Thank you, Chair. >> Thank you. Good afternoon. I would like to call this meeting to order of the Jersey City Planning Board. Today is Tuesday, June 30th with a start time of 5:33. Can we all stand for the pledge of the allegiance?
I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America. Good evening everyone. Today is Tuesday, June 30th 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 clerk on the city bulletin and city website on Thursday, June 25th 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. >> Thank you. Roll call, please. >> Yes. Vice Chair Wick, >> here. >> Commissioner Stamato, >> here. >> Commissioner Kaplan
>> here. >> Commissioner Patel >> here. >> Commissioner Capers, >> present. >> Commissioner Little, >> present. Commissioner Barnaby >> here.
>> And Madame Chair Gangaden >> here. >> Okay, we have a quorum. >> Thank you. Can we swear in the staff, please? >> I see. Cam, Sophia, and Matt, do you guys swear any testimony you get tonight? It's going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes.
>> Thank you, >> Kim. Any correspondence? >> Yes, Madame Chair. Uh, quite a few items. So let's uh start at the beginning of course. Um uh page five uh item 8 under old
business. Uh this is case P2025-0106. Address is 342 Johnston Avenue. It's a preliminary and final major site plan amendment. they have uh requested a carry and they are going to renotice for July 28th.
So there will be new notice for 342 Johnston at the July 28th meeting. >> Um moving into new business continued on page seven we have item 16
case P23-073. This is for a preliminary and final major site plan with C variances. Address is 530 to 548 Tunnel Avenue. They've requested a carry with preservation of notice to August 11th.
Next item on the agenda. Um this is a uh oh actually you know what scratch that. Um the next item is uh tentative. We might hear from the attorney um when we open. But uh item 20,
case P25-0244, a preliminary and final major site plan with C variances, address 3000 Kennedy Boulevard. They've requested a carrier with preservation of notice to July 28th of this year. Um, and then that
concludes correspondence at the moment. >> Thank you. >> And, uh, for the record, um, we could mark the sunshine announcement as B1. Is does that work for you, Mike? Okay. Thank you.
So at this time I would like to move on to all business case. I would like to call case P205-0133 preliminary and final major site plan with C variances. Address is 547555 Summit Avenue. The attorney is Charles
Harrington. This matter was um initially heard on June 9th and the commissioners present was um Pat Stamato, Pavin Patel, Andrew
Kaplan, Elizabeth Wick. Am I correct? Um Pam. >> Yes. Thank you. I would like to ask if Commissioner Conway
Commissioner Papers and Commissioner Barnaby. I thought Commissioner Barnaby was present for that meeting. >> Yeah, I I think both myself and Commissioner Barnaby were present, but we are not listed on this list. Yeah, we
were okay. >> I thought so too. >> Sorry about that. I'm not sure how that happened. >> Might have just been a copy paste thing, but I believe >> probably Yeah, >> you were. Yeah, you were definitely there.
>> Okay. So, I would like to ask uh Commissioner Conway and Commissioner Capers if you had the opportunity to read the transcript and or watch the video. Yeah, I've had uh time to uh review prior testimony >> uh necessary to proceed with this.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> Can you um promote? >> Thank you. >> Yes. Uh Council Harrington, is Mr. Burton part of your presentation team?
>> Yes, we have uh Mr. Burton, uh Mr. Freighus, uh, Christina Ata, John Mcdana, uh, Eric Campbell I think might be here. I'm I'm not sure. And then, uh, we have
a also Ashley Mason. Um, I'd like to be promoted. >> You're a member of the team of professionals for this applications and you still haven't been added as a panelist. Please raise your hand using the raised hand button located at the
bottom of your screen. >> Thank you. >> All right, that should be everyone. I I do see an Ashley's iPhone. Um, and I'm >> pretty sure that that would be Ashley.
