. >> Okay. And for identification purposes, those plans are civil site plans prepared by Langan Engineering. Again, consisting of 37 sheets starting at CS00001

509
02:28:24.800 --> 02:28:41.359
and ending at CS503. Last revised October 16th, 2025. >> Correct. >> Okay. All right. Um, council, I have a 8 and a

510
02:28:41.359 --> 02:28:59.560
half by 11 set of those plans. Mr. Wazner is going to testify um, as we usually do by putting those plans up on the screen, but I can give you a copy of these plans right now. We can mark them A22.

511
02:29:01.120 --> 02:29:19.040
A22 >> last revised October 16, 2025. 37 set 37 page set Langan civil plans >> and and these were uploaded on the

512
02:29:19.040 --> 02:29:36.160
portal. >> Yes. >> Can you >> Can you tell us the file name? I downloaded all the things from the portal and I just want to have them on my screen. I'm sorry. Can I >> Do you know what the file name was? I I

513
02:29:36.160 --> 02:30:05.280
downloaded everything from the portal. Commissioner, we're going to post them on the screen for you anyway. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner. Were you able to find them on your downloads cuz

514
02:30:05.280 --> 02:30:29.520
>> No, all right. Take your time. >> It's the problem with the portal. It doesn't have a universal setting it may be civil engineering plans liberty watch site plan set revised

515
02:30:29.520 --> 02:30:53.200
10 >> there's a number of >> 17 >> civil plans >> 2025 >> okay yeah I I see that one yes thank You're welcome. >> Mr. Wazner, in addition

516
02:30:53.200 --> 02:31:08.720
to revising the plans, you also updated and submitted a new storm water management report pertaining to this application. Correct. >> Correct. >> And that storm water management report

517
02:31:08.720 --> 02:31:31.120
is dated revised October 16th, 2025. >> That's correct. identified as storm water management report for Liberty Watch. >> Correct. >> Is this a copy of that report? >> It is. >> Council going to offer you this report

518
02:31:31.120 --> 02:32:06.479
too. A23 >> that is on the portal. Yes, >> it is stormwater management report hyphen liberty watch hyphen. >> Mr. Wazner, can I can I keep going?

519
02:32:06.479 --> 02:32:21.439
Council, >> you may. >> Mr. Wazner. Um, in conjunction with the stormwater management report and the plans, we also submitted a letter to the board dated October 17, 2025, which

520
02:32:21.439 --> 02:32:38.040
summarized the revisions to the plans and responded to certain comments that were submitted to us by the HOA's engineer. Is that correct? >> Correct. Dated 1017 2025.

521
02:32:40.640 --> 02:33:12.479
I'm sorry. Which >> the the letter >> the letter is October 17th. >> Sorry. 10. Yes. Sorry. >> This is a copy of the letter. Correct. >> That's a copy of the letter. >> Okay. A24 will be the October 17th, 2025 Langan letter titled responses to

522
02:33:12.479 --> 02:33:29.479
comments. Liberty Watch, block number 2705 03, lot number 15, City, Jersey City, Hudson County, New Jersey, Lang project number 10118201

523
02:33:32.000 --> 02:33:51.120
A24. Mr. Wisner. After we made our presentation at the September hearing, we received comments from the JCMUA in reference to this application. Correct. >> Correct. >> Is this a copy of one of the comment

524
02:33:51.120 --> 02:34:11.920
letters that you reviewed? >> It is. >> And this comment letter is dated October 29th, 2025. It's on JCMUA letterhead and it's signed by Rajie Pash. Sorry, sir. >> 26.

525
02:34:11.920 --> 02:34:29.359
>> You didn't finish the question. I was >> 25. >> 25. And in addition to that, um, we have a another letter from the JCMUA dated January 21st, 2026,

526
02:34:29.359 --> 02:34:49.920
which addresses certain concerns of the MUA that were set forth in their previous comment letters. Correct. >> That's correct. >> This a copy of that letter? >> It is. >> Okay. And that January 21st letter is also

527
02:34:49.920 --> 02:35:17.280
signed by Mr. Rajie Pash. So A25 is the October 29, 2025 JCMUA letter. A26 January 21st 2026

528
02:35:17.280 --> 02:35:40.800
Jersey City MUA letter. All right, Mr. Wazner, would you like to now commence summarizing for the board the revisions that we made to the plans in connection with the

529
02:35:40.800 --> 02:36:20.000
various letters that I have just referenced? Uh, sure. You want me to go through the letter? Just go right. See if I can share my screen. So this is the set of 37 sheets, the

530
02:36:20.000 --> 02:36:35.040
civil uh plan set. Uh this is the same set that's on the portal. The only uh difference tonight is I've highlighted in yellow just for easy reference if we need to refer to anything the items that have changed since the prior submission.

531
02:36:35.040 --> 02:36:50.319
Otherwise, the plans are the same. Um the uh the comments that we had received from uh some of the agencies that we hadn't received or gotten to previously included adding some

532
02:36:50.319 --> 02:37:05.920
crosswalk paint markings um at both Chapel Avenue and interior to the site at the request of the traffic group uh department of infrastructure. Um we also added some details for the water and the

533
02:37:05.920 --> 02:37:24.080
sewer uh specifically at the request of JCMUA uh as part of their review. Um and then we also updated the plans or enhanced the design for comments that we had received from the HOA consultants.

534
02:37:24.080 --> 02:37:40.160
And really those comments came down to three general uh things which was protecting existing HOA utilities, providing more detailed on the grading and the retaining wall that would abut the common property line and providing

535
02:37:40.160 --> 02:37:57.040
additional storm water analyses. So regarding the existing utilities, I'm going to move to sheet two of this 37page set uh set. It's the uh overall site removals plan sheet CD 100.

536
02:37:57.040 --> 02:38:15.280
And again, some of the notes that are highlighted here. Uh I won't re excuse me one second. They include notes to protect uh or identifying the contractor's

537
02:38:15.280 --> 02:38:31.120
requirement to maintain sanitary sewer service throughout construction to do test pits at the common boundary to cut off any pipes that will not be used on the applicant's property that do connect into the HOA's property. Uh but ultimately it will be the contractor's

538
02:38:31.120 --> 02:38:47.840
means and methods to protect these utilities as they carry out the work. There are also comments in the HOA consultants letter alluding to utility work that had to be performed on the HOA property. And just to be clear, there is

539
02:38:47.840 --> 02:39:04.479
no work or there are yeah there is no work proposed on the HOA property. All the work will be done on the applicant's property or on Chapel Avenue in front of the applicant's property. Um, regarding the detailed grading and

540
02:39:04.479 --> 02:39:19.280
retaining wall along the common boundary, I'm going to move over to page 12 of the PDF, which is the grading and drainage uh overall uh

541
02:39:19.280 --> 02:39:36.399
grading and drainage plan. And if I zoom in again, you can see what's highlighted here in yellow on the screen is where there is a proposed wall that follows the boundary of the property uh or the common property line

542
02:39:36.399 --> 02:39:51.920
between the HOA and this proposed application. And this is where we've added more details for spot grades along the wall. Uh we actually at the request of the HOA increased the height of the wall in some

543
02:39:51.920 --> 02:40:07.680
locations so that the wall was at least 6 in above the sidewalk elevation on the applicant's property. The applicant's property is going to be higher than the HOA. So the wall is going to be a 6 in buffer above the applicant's sidewalk

544
02:40:07.680 --> 02:40:24.240
or 6 in above the inlet if there is an inlet adjacent to it. And we actually did a detailed great capacity analysis, which is when you get a heavy rainstorm and the water can't get into the inlet quick enough, it will sit on top of the

545
02:40:24.240 --> 02:40:39.200
grate. And if that were to happen, we went 6 in above that. So, we kind of had three criteria to determine how high that wall should be, and we met all three of those by raising up uh the elevation there.