>> Yes. Uh, well, now there's two Ashley iPhones. >> Sorry, now I'm in. Apologies. >> Okay, no worries. >> That That should be everyone. >> Okay, >> Mr. character, can you give us a brief
um I know we um this project has been opened and testimony has been taken, but if you can just do a recap. >> Sure. Um yeah, for it's been a few weeks. So, uh this Yeah, Charles
Arrington of Connell Folley on behalf of the uh applicant uh for the record. So as uh you may recall we we uh started this uh application uh towards the end of the meeting on June 9th. Um this is a
uh project within the um journal square60 redevelopment plan area. Uh it is um within zone three of of the redevelopment plan area. uh my client has been designated as the
redeveloper uh of the project although not required because he's not you know associated with a bonus like the the homestead extension bonus. Um it's uh two towers uh on on a in a phased project. Uh it is uh proposed to have um
in two towers, two 47story towers, a total of 1,514 residential units um of which which will generate 152 affordable housing units uh within the two towers. Uh it also would
have a total of 31 hotel rooms between the two towers. Um and we are you know I think an interesting component of this is that there as as presented during the last meeting we're we're creating like uh
what we call the homestead market. Uh the Homestead Market is a pedestrian plaza, if you will, that's that's uh entirely on the private property of the developer that would connect this this project um to the um west to the
Homestead Extension uh pedestrian plaza as well. Um and would be bounded by uh retail along along those um interior uh frontages. Um so we did at the last meeting um get
through the uh architect the the engineering testimony and the architectural testimony. Uh we did leave off uh at the planning uh the planner being my next witness. Uh but before we get there if if I could because there
was there was a lot of discussion about uh some drainage um within the pedestrian walkway. Uh and um there was also a discussion about you know how we're handling the trash, right? So we would like to um speak to that a little bit before we get to to Mr. Mcdana
because uh uh we did um we did provide for for some drainage as requested by the board at the last meeting. Um and we do have um you know some ideas about about the trash if to to um present to the board if if they would if they would
like that as an option. um uh with regard to the southern um tower 547. Uh and we do have um our um Mrs. Mason Ashley is here tonight because she's from the uh the management
company of of the developer and she she oversees the operations um of the the respective projects for this developer. And I think she'll she can add some insight um you know to the board how how this would be uh how the trash would be handled and and how how this option um
if if the board uh is is open to it or if they would prefer it uh how that that can be um processed. So if that it's okay with you madam chairman chair w >> Mr. Harrington before the chair answers that were there any additional documents
uploaded to the portal with respect to those items. >> The drainage the drainage plan was uh uploaded uh the the other the alternative plans we uh we were going to present as exhibits because it's only
it's a small section. >> All right. because I didn't see any change to the proposed garbage trash situation. So, I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss it. >> Right. This is something that just we we've been having discussions and just
within the last, you know, 20 24 to 48 hours, we said, you know, kind of had you, hey, how about this? And so, we, you know, we created an exhibit um to to present to the board if if they'd like to to review that and consider it.
Madame Chair. >> Yes, >> Madam Chair. I go along with that. I'd like to hear this. >> Yes, I I would like to hear it as well. So, can we mark that as evidence as well? Santa, >> we can. So, uh,
Mr. Harrington, why don't we identify the witness that's going to deal with the exhibit for Madame Chair, as I understood, trash. Uh, I don't know if it's the same witness that would deal with the drainage exhibit, Mr. Harrington.
>> It's It's not. It's really It's uh Ian Burton, the engineer, would would address the drainage. And maybe I could do that first just to show you where where we've addressed the drainage as requested by the the board and then and then go into the trash and and and uh introduce that exhibit. And
>> Madam Chair, your decision. You want to hear the drainage first and then go into the trash or vice versa? >> Um, I think we can hear the drainage and then go in and go into the trash. >> I'll second that, Madam Chair. >> Okay, Mr. Harrington.
>> Okay. Thank you. So, um, then I'm going to have Mr. Burton. Uh, he did prepare a an updated drainage plan uh that was was uploaded, but we'll Ian, if you could maybe mark that is I forget where we are in exhibits. Um
I think we're at exhibit A5 um for your presentation here, Ian. >> Sure. Let me share my screen. >> And Ian, I'll swear you in. You swear any testimony you get tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do.
>> And for the record, can you state spell your name? >> Uh Ian Burn. I N B U R T O N. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Burton, is your license current and instanding? It is >> okay. You're qualified.
>> Field of discipline, Mr. Burton. >> Uh, engineering, civil engineering. >> Thank you. >> And for the record, all all all of my witnesses uh my expert witnesses were uh were sworn in and and qualified at the last meeting
>> except Mr. Mcdana. >> Correct. Thank you. Um, so I guess yeah, quickly kind of going through this this small change. Um, >> let's identify it first because we're going to mark it as A5. >> So I I've marked the PDF as A5. This is
preliminary final major site plan. Uh, unsigned grading drainage utility plan 555 summit dated. This one's June 8th. >> That's the last revision. June 8th. >> Correct.
Thank you, sir. A5. >> Um, so, uh, yeah, this shows the just the the 555 tower, um, grading plan, uh, located at the corner of Van Ripen and Summit. And, uh, kind of based on the discussion last time, we had replaced
what was just one little, um, yard inlet with a a a trench drain that now spans the full length of the uh, vehicle, you know, the trash pickup area. So now anything that will drain anything that might be accidentally spilled or dropped
in this area uh will drain towards uh the the trench drain before you know uh not allowing anything to spill over into the sidewalk and it would go into our on-site uh storm sewer system and drain into our our our tank at the end.
Relatively quick and simple but you know it should alleviate any other spillage in that area. um the concerns last discussed quick and simple change um I can go into we also I guess uh in addition to drainage I don't know if we
want to get into this topic now but we've reached out to traffic to kind of work with them on uh addressing the the bumpouts I know that was a discussion on on previous projects to work with them on adding bumpouts at the two intersections of Summit and um Avonia
with Van Ripen. Uh we have not heard back from them yet, but I think we're amendable to, you know, changing this curb line to uh to extend it farther uh protect the the pedestrians in those intersections. Um and then we're also willing to work with them on any uh bike
lane improvements as they exist today on Summit A. And that that uh contact to to the Jersey City Traffic Department was in in um in concert with with Mr. Dilva. Correct. >> Correct.
>> Because I just note that we we did follow up with the Jersey City Traffic Department to try to get their their um comments on bumpouts, you know, prior to tonight, but I know that they're overwhelmed. Um so we we did not hear about hear back but we are as as uh
represented at the last meeting we we are committed to work with them um with with their their preferences on the bump. >> Um I can confirm that the applicant has indeed um made good faith efforts to reach out to transportation planning. Um, I've
been looped in on those communications and um, we intend to as planning staff to ensure that those things get cleared between now and signature plans >> and I can confirm that traffic
engineering, traffic planning are extremely overwhelmed and apologies for their non-responsiveness, but appreciate the willingness to work together. >> Is that your presentation, Mr. Burton, >> that is >> okay. Um, Mr. Harrington, if we can just
go back to the um to the trash. >> Yes. >> From where it's going to be stored um previously to the previous presentation that was given. Um I just
have a couple questions. So I would like to go back to that to swearing back your um staff. one of your witnesses. >> Sure. Yeah, I think uh Christina would would be the appropriate um uh witness to to come up and address that and then
and then we have Ashley to you know supplement the uh uh the process of how that that all happens. So Christina is there you're muted right now Christina? >> Yeah. >> Um Chuck, do you want to swear on both? Did you have uh direct for Ashley or we
just gonna kind of let them answer questions? Uh well, let's let's uh I'm gonna have Christina. I guess you can you can swear them both in right now. >> All right. All right. All right. So, I'll swear both you ladies in. Christina and Ashley, I see you there. If you could raise your right hands, do you swear any testimony you give tonight is
going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Thank you. >> And for the record, Christina, then Ashley, if you could state and spell your name for me, please. >> Christina. C H R I S T I N A. >> Ashley. A S H L E Y.
>> All right. your last names too, please. >> Yeah. Mason. M A S O N I at T A T I Y. >> Thank you. >> Christina, your license is current. >> Um I represent uh as a design architect.
Um Paul is the licensed architect on this project and I work closely with him for this one. >> Yeah, if you recall, Madam Chair, at the the last hearing, uh Mr. Fredus was sworn in as the licensed architect um for both projects and qualified and then
Christina was testifying as as the the project architect. >> Okay. Can Mr. Fredus um verify that? >> Yes, Mr. Fredus. >> He's unmuting.
>> You're you're muted, Paul. >> I can uh verify that that is the case. >> And I guess I'll swear you in Paul. >> Sure thing. Do you swear any testimony you get tonight's going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> And Mr. Fredus, your license is current
and in good standing, correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. >> And Christina will be acting on your behalf >> in regards to presentation. Okay. If we can go back to the um trash um is there
trash shoot in the building? >> Yes. >> Okay. Can we go back to there? Yeah, let me pull up the plants. Okay, so looking at 555 Summit, the trash shoots are here that connect to the two
compactors with the containers that are going to be loaded in the room and serviced out through this back of house corridor where the track the truck picks them up from this side here. And then the added trench drain that um Ian was mentioning.
And then for 547, we also have two trash shoots that connected two compactors with the containers in the room that last we discussed um could be rolled out, taken through Homestead Market at an angle and pulled up to the truck here
as well. Um and to Mr. Chuck's point, we've created two exhibits for alternate options that we would like to present with you as well. So that was the plan and that continues to be the intent, but now we have
possible options of additional garbage routing and trash routing. That's for both trash and recycling. >> That's correct. So we wanted to to bring it back to the board for their consideration.
>> Okay. >> Before we do that, can I ask a question, Madam Chair? >> Sure. Um, both buildings will have shoots basically handling both recycling and trash. Is that what my understanding is?