546
02:40:39.200 --> 02:40:56.560
And although this plan is hard to see, the next couple of plans in the sheet, which I won't delve into in detail, but again, you can see the yellow highlights. And we provided quite a bit of uh information highlighted here in yellow

547
02:40:56.560 --> 02:41:13.479
with specific spot grades, retaining wall heights, uh low points, and so forth. So, we did detail out the plans quite a bit since uh the original uh submission at the request of the HOA.

548
02:41:15.359 --> 02:41:31.600
And then regarding storm water, the HOA's consultant suggested at the time, >> Mr. Wisner. Yes, sir. >> Before we go into storm water, can I ask you a couple of questions about the MUA letter dated January 21st, 2026?

549
02:41:31.600 --> 02:41:51.840
>> Yes. Can you summarize what the applicant has agreed to in connection with the MUA? >> Sure. So, this is the January 2026 final letter from the JCMUA >> 2021st. >> 2021st in 2026.

550
02:41:51.840 --> 02:42:09.680
So, the JCMUA in that letter outlines um pump station upgrades that they expect for the project. Um they're going to upgrade the pump station to accommodate the existing flow that goes to the pump station today from the HOA

551
02:42:09.680 --> 02:42:25.520
and from the Oliver. Celeste >> just just explain that there is a pump station just for the new board members. There is a pump station on the property. Correct. >> That's correct. >> And that pump station presently serves the HOA property. Correct.

552
02:42:25.520 --> 02:42:41.840
>> Correct. >> And it also serves that the Oliver project. That's correct. >> Okay. And that pump station is located on the applicant's property already. Correct. >> In an easement to the JCMUA. >> And it's operated by the JCMUA. >> Owned and operated by the JCMUA.

553
02:42:41.840 --> 02:42:56.720
Correct. >> And they in their comment letters requested that certain upgrades be made to the pump in earlier comment letters um to accommodate this project's sanitary flow. Correct.

554
02:42:56.720 --> 02:43:11.600
>> That's correct. >> Okay. Go ahead. So they identified in their January letter upgrades to be made uh which will include new pumps, a new alarm and monitoring system and other related

555
02:43:11.600 --> 02:43:26.319
components. Uh the JCMUA will carry out this work on their own pump station uh through their forces and the applicant has agreed to reimburse the JCMUA for the cost of the upgrades.

556
02:43:26.319 --> 02:43:42.160
>> I I have a question. Um you mentioned that the upgrades are to um increase the capacity to accommodate the additional sanitary flow from from this proposed development. Um was the proposed um

557
02:43:42.160 --> 02:43:59.200
storm flow the proposed uh storm water flow from um the increased impermeable surface area also taken into account? >> The storm water is a separate system than the sanitary. It's not a combined system. It's not combined the city storm separate system.

558
02:43:59.200 --> 02:44:16.399
>> Okay. Most of the city is combined. So, >> Yep. >> All right. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Um in that letter uh in January 2026, um the JCMUA also addresses a clogging situation that has begun after the

559
02:44:16.399 --> 02:44:31.760
Oliver started to lease up their spaces. That has nothing to do with this project. as as you know, this project's not built or online. Um, so it's unrelated to this application. Nevertheless, the JCMUA is going to

560
02:44:31.760 --> 02:44:48.399
install what they call a netting chamber that will catch some of the debris before it clogs up the pumps. Um, they're going to do that. JCMUA is going to do that on their easement using their forces. And the applicant has agreed to

561
02:44:48.399 --> 02:45:06.720
pay onethird of the cost of that netting chamber, >> which is all that the JCMUA asked us to pay. Correct. And and is that proportional because the the netting chamber is expected to be handling um

562
02:45:06.720 --> 02:45:22.000
handling rags from other sources as well and they're expecting that this proposed development would contribute about onethird of the rags to be caught in these screens. So the answer to that is yes. Um because the HOA uses will use the netting

563
02:45:22.000 --> 02:45:37.680
chamber, they will benefit from it. Um because I think honestly what we were told by the MU JCMUA is that when there's a backup which I think they believe it's being caused by the Oliver, it actually negatively affects the HOA's

564
02:45:37.680 --> 02:45:55.600
property. So um our client, the applicant agreed to pay one-third at the request of the JCMUA and then the JCMA is going to I believe assess the Oliver owner and the HOA the other two/3s. That's our understanding at least that's

565
02:45:55.600 --> 02:46:11.359
what's in this letter. >> Thank you. >> And our understanding is they're carrying out that project independent of this project. They realize that's a immediate need for them to do and they're doing that. But they wanted us to be aware.

566
02:46:11.359 --> 02:46:27.680
Um and so uh that that's the majority of the letter. Uh they do have some other comments at the end of the letter that confirms that the project's storm water design meets

567
02:46:27.680 --> 02:46:45.760
the city stormwater ordinance and they note that any remaining items that haven't been caught yet in our plans um they would be fine to allow us to revise them as a condition of approval but before construction starts which is pretty typical for utility um type

568
02:46:45.760 --> 02:47:02.560
detailing plan. >> Mr. Wisner, the the pump station upgrades are being made because of this project, but they also benefit the Oliver and the HOA because the pump station itself, a lot of the mechanisms, computers,

569
02:47:02.560 --> 02:47:18.800
alarms, monitoring, they're all being upgraded, which will benefit all three of the users. Correct. >> Correct. Um, through the discussions with JCMU, we've learned that the pump station's pretty outdated. It's got non-functioning pieces. the alarm is,

570
02:47:18.800 --> 02:47:38.319
you know, several generations older kind of alarms. Um, so they're looking at this as a net benefit to modernize the equipment that otherwise they may not be able to modernize. >> So before you get to storm water, one other thing. Um, on the plans that are

571
02:47:38.319 --> 02:47:53.600
up before the board tonight and council, can you remind me the A what are they? >> A22. >> A22. Now, we presented basically almost the same plans in terms of um the location

572
02:47:53.600 --> 02:48:09.760
of every building um on these plans. A22 is in exactly the same place as it was on the plans that were presented to the board in September. Right. >> Correct. No changes to the buildings. >> Right. And the height of every building is exactly the same. >> Correct. And

573
02:48:09.760 --> 02:48:25.920
>> the configuration of where the buildings lie on the property are exactly the same. >> Correct. number of units are the same. >> Correct. >> Parking layout is all the same. >> All the same. >> Okay. Um, so the point I'm making is and and if there's new board members and you have questions regarding actually what

574
02:48:25.920 --> 02:48:42.080
the plans have in terms of units and where the units are, we can answer all those questions, but I wasn't going to go through that again because it was already thoroughly presented in September. So, um, can I move on?

575
02:48:42.080 --> 02:48:57.680
>> Yes. Okay. >> Thank you, Chairman. >> Just one minor question on what you just presented. Um >> the 6-inch wall that's going to go around the property. Could you just confirm is there a drop off on the other side or is this really more like curbing >> for drainage purposes?

576
02:48:57.680 --> 02:49:14.640
>> So, so the it's a retaining wall. Um the this application, this property will be higher in some locations than the adjacent property than the HOA. So, it'll be a retaining wall. What they're basically asking for is a lip on the top of the retaining wall to make sure that

577
02:49:14.640 --> 02:49:32.080
water wouldn't cascade over the wall onto their property. >> Would there then be a drop off on the other side of that wall? >> It'd be the face of the wall and there'd be a railing and fall protection on top of the wall. >> There would be a railing. That's That's where I'm going. Thank you. >> No worries. Okay, council. Go ahead.