>> Correct. >> All right. So, four, you're talking 40 stories and that shoot will go from the top down. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Large large cardboard that doesn't fit in the shoe gets picked up by staff though. This is Yeah. No,
>> I understand that. Is there a service elevator? I want to assume there's a trash room on every floor with access to the shoots. Those shoots go down into the trash room on the ground floor and those shoots go directly into the compactors. Is that
accurate? >> Correct. >> And the recycling the same thing. Will you be able to utilize the chute? We could utilize >> we could utilize one shoot since we showed two or we could depend on building staff depending on the bulk and
load of the building. >> All right. You got to run that by me again. You came in a little broken up. I might It's probably my computer my screen. >> Yeah. So, we we do >> we do show two trash shoots. One can be designated waste and the other could be
designated for recycling. >> Good. And the larger containers for recycling, building staff would have to bring it down and store it in the trash room. >> Okay. Yeah, I like that. That would be good. >> Oversized boxes, whatever it is, the moveins and stuff like that. I
understand that. Okay. >> So, do the shoots not feed directly into the compactors? Do they have to be collected and placed into the compactors? Whatever's coming out of either shoot, >> they directly go into the compactor into a container. It connects into a
container and once the container fills out, staff replaces another container in. >> How many containers do you have there? >> Um, on each project. So, each one of these is a container. So, one, two,
three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10. 10 containers per building or altogether? >> Yes. >> And again, I know we had a question about the size of the containers. >> So, we are confirming they're two cubic
yard containers. Um they their dimensions we we've added them to the plan. They're three foot wide, three foot height, and six foot long. Um which is accurately dimensioned and shown on plan right now. >> And these are going to be picked up once a day. Correct.
>> Correct. All right. >> Okay. So, at this point, would you like us to to show you mark that exhibit to show you um you know the the the change proposal that that we're we're asking um presenting for consideration.
>> Madam Chair, if I could just add something to this. Um would I you said you had two two di two types of uh plans for us to review tonight in reference to this. Is that correct? >> Well, it's Yeah. Yeah. It's it's a it's
a very very minor minor difference between the two. It's two sheets. >> All right. Why don't we hear what the second one is or the first one? Whatever whatever you know whatever you have. >> So, Mr. Harrington, just just to be clear, what was just presented and discussed was what was originally
proposed back on June 9th. Correct. >> That's right. >> Right. So, now you're going to show us a two sheet exhibit of two additional options or it's one additional option for each building? No,
it's it's uh two options for 547 uh summit. One one um uh feeds off the other one. Uh you'll you'll see we're we we're basically have um we >> All right, let's look at it. That's
going to be A6 is going to be a two sheet exhibit. >> Yeah, let's take a look at it. >> A6 Okay. So, actually this is the first pitch >> we got. Yeah. Start with Yeah, start with that one.
>> So, last identify it. So, A6 is labeled as exhibit 1A. What's the sheet called? Is there a date on it? A 100 >> title or no title?
>> It's the first floor plan that's been marked up. >> And is there a revision date to it or an alternate date or any kind of date? >> We can add one of today's date. >> Let's dated today, June 30th, please.
>> Okay. >> Okay. And then Christine, if you could identify the second page as well because it's a two-page exhibit. Okay, >> that's ex Yeah, there you go. That's marked as exhibit 1B, correct? >> Right.
>> And that also has sheet A100, but it's it's distinguished because it's marked as exhibit 1B. Correct. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Mr. Harrington. So, A6 is exhibit 1 A and 1B. two sheet exhibit
dated today's date. So go ahead. >> Starting with exhibit 1A. So last we spoke and that's the original plan that was shared that the containers on 547 Summit could be wheeled out again at an angle to get to this loading zone that
we're proposing for 555. But as an alternate, we could also propose going out to Pavonia if the city is more interested in a maybe you want to call it a shorter route by adding a set of doors on the left of the
staircase here and providing a clear five- foot walkway out to Pavonia. >> How explain how you create that that wider walkway there. Yeah, by setting back the trash room a few inches more, a
few feet more, and the retail as well, we were able to get a 5-ft clear walkway to allow the containers to turn around and and get to the sidewalk there where pickup could potentially um be if that was desired.
>> And in in that instance, uh Christina, you would have a private hauler making the pickup on Pavonia Avenue, correct? instead. Correct. >> Isn't Pavonia a very very busy street and there's a park somewhere around there?
>> I don't know about >> congested. We you know there is there is and at the top of this exhibit you'll see it says you know that north 952 east that's a large office building that that
I would imagine also has has pickup there but we can have um and madam chair it's you know very good question and that's why uh um Ashley's here to to uh you know she can speak to how the operational of of the pickout pickup and
the timing of that would But uh let's if if uh Christine if you could walk through. >> Yeah. So feeding off of this, we we move to exhibit 1B, which is the same idea is that if it was desired for pickup to happen on Pavonia,
yet if their concern was if containers were to kind of um load, we can tuck them into this kind of al cove on on this alleyway um hidden behind the facade of the building um where they can
be picked up again within a decent amount of time of which the trash company um comes. But it it helps keep the alleyway free and nothing ever be blocked if needed to wait out longer.