578
02:49:32.080 --> 02:49:48.720
>> Okay. Uh Mr. Wiser. Um, regarding So, just for the record, we believe that we've addressed substantially all of the HOA's comments, and that's the purpose of this presentation. Um, except for a handful of things that we cannot

579
02:49:48.720 --> 02:50:05.520
address, and we're going to explain to you why. Um, so Brian, I'm going to let you take it away from there if you're ready for that. >> Sure. Sure. Um just again for some context um where we left off uh was the

580
02:50:05.520 --> 02:50:22.399
HOA consultant had asked us to verify some of the storm water calculations that we had done particularly about the area around the site that might be contributing flow through the site. U so in response we had the surveyor verify pipe sizes connections. We reviewed

581
02:50:22.399 --> 02:50:40.319
additional information on the project plans for the Oliver uh old HOA pro or old project uh plans for the site and HOA plans and we pieced together as comprehensive an understanding as we could uh adjusted our model and reran it

582
02:50:40.319 --> 02:50:57.120
and those results are what's in the submission before you tonight the October 16th 2025 stormwood report that is exhibit A23 three. Um, what's in that

583
02:50:57.120 --> 02:51:14.160
storm water report which was done specifically at the request of the HOA consultant is we analyze the conveyance system. So, this is the inlets and the pipe specifically under the future 25 and the future 100red-year rainfall events. Um, this is

584
02:51:14.160 --> 02:51:31.920
not required by the DP by any regulation or permitting requirement. Um, but under that extreme event, the 100red-year rainfall intensity falling on the site with the wet ponds where the water discharges to having

585
02:51:31.920 --> 02:51:47.040
already filled up from the future 100red-year storm event, it still shows that the pipes, the inlets, the grading of this site will hold the water from this site and not allow it to discharge into the neighboring property. I say it's all above and beyond because the

586
02:51:47.040 --> 02:52:04.960
reality is the storm water for this site is governed by a tidal flood event and I'll get into that in a minute. Uh so this rainfall driven event is above and beyond what's required for the design of this site but we were able to model it,

587
02:52:04.960 --> 02:52:23.840
accommodate it, tweak a little grading here and there to provide extra comfort on that. So we understand there are about three stormwater related comments relate uh remaining uh that we haven't addressed. Um

588
02:52:23.840 --> 02:52:40.399
>> Mr. Wes, just one quick thing. >> Yes, >> we notified the board and submitted as an exhibit a flood hazard permit that we received from the D at the previous September hearing. Correct. >> Correct. We received that permit in

589
02:52:40.399 --> 02:53:00.880
March 18, 2025. and I believe it was marked exhibit A6. >> Thank you. >> So the first and what I perceive as the main comment about the impacts to the HOA property is what is described as

590
02:53:00.880 --> 02:53:18.399
runoff during or the runoff from the 100redyear title flood event. And I'm struggling to say the words because it kind of mixes two different things. Runoff from rainfall events is called fluial flooding. That's

591
02:53:18.399 --> 02:53:34.560
rains runs off the property. Whereas a tidal flood event is when the ocean comes in. It's not affected by rainfall. It's affected by high tide and the winds. So it's really two different things. And mixing them together is not

592
02:53:34.560 --> 02:53:50.560
how the regulations require you to analyze it. And it's not at all a common occurrence or commonly done in the design of these things. So, uh, I'll use an exhibit. I guess I want to introduce a new exhibit.

593
02:53:50.560 --> 02:54:11.920
>> Yep. Please. >> We're up to number 27. I believe you are up to 827. Is this something that has not been previously submitted or >> A27 is uh excerpts from the waterfront

594
02:54:11.920 --> 02:54:27.920
development permit that I just referenced which is A6. >> So this is an excerpt >> I'm sorry I'm sorry flood hazard permit. Sorry apologize. >> This is an are going to be certain portions of A6. >> Yes sir.

595
02:54:27.920 --> 02:54:45.359
>> So we are going to mark it as A27. Yes. As well as >> as well as some of the flood hazard area control act rules. >> So there's going to be excerpts of a permit and excerpts of the ordinances that they or the rules that they come

596
02:54:45.359 --> 02:55:06.200
from. >> But we've combined those into one exhibit. >> Yes, sir. >> Can we call it a presentation or information? The market is A27. We're going to refer to it as exer

597
02:55:07.439 --> 02:55:40.080
of said it was a tideland permit. >> Flood hazard. >> Flood hazard. A6. >> Flood hazard. March 18th, 2025. >> That's the flood hazard permit. Yes.

598
02:55:40.080 --> 02:55:58.160
>> How many sheets of the flood hazard permit? >> There are three sheets of the flood hazard permit out of nine. The other six sheets are excerpts of the regulation,

599
02:55:58.160 --> 02:56:26.560
>> correct? >> Of two different regulations. >> Excerpts of the Flood Hazard Area Control Act rules and the storm water management rules >> and the total exhibit is nine sheets.

600
02:56:26.560 --> 02:56:56.160
>> That's correct. >> 827. >> Good to go. >> Sure. >> Unless we've got 828. >> No. >> Okay. Okay. So, the first page of this exhibit is the first page of the FHA permit that

601
02:56:56.160 --> 02:57:13.920
was issued for this project. So, it's the first page of exhibit A6. And the highlighted uh governing rule in the upper right corner is NJAC 713 flood hazard area. It it is which is

602
02:57:13.920 --> 02:57:28.880
the flood hazard area control act rule. So, this permit refers to this specific rule. Okay, I'll move to page two, which coincidentally is page two of this exhibit and page two of the flood hazard

603
02:57:28.880 --> 02:57:54.479
permit. Mr. Wazner, can you zoom in on that? >> Sure, please. >> Thank you. And this is um highlighted is where the FHA permit uh identifies actually NJD identifies in

604
02:57:54.479 --> 02:58:10.640
the permit that the flood hazard elevation of 12 is what governs this flight uh this site which corresponds to the title flood plane elevation on the preliminary FEMA map uh which is a title flood plane map. So this confirms that

605
02:58:10.640 --> 02:58:29.439
the regulatory requirement for D permitting is the title flood which is storm surge not a fluial or rainfall driven event. Page three of this exhibit is coincidentally for

606
02:58:29.439 --> 02:58:44.560
the last time page three of exhibit A6 the flood hazard permit. And again to zoom in on the yellow highlight, um the FHA permit states that the department has determined that this project meets the requirements of the

607
02:58:44.560 --> 02:59:03.359
storm water management rules at NJAC78. This is referring 78 is the stormwater management rules. This is referring that the state code for storm water has been met by this project by this application. They would not give us a permit unless

608
02:59:03.359 --> 02:59:18.560
we met we met those rules. And the important distinction I'm making is that there's really two rules to pay attention to here. There's the 713 for flooding and the 78 for storm water management. They're interconnected. They

609
02:59:18.560 --> 02:59:41.439
play together. Sheet four. This is the cover sheet. of the NJAC 7 col13 flood hazard area control act rules that were in effect when the D reviewed and issued a flood

610
02:59:41.439 --> 02:59:57.680
hazard permit for this project. This is nothing more than the cover sheet. This is the rule uh that they applied. The next sheet is page 11 of those rules

611
02:59:57.680 --> 03:00:15.120
and is specifically the definition section where the highlighted text identifies how they define different kinds of flood hazard areas and I am going to read it for everybody's benefit. There are two types of flood hazard areas. tidal flood hazard area in

612
03:00:15.120 --> 03:00:31.600
which the flood hazard area designed flood elevation is governed by tidal flooding from the Atlantic Ocean. Flooding in a tidal flood hazard area may be contributed to or influenced by storm water runoff from inland areas, but the depth of flooding generated by the tidal rise and fall of the Atlantic

613
03:00:31.600 --> 03:00:46.720
Ocean is greater than the flood of any fluial sources. And number two, fluial flood hazard areas in which the flood hazard area design flood elevation is governed by storm water runoff. Flooding in a fluial

614
03:00:46.720 --> 03:01:02.399
flood hazard area may be contributed to or influenced by elevated water levels generated by the tidal rise and fall of the Atlantic Ocean, but the depth of flooding generated by storm water runoff is greater than the flooding from the Atlantic Ocean. So there's very clearly

615
03:01:02.399 --> 03:01:20.479
two different kinds. There's not a third kind that mixes them together. The first kind, the title flood hazard elevation is what applies to us. That was what was stated in the permit. So again, the takeaway here is that

616
03:01:20.479 --> 03:01:35.520
the flooding, the storm surge from the ocean is what's going to govern the flood elevation on this site, not the storm water that comes down. You don't add rainfall on top of the storm surge that comes into the ocean and say that's my flood hazard area.

617
03:01:35.520 --> 03:01:52.560
It's one or the other. >> Mr. Wazner, that's because the t That's because the tidal flood is so much greater than the rainfall. Correct.

618
03:01:52.560 --> 03:02:07.439
>> That's correct. >> So, it's the equivalent of an Olympic size pool and a bathtub. The bathtub doesn't change the level of the flood. Is that accurate as a as just as an analogy?

619
03:02:07.439 --> 03:02:23.279
>> That that's accurate. The the rising of the tide, the blowing of the wind, the increase of the storm surge is what drives the water to come up higher than any amount of rain will along the coastal uh area >> and the rain is immaterial

620
03:02:23.279 --> 03:02:39.279
>> for purposes of a tidal flood plane. Correct. Rain is still going to happen and you still have to manage it, which we've shown how we are managing it by keeping it on our site. But when the title flood event happens, no amount of rain is going to increase that title

621
03:02:39.279 --> 03:02:55.840
flood amount. >> Which was my question as far as immaterial, right? If the title flood event is happening, the rainfall, there's no impact from that because >> it's the ocean. It's a literal and figurative drop in the ocean.

622
03:02:55.840 --> 03:03:13.279
Okay, go ahead, Mr. Wazer. >> So, moving on to page six of this presentation. This is just the cover sheet of the uh NJAC78

623
03:03:13.279 --> 03:03:29.479
stormwater management regulation that was in effect when the DP issued the flood hazard permit for the project. So these are the regulations that D reviewed when they reviewed our application and issued a permit.

624
03:03:29.600 --> 03:03:46.399
Page seven of this slide deck is page four of that rule and what's highlighted is text from the scope and purpose of those rules. The chapter establishes design and performance standards for stormwater management measures required by rules pursuant to

625
03:03:46.399 --> 03:04:07.840
the flood hazard area control act. So again, they're tied together. Flood hazard and storm water. They're not to be taken separately. Page eight. These are still the 78 stormwater management rules.

626
03:04:07.840 --> 03:04:26.000
And this is on page 42. And the highlighted section is 78 5.6B 6B or 5.6 why it keeps popping up the storm water runoff quant quantity standards and

627
03:04:26.000 --> 03:04:41.200
section B. So this this is where you have to manage storm water that falls on your site. Uh it provides three options under B or actually provides four options under B. In order to control storm water runoff impacts the design engineer shall complete one

628
03:04:41.200 --> 03:04:56.160
of the following. Number one starts on this page. I'll flip to page nine, which is the last uh item uh of this presentation. It continues on with one, two, and

629
03:04:56.160 --> 03:05:11.760
three. I won't read them, but in summary, these are the options or the requirements to control storm water runoff from rainfall at the property by either showing that you're reducing it, you're capturing it, you're releasing it

630
03:05:11.760 --> 03:05:28.080
more slowly, you're infiltrating it, uh you're managing it so that it doesn't run off your site. Option four highlighted here addresses what happens in title flood hazard areas. So in title flood hazard

631
03:05:28.080 --> 03:05:44.560
areas storm water runoff quantity analysis in accordance with B12 or three above that's the first three options is required unless the design engineer demonstrates through hydraologic and hydraulic analysis that the increased volume change in timing or increase rate

632
03:05:44.560 --> 03:05:59.120
of the storm water runoff or any combination of the three will not result in additional flood damage below the point of discharge of major development highlighted in green. No analysis is required if storm water is discharged

633
03:05:59.120 --> 03:06:16.160
directly into the ocean bay or the reach of any water course between its confluence with the ocean bay or inlet and downstream of the first water control structure. And the reason this is highlighted is because this is in simple terms

634
03:06:16.160 --> 03:06:32.640
what D relied on when they reviewed our flood hazard permit as we are discharging directly to the flood the title flood event. We're discharging directly through pipes and frankly through the flood that happens on Chapel

635
03:06:32.640 --> 03:06:49.840
Avenue to our site. The wet ponds have direct pipes to our site. So the storm water goes directly to the title flood event. DP validated this when they issued the FHA permit, the flood hazard permit

636
03:06:49.840 --> 03:07:05.439
because we didn't provide an analysis of the storm water that complied with one, two, and three. They would not have issued the permit if they required that. So D relied on what's highlighted here in green or I should say they interpreted it and that's how they uh

637
03:07:05.439 --> 03:07:22.080
approved the project. And so analysis of runoff at the property line by conventional means with a storm water basin or some what's my 100redyear runoff. It does not impact

638
03:07:22.080 --> 03:07:37.840
govern or control the title flood elevation. Title flood elevation is what governs here which is again the storm surge from the ocean. Um the last thing just highlighted there, section C, that the storm water quantity standard shall be applied at

639
03:07:37.840 --> 03:07:53.439
the site's boundary to each abuing lot. Again, the standards are referring to items 1, 2, 3, or four. If there is no standard to be applied, no analysis to be applied, that section does not apply.

640
03:07:53.439 --> 03:08:09.680
Again, if DP wanted to ensure because they thought that this was fluial controlled, this was controlled by rain, they would have asked us for an analysis at the boundary. They didn't. So, no analysis of the 100red-year storm or

641
03:08:09.680 --> 03:08:25.600
future hundred-year storm was required by DP. However, we did it to show that we're capturing it and keeping it on site anyway. >> We did it because the HOA asked us to do it. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. The HOA also asks us to analyze runoff

642
03:08:25.600 --> 03:08:41.760
from the title 100-year event. As I hopefully have described to you, there is no runoff from the 100red-year title event. The title event is the storm surge from the ocean. It's a flat elevation, elevation 12 in this case, and it fills anything that's below

643
03:08:41.760 --> 03:08:58.720
elevation 12, regardless of whether there's a property line, a fence, or anything else. The water comes in from the ocean, it hits that mark, and that's it. No amount of runoff is going to change that. So the sites in a title flood plane

644
03:08:58.720 --> 03:09:14.720
that's what controls not storm water. What we have done and I've described we did an analysis of what happens under the future 25 and the future 100red-year rainfall. And again that's looking to the year 2100 to say how much more rain are we going to get.

645
03:09:14.720 --> 03:09:31.120
Forecast that drop it down on your site. And even doing all that, we captured the rain and kept it on our site, not flowing into the HOA. Um, it was suggested maybe we should run additional pipes to the wet pond. Well,

646
03:09:31.120 --> 03:09:47.040
the wet pond has all this tidal flood influence that comes in and fills it up to an elevation. Adding more pipes is not going to change how much the tide comes in. It's not going to change how quickly we can get the water out. We've shown we can keep it on our site.

647
03:09:47.040 --> 03:10:03.840
Um, I've also, um, understand that there's a question or a concern over a couple of inlets and these are the last points that I'm aware of uh, that were raised and um, I just

648
03:10:03.840 --> 03:10:19.120
wanted to walk you through them. So, if you recall from the project, there is an emergency access that's proposed at the end of Aurora Place up the HOA uh via easement uh that goes into the

649
03:10:19.120 --> 03:10:35.200
applicant's property. And again, because the applicant's property will be higher, there will be a slope. We made uh pavers in here, so it won't be paved. It'll be grass pavers, but if necessary, an emergency vehicle can drive on it. And at the end of that road, at the low

650
03:10:35.200 --> 03:10:52.479
point of uh the applicant site, right where it meets the HOA property is catch basin 408. And just to walk you through the detail for 408.