So creating a tucked in area right here where they can kind of stack behind each other nonvisible to the street. >> All right, Christine, I have a question. The containers will have tops on them. So basically, you won't have anything overflowing from the container because
of the compactor like I see it right now. Okay. >> Correct. >> This is a photo of the the containers we use. Yes. >> And you'll have an opposite opening on the lengthwise, which we don't see where that would line up with the compactor. So you're pulling
them out lengthwise to make your switch. >> Correct. Yes, we're showing that on this. Yes. Here. Now you'll also be loading in your commercial area into those things too. >> We Yes, we could offer our commercial
area the same access as well. >> And where would that be? And the commercial areas naturally in this one particular building. Correct. That's a food is a type of generating any type of food waste. >> We don't know yet what our tenants would be if they are FNB oriented. Um, from
the size of this retail, it's it looks like it's a smaller um, if it were to be FNB, maybe on a smaller side, a coffee shop, a juice bar. I don't see heavy cooking happening in this one. Um, on the back of Homestead Market, maybe it could um, and then we could provide back
of house corridor that connects to this trash room. So, no no corridor, they don't have to access the exterior to get in, but a direct corridor inside. >> All right. The only thing I would suggest is, and I would like the board to think about it, is you're not going to pick this up during the day. You're
picking this up at night, late at night, like 1 2:00 or whatever in the morning. Say 1 to 4 or 5:00. If you're doing that, then I think it would work because I think we have a situation >> with that one area where we'd have
congestion, but it'd have to be done late at night or early in the morning like around one one to two o'clock in that area there. >> Well, we we have Miss Mason uh here to to address the she can speak to to the pickups and how how they can be
scheduled. Uh >> um yeah, so as far as uh Sorry, I cut you off. As far as Wait, wait, wait. I want I want to see if the board has any other questions. >> Madam Chair, do you have any questions? >> Yeah. So, I was just, you know, going
over back. Um, is there any reason why um the truck just can't pull inside the building and have the garbage being picked up straight from there rather than having the garbage sitting outside? >> Question
>> on Pavonia. anywhere. >> Anywhere >> I think the >> because that's I mean we we do this all the time. That's what we see on every project. The garbage is being inside. The garbage truck comes pick up the garbage and goes.
>> There's no smelling happening. It's not sitting for hours outside. It's a very tight neighborhood there. >> Very tight. I agree. >> I agree. I agree with Madam Chair. I just I with a project this size, I just would prefer it all be contained into
one one space. The pickup and the collection just like most projects that we see. >> Well, I floor James too. I would definitely want for floor james. So this way any type of soop or liquid or whatever would be able to drain out.
You're not tracking it through everything. Yeah, I don't I don't know if a lot I mean all projects have it interior. Um I know there's there's a lot of street pickup, but I I mean if you're you're asking I guess where we have the the
indentation there and the retail to to create an off an offsite where you can you can pull into that area like uh and and have have the truck uh off streetet and load on load. I guess here. Hey, I'm
just thinking thinking here. You're thinking like that that door. There could be a door right into into the trash room. Is that is that what you're you're thinking? >> Where the truck would be bas basically be inside and you don't have to worry
about wind conditions. You don't have to worry about any type of leakage. It's more in a confined area. you guys are putting in or looking to put in a beautiful building. And some of the stuff that I see running around that, you know, uh, in Jersey City is that you
got a beautiful building and you have containers. The only problem is they're overloaded and you got stuff flowing all over the place or they're leaking and you have spilled milk, liquids, whatever. You know, I mean, it's >> Yeah. What I what I would like to see is
a better a better design for the garbage. Um, >> a loading bay, something contained. I I like to see that contain a little more than what it is. >> Cover us on spillage, stuff blowing around, that kind of stuff. I mean, you got a beautiful building. You don't want
to jeopardize it. >> Well, Christine, I guess the question could you you could utilize that retail space to to have have uh an area where it's interior where where it comes in there and it and and then you load the
truck from from the trash room. Is that >> right? I I guess the conversations were regarding the curb cuts, right? And whether um traffic on Pavonia um would allow for that with the backing up of the truck.
>> Yeah, I I do think Pavonia right here, this is right across the street from Journal Squared and um the same block as the as the PAS station. And so I think there is a lot of traffic. So, you know, to echo some of the other commissioners comments about possibly having pickup
like at, you know, between 1:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. or something of that nature would be a good thing. Um, but I mean, would it be possible to have that loading bay where the truck backs in on the other side, not on the pavonia side? Would that would that be better?