651
03:10:52.479 --> 03:11:10.319
I'm now on page 15 in my drawing set in this upper right corner. Catchbasin 408 is a few feet inside the property line. So this right side of the figure where I'm circling my hand on the screen right now is the HOA property and

652
03:11:10.319 --> 03:11:28.439
the applicant's property is on the left hand side. This is the the boundary line uh shown with the long and the two uh the long dash and the two dots. Uh the inlet in question the surface elevation of that inlet uh is 11.24.

653
03:11:28.479 --> 03:11:44.000
The property line grade is 11.39. So about two inches above the inlet's two inches lower on the applicant's property. When we ran the 100red-year uh storm event, rainfall event, we found that the

654
03:11:44.000 --> 03:12:00.600
water in the pipe in that inlet would actually be about a foot below the inlet surface. So it be about 10.28 compared to the surface elevation of 11.24 24 compared to the property line of 11.39.

655
03:12:00.800 --> 03:12:17.840
We understand the applicant would like more freeboard or they'd like that inlet to be lower. That water elevation is already more than a foot lower than the adjacent property. It's not behind the retaining wall. It's frankly a little bit lower than the applicant's property,

656
03:12:17.840 --> 03:12:33.040
but there's more than the 6 in of freeboard that they're asking for by our analysis and model. So physically lowering that is not going to change the hydraulics of the system. And moreover, all these elevations that

657
03:12:33.040 --> 03:12:48.160
I'm referring to 11.39, 11.28, they're all below elevation 12, which is a title flood elevation. So again, we're talking about rainfall where the bigger challenge or the more regulatory issue is the the flood uh title flood plane

658
03:12:48.160 --> 03:13:08.319
from the storm surge. Likewise, uh we understand there's a question or a concern on uh Near Freedom Way, which is down near Chapel Avenue. Uh

659
03:13:08.319 --> 03:13:24.399
just to zoom out, Chapel Avenue is running across the bottom of the page. Freedom Way uh is running north south on the page into the project site or into the HOA. And there are a couple of inlets. Again,

660
03:13:24.399 --> 03:13:39.920
the applicant's property is higher. It has to be higher to meet the flood plane regulations. And at the edge of the property where the applicant slopes down, we have a couple of small inlets there. Those inlets are at least 6 in below the

661
03:13:39.920 --> 03:13:57.040
adjacent property elevation. They're about 18 in below Freedom Way. So, it does show in our model under the extreme event that they asked us to run that there will be water on top of those inlets. The water can't get through the inlet and can't get through the pipes

662
03:13:57.040 --> 03:14:12.479
quick enough under a rainfall event. But, Freedom Way is still a foot or 18 inches above that. And moreover, that whole area, again, if I zoom in closer, the elevations are

663
03:14:12.479 --> 03:14:30.000
9.3, 10.7, 9.54. Everything's below elevation 12. So again, the tidal flood plane governs over this area and will fill in irregardless of property line, inlets, or anything else in a title storm surge

664
03:14:30.000 --> 03:14:46.800
event, which is what governs here. So, I just wanted to explain those items to you because I think we've done our best uh efforts to address all the comments that we could. Uh we've addressed all of them except for I

665
03:14:46.800 --> 03:15:02.239
believe these last couple. Uh I don't believe that they will um enhance the project any more than we already have. They're not required by the regulations. Frankly, the title flood um elevation

666
03:15:02.239 --> 03:15:18.319
makes all of these areas moot when you compare them to the can it be two inches lower, two inches higher or so forth. Um the project is compliant with the redevelopment plan does not require any variances waivers. Um this does not

667
03:15:18.319 --> 03:15:33.600
require any variances or waiverss from any code that I'm aware of for the way we've designed the storm water. Um and that's about it. storm water. We've protected the HOA property from storm water runoff. Correct.

668
03:15:33.600 --> 03:15:48.399
>> We have. We We've shown under the extreme events of a 100redyear storm, which you normally don't design your pipes and your inlets for. You normally design them for a 10 or 25 year storm. We've shown under a 100redyear storm, but there's still no water leaving the

669
03:15:48.399 --> 03:16:05.840
site to go over into the HOA. So, we have our flood hazard area permit from the D and at the request of the HOA, we've run the modeling so that we can confirm what you just said in terms of

670
03:16:05.840 --> 03:16:31.920
storm water runoff. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. I have no more questions for Mr. Wer. >> Okay. Thank you. I have no questions for Mr. Wazner. Anybody else? Thank you, sir. Uh, council, >> Jim, do you mind if I

671
03:16:31.920 --> 03:16:47.520
>> sure down makes it a little easier. Thanks. Like I said, I'm not big on paper, so uh, good evening, Mr. Wazer. >> Good evening. >> Couple of quick questions for you, and I'll try to be as brief as I can. One of the concerns I think you said

672
03:16:47.520 --> 03:17:02.880
raised by my client was the impact of flood waters on Port Liberte Homeowners Association's property. Correct. >> That's correct. >> And that concern included the impact of

673
03:17:02.880 --> 03:17:19.920
title flood waters on Port Liberte's property. Correct. >> That's my understanding. Yes. And you state in your storm water report that your changes did not address the impact of the 100-year title flood event. Correct?

674
03:17:19.920 --> 03:17:36.880
>> The 100-year title flood event is driven by the ocean, not by rainfall on our site. >> And in your report, you state you did not address the impact of the 100-year title flood event. Correct. >> I don't think I agree with that. Your

675
03:17:36.880 --> 03:17:51.920
report doesn't address the impact of a 100-year title flood event, does it? >> Uh, our flood hazard permit addresses the 100red-year title flood event. >> What changes were made to the plan to account for the 100-year title flooded

676
03:17:51.920 --> 03:18:08.560
event between the prior iteration and the October 2025 iteration. We didn't make any changes for the 100red-year title flood event because the 100red-year title flood event is a not rainfall

677
03:18:08.560 --> 03:18:24.000
driven event. The changes that we made were in response to the HOA's request to address rainfall events, not a title flood event. The title flood event was analyzed and approved by the D under the flood hazard permit.

678
03:18:24.000 --> 03:18:41.040
I think you also said that um NJAC7-8, which I think you referred to as the storm water management rules, those apply to the project. Correct. >> They do. >> And those must be followed, right? >> They do. >> Okay.

679
03:18:41.040 --> 03:18:57.279
One of the conditions of approval for this application is that the applicant does not impact a neighboring site with flood waters as a result of construction of its development. Correct. Is is that read from a permit or >> is it your understanding that one of the

680
03:18:57.279 --> 03:19:15.600
conditions of approval for the planning board to be able to approve this is that the applicant's application will not impact a neighboring site with flood waters. >> You have to specify whether it's >> You got to get in front of the mic.

681
03:19:15.600 --> 03:19:33.239
>> Thank you. You have to specify whether it's a storm order event or a title flood event. They're not the same thing. So when you say flood, we need to know which one of them are you are you asking about? >> Okay, let's start with fluial.

682
03:19:33.439 --> 03:19:50.319
>> So the controlling flood event is a title flood event. So I don't think that a fluial flood event is the applicable standard to be applied here. That said, our report and analysis shows that under

683
03:19:50.319 --> 03:20:05.920
a fluial event, under the 100red-year fluial event, we will not be impacting the HOA. Okay. And how about under a 100-year title flood event? Your report does not show that you will not impact the HOA. Correct.

684
03:20:05.920 --> 03:20:20.479
>> So, the 100red-year title flood event is the storm surge from the ocean that will seek out an elevation. We are not changing any elevations on the HOA property. So, we are not changing the title flood event impacts on the HOA

685
03:20:20.479 --> 03:20:38.800
property from what it is today. >> I want to turn to the pump station for a second. >> You talked about the January uh letter from JCUMA. Um it was A25, correct?

686
03:20:38.800 --> 03:20:55.120
>> Uh I believe so. Yes. >> Okay. And I don't know if you have a copy. >> Sorry. 8 825 is an October letter. Did you say January or October? >> 826 is the January letter. >> My apologies. I missed an exhibit.