Um, I just want to make sure the board and the applicant are both aware that um, a curb cut on a major traffic street such as Pavonia Avenue is a variance in the Journal Square 2060 redevelopment plan. So, this would be we're talking of curbcut Pavonia, we're talking about an
additional variance for the project. >> Absolutely. So, >> just to elevate the discourse. >> Okay. >> But even to that, Pavonia is very is a very very busy um area there as well. So, >> well, we could maybe maybe now's a good
time just to bring up u Miss Mason and she can speak to you about, you know, her her relationship to the management and the property and and how how the garbage is is uh is planned out and how you can schedule uh you know, pickups uh in the middle of the night because that's what we're trying to stay away
from Pavonia for for the curb cuts for for that reason. But uh this you know maybe maybe we'll like move on to Miss Mason to uh to speak to this and uh if I could madam chair we can go as Christina but I I think I think she
>> that's a great idea madam chair. So, so Ashley, if you can you just give the board the benefit of, you know, um your your job and how you're affiliated with with the the number of projects within the the Journal Square area and
um then we can talk about, you know, the garbage. >> Yeah, of course. Um so I oversee all the buildings so far that we have um you know, occupied right now. As far as the garbage, we do use a a private company that we partner very closely with. Um, so scheduling is pretty easy for us. Um,
we're a big customer of them. They they, you know, they respect us. They do also understand that residents as well don't want garbage on the on the curb. Um, it is a complaint that we get. So, we're also on the same page with this where we don't want it on the curb for too long.
Um, so we can schedule it if it comes down to the fact of bringing in our maintenance team a little bit earlier. Let's say if you know at 5:00 am even I mean we can technically have as early as 4 am pickup. Um we can coordinate that. We have enough buildings now where we
can have a a designated team that does trash. They come in, they they do our containers, they bring it to the curb and we schedule it directly with the company. So they would essentially come and we would bring it out within 15 minutes of them coming. It takes them from the the second they stop at the
building under 10 minutes. they said um to pick up and actually take the containers into the with them in the truck um and then they move on to the next one. So if it if it does come obviously with that's an easy change for us. We just have to coordinate with them directly. Um we're we're one of their
biggest customers in the area. We have enough buildings and we're all within one to two blocks of a span. So it it is something that is feasible for us. >> Ashley, a question I have for you. Um, what we're looking at right now is this per building. In other words, the
building I'm looking at on my screen on the left, that would be picked up one way. The one on the right would be picked up another way. Correct. >> Correct. >> You're not going 80 feet with one building with material. >> No. If we go with the option of them
picking up on Pavonia, they would pick up on Pavonia. And then we also have buildings on Van Ripen where um they would just add the the building on Van Ripen to that stop as well. So it would be two different stops for two separate buildings. They're being built together, but they're completely separate on the operation side.
>> All right. And where they're dumping this, you'd have a you'd have some type of a drain so that if there's any liquid or anything coming out of the truck, it would go into that drain. Correct. >> Correct. And essentially, if we're scheduling it, it's not going to be
sitting on the curb for more than 10 minutes anyway. So, it's the it's less room for error if we work directly with them and we give them a time frame. Hey, come at 4:00 a.m. Our team will bring it out at 4:00 a.m. It takes them 5 minutes to bring it out. They pick it up within
under 10. And it's a much quicker process for us anyway to do it this way. Um, >> well, I'll be happy if they started picking it up at 4:00 a.m. like you said. How long is it going to take? Um, it's going to take more than 10 minutes, but that's all right. I'm not going to argue that
>> they Yeah, they gave us a 10-minute the 4 a.m. we we moved it a little bit later just because as far as like a residential standpoint. Um, on the more quiet roads, it's a little bit loud. But on Pavoni, it's allow it's a it's a busy road anyway. So, to to do a 4 a.m. and
pick up for them to come back around and loop to other buildings later, it's it's something that they said that they can do. So, Madame Chair, that is all based on the assumption obviously that the developer continues to own and operate the property, management stays in place,
the contract with the hauler stays in place. So, while I can appreciate what's being proposed in that regard, I just want to be clear to the board that obviously that could change if there's a,
you know, change in ownership or operation procedures. This is what is being told as the assumptions based on current operations and contracts. >> Absolutely. and um and we have to look
you know for the future and as to what happens here >> seemed that this building is a two tower and we there is just other building so closed as well um I'm still not buying into it I still want to see a better design
>> for the garbage for a garbage truck to come in have a loading bay pick up the garbage and go and not have having garbage all over it's a lot of units it's what a thousand. It's over 800 units. >> Well, I think the as to the issue with
with new owners that I think that's a simple fix in that it can be a condition of approval. So, it runs with the land and runs with the any approval. So, that's >> Mr. Harrington, it becomes an enforcement issue as you and I both know. >> Well, any violation of of a condition of
approval is an enforcement issue. That's a that's a zoning issue. you know, so it comes back to being on me to make sure that everybody's following something buried in a resolution somewhere. >> I think Bologoney Avenue is not a good
idea. >> I think I think that I think a good idea is to redesign and um come up with a a better plan on how the garbage would exit the building. >> Agree. And that would require somewhat of a loading bay garbage container.