687
03:20:55.120 --> 03:21:11.840
>> Okay. >> You talked about 826, the January letter from JCMA. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And um JCMA states in that letter um that one of the upgrades that JCMA

688
03:21:11.840 --> 03:21:28.399
was going to carry out was to design, purchase, install, and permit a netting chamber. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And the netting chamber purpose was to prevent solid waste from entering the pump station from the project.

689
03:21:28.399 --> 03:21:41.840
Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And you referred to that during your testimony as uh the clogging that began after the Oliver was built, right? >> The the netting chamber will in the

690
03:21:41.840 --> 03:21:59.760
JCMUA's eyes reduce or eliminate the clogging that is occurring that they seem to have occurred after the Oliver came online. >> I don't have the knowledge that the JCMUA has in terms of all the specifics, but that's my understanding. >> Okay. And the the letter said that um PY

691
03:21:59.760 --> 03:22:15.920
will reimburse 33% of the costs uh for that netting chamber. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So letter states first JCMA will pay and then PY will reimburse 33.33% of that cost. Correct. >> That's correct.

692
03:22:15.920 --> 03:22:31.600
>> Okay. The letter doesn't address whether or not Port Libert Port Liberte will incur any cost from this requirement. Correct. I don't see it. >> Okay. But you have an understanding that subsequent to the issuance of this

693
03:22:31.600 --> 03:22:48.800
letter, you learned because you testified to it that JCUMA JCU MUA, sorry, is now seeking to require Port Liberte to share in the cost of the netting chamber. Correct. >> So, um, yeah.

694
03:22:48.800 --> 03:23:03.920
>> Is that an objection, council, or >> Yes. >> Okay. What is the objection? >> Here's the point. No, not the point. What's the objection? That's a question posed to a witness. What is the objection? >> Objection is we don't exactly know what the what the JC

695
03:23:03.920 --> 03:23:18.800
>> Stop the we the witness testified. There's a question pending to the witness. What is your objection other than you don't want your witness to attempt to answer the question? >> He can he can attempt to answer the question. I'll withdraw the objection. >> Thank you, councel. I don't know what

696
03:23:18.800 --> 03:23:36.399
JCMUA is going to charge or who they're going to charge for the other twothirds of the cost. >> And you heard your attorney say that they were going to charge the Oliver and the Port Liberte community during your testimony. Correct. >> I I heard Yes, I heard that statement.

697
03:23:36.399 --> 03:23:56.479
>> I don't have any further questions for the witness at this time. Thank you guys. >> Okay. Thank you, councel. >> Mr. McCain, >> you know, I'll withdraw what I said. >> The point of >> I wanted to know if you had any questions for the witness.

698
03:23:56.479 --> 03:24:37.520
>> No, I'm I'm done questioning. >> Hold on one second. >> Miss Hajis. >> Miss Hajianis. Someone say that's >> okay. Um good evening. you had testified that the um your project site is going

699
03:24:37.520 --> 03:24:54.720
to be higher than the surrounding sites. Um how much higher? >> Um the project site in accordance with the flood hazard area permit has to be raised to at least 1 ft above the flood elevation. The flood elevation is 12. So

700
03:24:54.720 --> 03:25:10.319
the site will be raised to at least elevation 13. The surrounding properties vary in elevation. Some are below 13, some are above. >> How far below? >> Um, uh, well, the

701
03:25:10.319 --> 03:25:26.640
Freedom Way is at elevation eight or nine. >> Okay. So, there might be a a five foot difference in elevation between your project site and the surrounding uh parcels. >> Uh, they're they're several feet. That's why we have a retaining wall along some

702
03:25:26.640 --> 03:25:43.520
of the common boundary. Um, but we're not proposing to change any of the grade on the adjacent parcels, but we are trying to make this site com we are making this site compliant with the flood hazard regulations and elevations. >> Okay. And I'm I actually had a question about the master plan amendment. I don't know that Langan prepared that. I don't

703
03:25:43.520 --> 03:25:58.160
know though if there's a different witness that I should ask that question to. >> In fairness, Mr. McCann, I don't think we got into the master plan amendment yet. That's the next case. >> Okay. All right. Thank you.

704
03:25:58.160 --> 03:26:15.200
>> But actually based upon those questions, um, we have an exhibit. >> You have to stand in front of the mic. I don't mean to be. >> Based upon that question, we do have an exhibit that can show the board the differences in the elevation between the

705
03:26:15.200 --> 03:26:32.800
HOA property and this property. Brian, do you want to pull that up? might help clarify some of the questions. >> I'm worried that I already said A27 was my last exhibit. >> You did say that.

706
03:26:32.800 --> 03:26:51.120
>> You also said you were going to be quick. >> Shall I describe this exhibit? >> Yes. >> Um, >> so this is going to be A28. A28 title flood plane extense exhibit

707
03:26:51.120 --> 03:27:13.600
prepared by Langan dated 310 2026. And if I can explain what we're looking at here, you might recognize the shape of this property of lot 15. Uh the unusual shape I'm tracing with my

708
03:27:13.600 --> 03:27:30.479
hand. Chapel Avenue is on the bottom running in sort of a 7 o'clock to two o'clock angle across the page there. And what's highlighted in blue is the tidal flood elevation extents that come in from the Hudson

709
03:27:30.479 --> 03:27:47.600
River and inundate any areas that are lower than the tidal flood event elevation, which for most of this map is elevation 12. The further you get out on the point, the elevation does get higher. It gets up to elevation 13.

710
03:27:47.600 --> 03:28:03.279
This map has been put together from a combination of our flood hazard area permit, uh, plans for the adjacent projects, um, as well as flood hazard mapping from FEMA and other sources. So this is our

711
03:28:03.279 --> 03:28:18.800
best composite as to where the tidal flood elevation inundates land on and around this property. And what you can see is there is a small portion of our property down near Chapel Avenue and

712
03:28:18.800 --> 03:28:36.160
over at the emergency access that I had talked about before where Catch Basin 408 resides. That is lower than elevation 12 and therefore it would be inundated under a tidal flood event. And what you can see is Chapel Avenue. And this stretch is all inundated as is

713
03:28:36.160 --> 03:28:52.800
Freedom Way. As is, if I could read this, Independence Way, Constellation Place, Aurora. This is existing mapping using existing topography. This is not because of our project. This is how the title

714
03:28:52.800 --> 03:29:08.319
flood event affects the low-lying areas that exist today. So this is prepared by extrapolating different data from different places. >> That's correct. Starting with the FEMA

715
03:29:08.319 --> 03:29:25.439
map, adding in our project and our topography and marrying it up with the topography as best we understand it for the adjacent properties because the FEMA map's not 100% accurate. It provides an elevation and then you apply it to

716
03:29:25.439 --> 03:29:46.000
whatever the topography is. But as you can see, there's quite a bit of tidal flooding around this site. And again, that will not be affected in any way by this project, but the map only shows elevation 12.

717
03:29:46.000 --> 03:30:03.200
Shows 12 at our driveway and at Freedom Way. You'll notice in the white text, the flood elevation changes according to FEMA. It's elevation 13. It's actually 13 over here on the right hand side at the inlet near Independence Way.

718
03:30:03.200 --> 03:30:23.120
>> I guess my question is only the areas in blue are below elevation 12 or 13. So only the areas in blue get inundated under a tidal flood event, a 100redyear tidal flood event.

719
03:30:23.120 --> 03:30:46.160
And is the flooding caused by the py homes develop? Would the flooding be caused by the pyome's development? No, this is the flooding caused by the storm surge coming in from the ocean. >> What was the exhibit? I apologize.