>> Agree. >> For a building >> for a building. >> I I'll also ask the question if there's a way to consolidate the trash into the north tower. I mean, I think we're confident, can't speak for all the commissioners, but I'm comfortable with
the trash plan for the north tower. So if there's any way to create a connection since the south tower is being built second so that all the trash is function is in the north tower and then unloaded into that area. I don't >> that may be another approach for the consider if I may for the question for
Ashley is what about inclement weather as far as snow and everything you say that these guys are going to roll these dumpsters out but what in the event if there's a snowstorm of that nature what would be the plan then? I mean, yeah, in those cases, you you kind of have to
take it day by day. Um, our team has equipment on site. The second, you know, it starts snowing. We have our team on site. They're they're shoveling. They're creating pathways. Um, will it cause a little bit of a delay? It it might, but it's our our teams are equipped properly
for any type of weather. So, um, I don't see that being a a major issue. But we, we know, we wheel out garbage from other buildings from a pathway. Um, at 9 Homestead, we do have a similar um
back alleyway where they do bring the the trash out. And I in the the past three years that we've been open, I haven't had any issues with with that with with uh with weather. >> And and Ashley, I believe Nine Homestead is a is a longer walkway to come out,
right? It's about 150 ft for for the team that wheels it out as well. >> Correct. >> How many units? >> This would be a shorter. >> This is shorter. >> How many units that we're talking about in the subst? >> Um 432 to be exact.
>> I you know what I I tend to agree with Madame Chair. You gota, you know, maybe you better sit down with the contractor and see if you guys can come up with a better scenario. Um, as far as um I, you know, one of Commissioner Capers brought up a good
point. I mean, what are you going to do with snow or ice conditions? I know we got to deal with it, but you know, for us, it's going to it will be a nightmare due to the fact that you're going to have garbage coming down from all those units because people aren't going to be able to get to work. So, that's going to
cause a load up. You have a store that's basically generating waste besides your regular stores and you also running recycling. So besides the what I'll refer to as wet waste garbage, you have recycling going on. I mean, you really
should sit down. I'm not going to sit here and tell you how to do it, but you should sit with your contractor and um I don't I I don't think any board member wants to see uh containers being moved
80 feet across one way or another. So, I think you'd have to deal with each building individually and come up with some something. >> Great. You know, I keep looking at this, Madam Chair, and the design to me is like everything is working against each other.
>> I just think it comes down to a redesign in my opinion. So I'm I'm trying to follow the comments then when you speak uh to a loading area uh and and you also want each individual tower to to you
know handle it handle its garbage separate and apart from the other which leads us to you know what we talked about earlier Pavonia Avenue would you have you know you you you utilize that I'm not an architect but I'm you know simplistically I'm thinking I use that
that retail space that fronts on on uh Pavonia and I have I have a truck pull in there and and then I can I can load and unload there. Now I run into the the issue of it's a curb cut off Pavonia which they've had. Um there's curb cuts
now off Pavonia. There's there's the uh the the corner parking lot which which had you know UI Magcguire's offices forever. It always had curb cuts and and then the the building next door always has curb cuts. And then further down there was a parking lot there forever
that that it curb cuts. So is that something that that it would be considered here to have a curb cut leading into the 547 the southern building to to address the the concerns that the board is raising. Uh because
I'm not sure again we were trying to stay away from Pavonia and Summit for for for curb cuts, but if that's if that's is that the path that we're we're we're going down when you say, you know, we'd like to see a loading uh area off
off street in in in the building. >> Mr. And I think the idea is to have something that's enclosed where we don't have to worry about material blowing around or manpower moving it from one end to the other.
Something centrally located where I don't care if it's a self-contained unit and your contractor will know what I'm talking about. We go in and pull out the unit, dump it, bring it back. You know, there's a bunch there's you have alternatives. That's
why I'm asking them to sit down with their contractor. >> Well, and so, Mr. Harrington, let me let me just try to help with your point. Uh, as as I'm understanding it, either the Pavonia
Tower on the left side of the screen, the trash has to go across the Homestead Market pedestrian walkway to the Off Street pickup zone
that's being, you know, highlighted on the screen or the crash has to be taken off street of Pavonia which does create a curb cut along Pavonia, >> right? >> But those are the two options.