720
03:30:46.160 --> 03:31:02.720
>> Number. >> Yeah, sorry. >> 28. >> 28. Where did that come from? >> They just pulled it out of their pocket. >> Okay. Not on the Okay. >> Not on the portal. >> Never seen before. >> Now that we've seen this map, we do have

721
03:31:02.720 --> 03:31:18.880
a follow-up question. >> I'm going to allow it. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Chair. You don't have a problem. No, do you? >> Of course not. >> Okay. >> As long as it's on that mic. >> Okay. And I guess I don't really have a frame of reference for this and I'm I'm not an

722
03:31:18.880 --> 03:31:34.880
engineer, but what where if you weren't building anything and you weren't altering the the the site elevation up to five feet uh beyond what it is now, where where where would the water go?

723
03:31:34.880 --> 03:31:52.000
>> All all the blue that's highlighted would still be blue and the water would still go there. Any portion of the site that was below elevation 12, which was the majority of the site, would also be blue. >> Okay. And would then would that alter

724
03:31:52.000 --> 03:32:07.439
where else the water I mean if if a lot of water is flowing onto the PY site, the way it is now during the 100redyear storm event, wouldn't would that mean there'd be less flooding in other areas of Caven Point? Well, again, from a

725
03:32:07.439 --> 03:32:23.439
title perspective, the tidal flood elevation coming in from the ocean is not going to care if this site, if the HOA site, if any of those sites are filled above or below. The amount of water is so enormous, you don't change the flood elevation around the other

726
03:32:23.439 --> 03:32:40.880
sites. >> Okay. Okay. Got it. Thank you. >> For the record, this was not part of our presentation. This is offered as a re a rebuttal exhibit based upon the questions that we received from >> that's why I allowed you to show it.

727
03:32:40.880 --> 03:32:58.000
>> Thank you. >> Council, anything? >> I don't have anything further other than we'll need a copy of this. >> Sure. Of course. >> Something our expert has had opportunity to review and consider and then we'll address it. >> Council, we need you on a mic when you talk. >> I made that mistake. I heard you but I

728
03:32:58.000 --> 03:33:13.439
don't know that >> I don't have any other questions other than making a statement on the record that we do need a copy of the document uh the exhibit A28. >> Yes. >> Um so that we can review it and consider it and >> talk to our about it which we'll do.

729
03:33:13.439 --> 03:33:28.640
>> Thank you councel. >> Other council you're going to do that. >> You're going to circulate this? >> Yes. Yes I will. >> Going to actually upload it on the portal. >> I will do that. Anything

730
03:33:28.640 --> 03:33:49.200
else for this witness, Mr. McCann? >> No, Mr. Chairman. >> Um, do we have any questions? >> I don't think so. Does anybody have any other questions, Mr. Wazner? >> Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

731
03:33:49.200 --> 03:34:05.840
>> Council, where are we headed next? >> Home. >> Um, >> time is 10 o'clock. I I don't want to break in the middle of testimony. I don't want to end the meeting in the middle of testimony just to keep a record clean or

732
03:34:05.840 --> 03:34:22.399
obviously, you know, we'll probably have new board members coming on board during this the rest of this application. >> So, let's deal with some of the housekeeping. Yeah. >> What the chairman's trying to tell you is we're not going to call the next

733
03:34:22.399 --> 03:34:36.960
witness. We're going to stop with this witness, right? You all got that? >> I got that. >> He's a little more blunt than me. >> You have a planner? >> Yes. >> And that is your last witness unless you

734
03:34:36.960 --> 03:34:55.840
need some rebuttal witness to council's witnesses. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Council, >> Mr. >> Mr. Cabular. microphone. >> Get to the mic.

735
03:34:55.840 --> 03:35:11.840
>> I'm going to make them put a mic at that table for you. >> That would be great. >> I'm lying. I'm not gonna get >> No, we're not going to make them do that. >> No money for that. >> I'll steal one of these. They kind of >> So, I will have an engineer, uh, Miss Wong, who's here tonight, uh, and a planner, Mr. Pesalano, uh, who I plan to

736
03:35:11.840 --> 03:35:27.760
call. Um, in terms of how much time I need, maybe an hour for both of them. Not total, I mean total, not each. >> Okay. 15 minutes for the planner. >> Who's your planner? >> Uh, >> Mr. Moransky. >> Yes.

737
03:35:27.760 --> 03:35:49.520
>> And I believe you. >> He does talk fast. I've noticed that. >> Miss Hajianis, can we get you on a microphone as well? >> Thank you. >> What do we think? Do you have witnesses you're going to be calling? >> Well, I'm coming into the I'm kind of

738
03:35:49.520 --> 03:36:05.920
trying to catch up. I'm coming into this at like the 10th hour, course. >> Um, so I'm I'm may be getting a planner on board. His name is Carlos Rodriguez. Um, but we haven't even engaged him yet. >> Okay.

739
03:36:05.920 --> 03:36:21.359
>> So then that's got to happen. He's got to come. He's got to be prepared, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We won't we won't ask for a continuence if he's if he's not here when when >> the plan it's the planner's turn to testify you know we'll be finished.

740
03:36:21.359 --> 03:36:40.640
>> Okay. So chairman as you know I got a love letter from Mr. McCann that said the end of May that's it. It's over for me. He's going to break up with me. So uh Mr. McCann have you reconsidered?

741
03:36:40.640 --> 03:36:58.560
Well, there's a there is a meeting before the end of May. >> Mr. Harrington's got a lot of things on that meeting. >> Well, he didn't he didn't give you a love letter >> and he wasn't willing to move some of

742
03:36:58.560 --> 03:37:18.960
his for you. I thought that was weird. But be that as it may, >> so is your position >> you are not prepared to extend the time in which the board has to act at this juncture? >> My position is yes, we're we're not my

743
03:37:18.960 --> 03:37:37.840
position is we're not willing to extend the time past May. Cam, here's what we're facing in terms of the calendar. May 12th, which is the next meeting,

744
03:37:37.840 --> 03:37:54.000
and then the following meeting in May is the day after Memorial Day, because that was a good idea. There's only so many days that we can reserve this room, but May 26th, we can

745
03:37:54.000 --> 03:38:12.680
make it work. presuming people are back from the holiday weekend. >> Okay, appreciate that. >> So, I Cam, I will not be here that day.

746
03:38:12.720 --> 03:38:37.920
>> Just for the record. >> Understood. >> I know you give me that eyeball. It's not negotiable. It's not negotiable. Apologies. Um, okay. So, Cam, what can we carry to at this

747
03:38:37.920 --> 03:39:07.680
point? We can carry this item to May 26 with preservation of notice. Uh, can we carry it to the 12th so we can entertain a discussion tomorrow? >> We can definitely do that.

748
03:39:07.680 --> 03:39:22.560
>> Council, we I'm saying for the record right now, we will not hear it on the 12th, but I don't want to pin down notice to the 26th until we can regroup and have a

749
03:39:22.560 --> 03:39:42.960
conversation about scheduling. in terms of what's going to happen on if we're going to move it from the 26th, right? It may require some kind of noticing or something. >> So,

750
03:39:42.960 --> 03:39:57.200
>> after the 12th, right? If we show up on the 12th and decide something has to give, there won't be time to notice is all I'm suggesting. Well, my where I'm going with this is do we need

751
03:39:57.200 --> 03:40:20.880
a special meeting? So, I don't want to lock down the 26th as the next meeting or carry it to the 26th. If we can get a special meeting maybe on the 19th, that would require

752
03:40:20.880 --> 03:40:37.600
uh planning with directors and staff and you know we obviously need to see if we can secure the reporting services. So >> and I I don't know what kind of time frame we need for that >> because my understanding is we also go

753
03:40:37.600 --> 03:40:54.640
to a virtual meeting starting in June. >> That is correct. >> I cannot imagine >> having this >> doing this on a virtual meeting. that that is a

754
03:40:54.640 --> 03:41:09.439
disaster waiting to happen there. There's too many moving parts here. As we know, as we've talked about ad nauseium, online meetings take longer. As much as the kids might think they're

755
03:41:09.439 --> 03:41:29.439
quicker, they're not. The the it's going to be longer. So, you know, we're we're I don't know. >> Mr. Chairman, are you saying carry it to

756
03:41:29.439 --> 03:41:46.800
May 12th with preservation of notice? In the meantime, you would be willing to try to organize a special meeting for the 19th, which >> I'm willing to have that discussion tomorrow. If you were to successfully do

757
03:41:46.800 --> 03:42:02.560
that, we would have to notice. >> You have to notice. No question about that. >> You should show up on the 12th. Just talking this through. Show up on the 12th and carry

758
03:42:02.560 --> 03:42:23.479
the case to the 19th when the special meeting is to occur. The answer is yeah, that's what would have to transpire. >> Okay. >> And that's why I'm not a lawyer. >> The >> Well, that's okay

759
03:42:23.520 --> 03:42:40.560
>> with with the applicant. >> So, wait, they would have to notice. >> Yeah, because we've now made an we've created a meeting date. >> It's not a regular meeting. We've put it on the 12th and now we're creating a new

760
03:42:40.560 --> 03:43:03.680
date that nobody would know about until we've determined it and then we got a notice for it. >> Okay. >> So, >> so with that said, I guess we're looking at the 26th, right? >> I understand what you're saying. If we

761
03:43:03.680 --> 03:43:23.520
don't have the ability to determine the special meeting date now, which we don't, right? >> We don't. >> So, uh, that's where we're at. >> Mr. Caliber.

762
03:43:23.520 --> 03:43:43.840
>> Yes. How is your witness and availability? >> We're good. >> Both the 12th, 19th, and 26th. >> Surprisingly, I have nothing to do. >> Amazing.

763
03:43:43.840 --> 03:44:02.000
>> That is very unusual. But >> my planner is not available on the 19th. >> Okay. >> Should we hear from the planner now? and then move the rest of the 19th or is that not allowed? >> I don't have my planner right now.

764
03:44:02.000 --> 03:44:20.439
>> Right. But he wasn't here anyway. The bigger issue is we got to get out of the building. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We have a we have a hard stop at 10:30. >> Uh >> we only have security so long every night. So hard stop is 10:30. So,

765
03:44:20.720 --> 03:44:49.800
you can't have a special meeting on the 19th cuz your planner's not available. Kind of puts me in a funny position. >> It's It's 26. >> Take a couple of seconds. >> May I have 30 seconds? Yeah, sure.

766
03:45:15.600 --> 03:46:01.040
I don't really think so. If the >> council, >> if the board is still willing, we'll agree to the 19th. Um, will somebody else from the Langa Group who's a professional planner will

767
03:46:01.040 --> 03:46:20.000
testify in Sean's place? >> So, I don't know that we have the 19th. >> I know. >> That's the problem. That's why I was saying carry to the 12th so we can have a conversation tomorrow. See if we can get the room. See if we can get >> which is what we're going to do. We're going to carry the 12th. >> Still,

768
03:46:20.000 --> 03:46:38.080
>> here's what I'm suggesting, chair. We carry the 12th. If we can make the 19th happen in conversation with staff tomorrow and by the end of this week, then Mr. McCann

769
03:46:38.080 --> 03:47:03.040
can get the notice done and that special meeting can happen on the 19th. If if it turns out that we can't get the room and the special meeting can't happen on the 19th, he's at the back of the agenda on the 12th. He may or may

770
03:47:03.040 --> 03:47:18.000
not get reached. >> People are going to have to show up. They're not going to be happy as we know and they may not get reached and they're on the 26th >> presumably at the midpoint of that

771
03:47:18.000 --> 03:47:33.120
agenda with the understanding that we only got an hour and a half of testimony and then all of public if we have a quorum >> we >> that all could work could >> we theoretically

772
03:47:33.120 --> 03:47:52.120
>> Mr. Cavalar, is your engineer available on all of these dates? >> We're fine on all the dates. Yes. >> And planner, >> Miss Hajianis. >> And your planner? >> Yes. >> Took a bite of something right at the

773
03:47:53.040 --> 03:48:08.239
>> meeting. Well, >> I didn't even notice. >> Okay, so we carried to the 12th. That's the game plan and we'll have a discussion tomorrow and see what we can put together.

774
03:48:08.239 --> 03:48:24.080
>> Thank you all as always for all of your time. Appreciate it. >> Okay. So, um at this time we're going to carry this to the um I'm sorry, May 12th. Uh do we need a roll call for this? >> Okay. All right. So, let's move on to

775
03:48:24.080 --> 03:48:44.239
memorialization of resolutions, please. >> Sure. I have nine resolutions. Resolution one, Devon Property Co. LLC for preliminary and final major site plan amendments 3, New York Avenue, New Jersey City, New Jersey, block 6001, lot

776
03:48:44.239 --> 03:49:00.960
36, case numbers P205-0233. >> Can you hear my >> applicant is >> Hold up one sec. >> If we can everybody, can we move conversations outside, please? We still have business to take care of tonight. >> Thank you everybody. Thank you for

777
03:49:00.960 --> 03:49:26.960
coming. >> Grove Street Partners LLC for extension and preliminary and final major site plan approval 659 Grove Street block 6002 lot 8, case number speed 2026-000033. In a matter of Kennedy Boulevard

778
03:49:26.960 --> 03:49:52.479
acquisition LLC address is 2859 2873 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, block 1601, lots 43 to 48. Case number speed to 025-0129, April 14, 2026, Journal Square 202060

779
03:49:52.479 --> 03:50:09.040
redevelopment plan area zone 3 commercial center application for preliminary and final major site plan approval with deviations. City of Jersey City approving preliminary and final major site plan for 500 Washington Boulevard, block

780
03:50:09.040 --> 03:50:27.120
7302, lots 52 and 53. Approving minor site plan case numbers B 2026-0037 submitted by new Singular Wireless PCS LLC 2854 John F. Kennedy Boulevard,

781
03:50:27.120 --> 03:50:47.199
block 10602, lots 8. Approve in the matter of Pamjet and Jai and Aendent Singh. Applicant number is P2025-0150 for minor site plan approval in a matter

782
03:50:47.199 --> 03:51:08.160
of 792 Communipa Holding LLC applicant case number B2024-0212 address for major site plan approval and use and conditional use approval 186 Insurance Development LLC

783
03:51:08.160 --> 03:51:24.319
acquisition application P2025-0166 decided March 31st 2026 for minor site plan approval with C variance >> resolution for the planning board for the city of Jersey City case number

784
03:51:24.319 --> 03:51:43.199
P204-0604 for preliminary and final major site plan approval Abraham FedE's address is 103 105 107 Monteello Avenue, block 17906, lots 25, 26, and 27.

785
03:51:43.199 --> 03:51:57.920
>> Okay. Do we have a second, please? >> Second. >> All right. Cam, could we have a roll call? >> Commissioner Wick, >> I. >> Councilwoman Little, >> I am so sorry. This is my first planning board meeting that I am on the planning board for. What are we voting on? What

786
03:51:57.920 --> 03:52:14.000
is What exactly are we are we just acknowledging? Yes, these are past resolutions, past cases that we've heard. We're memorializing these resolutions. >> Okay. So, it's like approving the last meetings. >> If you want to recuse on it, we have quorum if you want to recuse

787
03:52:14.000 --> 03:52:30.319
>> because I I was not here last meeting. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Well, same with >> same. Okay. >> Okay. So, two recusals and Commissioner Kaplan >> I. >> Commissioner Patel. >> Hi. >> Um actually, I didn't start with acting vice chair Gangaden.

788
03:52:30.319 --> 03:52:47.199
>> Hi. and Chairman Langston. Okay. Uh, five in favor, two recusing. Motion carries. The resolutions are memorialized. >> Thank you. >> It feels strange. >> Ajourn and go off. >> Okay. Um, >> all right. Motion for adjournment. Anybody? >> Motion. >> Second.

789
03:52:47.199 --> 03:52:52.080
>> All right. Motion and seconded. We are adjourned.