>> Yeah. Christina has I guess doctorred up the uh the exhibit to show a proposed like loading area there. Is that is that something where >> But there's no way to get the trash from the left side tower
to where you proposed the pickup on Van Ripen without carting it across that pedestrian marketplace in front of all of that retail space. >> That that that that's right. But if we put we if we put an enclosure as shown
on on on the exhibit now on the screen that that would be interior collection. >> Correct. >> And require a curb cut. I understand that. And then has trash pickup off. So >> would it would it would it be preferred
again going back to exhibit 1B if this kind of loading zone becomes an interior corridor that our trash team has access to? you know, you give them a a security gate number and that way it's not on the back, it's not on the alleyway that connects you to Homestead Market. It's
not visible to the sidewalk. So, it's you create instead of creating a curb cut, it's just a corridor pathway to the trash room that our team, the trash pickup team has access to and and no one sees it. >> So, this becomes interior corridor. >> Hi,
>> Madame Chair. I'd have significant concerns about having a truckload from Pavonia. That's one of it's extremely busy road at all hours and it also is a major bus route for a significant number of buses in and out of the Journal Square bus terminal. Um I I think just
the loading and the operation in addition to the curb cut in addition to I believe there's loading zones on the curb right now. So those would need to be lost in order to create this space. I I think it adds um a lot of concerns from just a sidewalk operational
perspective. >> Also, you would need engineering approval as well because of the um area. >> I mean, >> it's sounding like just from a you know, my professional opinion as a planner
that utilizing the dock in the other building is the least impactful option. And if there's concerns about those rights running in the future, um there could be a condition potentially around just, you know,
recording an easement. Um that 547 has the right to utilize the dock in 555 for trash pickup. And that would be fully enclosed. So, we're adding more stuff to the sauce, Mr. Harrington. But I guess
Commissioners Kaplan's comments given his expertise obviously is something that uh I can absolutely appreciate. Perhaps Pavonia is not preferred uh over Van Ripen.
So again, I can appreciate all of that. I just don't know that the board is comfortable with what's been proposed and potentially what we're discussing. It just it seems to to be in conflict
and that's that's the struggle and I think we all appreciate that. So, >> yeah, it sounds to me that you're it sounds like the van Reich can pick up for trash makes the most sense. It's it's a secondary road. Uh it's uh we
have the the the pulloff there for the garbage to come in. What I'm hearing is the the concern about bringing the containers across the the walkway, >> right? How do you get it there? Also, the concern would be um having garbage
be picked up interior like inside the building and not outside. >> Correct. Correct. Commissioner Connor. Um Andy >> and Madam Chair, I mean the only other thing I will I will note here um these two buildings are adjacent. They are,
you know, nearly connected and at a higher level. Um, so I don't know if there's any opportunity for consideration of h having the trash move from one tower to the other, not at the ground level, not rolling dumpsters across such that it can all be collected
in or moved through a space on a higher level um in order to reach there. I think the concern is not with the loading of vehicles in here, you know, assuming you add the drain and some of those other things um as much as it is is rolling the dumpsters across that pedestrian pathway. So, I don't know if
there's another architectural element that can be added to move them from one building to the other at another level. >> Right. That's Yeah, that's kind of where I was going. >> Madam Chair, Madam Chair, I think what I'm hearing is >> we need further
review by the applicant of the proposal. And I think what Mr. Harington is is asking is, do I abandon the idea of taking trash off of Pavonia?
>> I think so. I think that is something that the board can give, you know, a clear position on. And I would give the position probably in the way of while in theory it sounds like a good
idea, in reality, we don't really want trash over on >> Plavonia. >> We got to figure out how to get it over to Van Ripen. And if the board wants that trash pickup
loading zone on van ripen enclosed, I don't think that's a hard thing to do, Mr. Harrington. It looks like that could be enclosed given that right now it's an open space for this purpose. >> Right. Correct. >> How you get it there, I think, is what
what you guys really need to to figure out. And it may turn out that, you know, this this is the best possible scenario, but I would also like to see the full
plan to deal with all of the retail and commercial space trash as well. Um, I think that's got to be dealt with too, whether it's getting it into those trash rooms and and what happens from there. I think the scheduling of
pickup is an operational thing that you guys can deal with, but it's really that left side tower and I think getting the trash over to that van ripe and loaded area that is is the work to be done as they say.
>> Yeah. >> And if I could follow up on one of your comments there uh Mr. Lampy, that that that area we have on on Van Reip and it is it is open. We thought that was a benefit because it creates more of an open air uh you know um environment. Uh
but um it could I'm sure it could be enclosed. It could be you know partially enclosed. Um I don't think the elements would have an effect there but that you know since we're you know we're here I'm you know I'm trying not to throw darts in the dark. So you know if if is there
a preference on on that? I know we have to we would have to develop something here, but is our preference to enclose that because if that's if that if it being open is a non-starter, then then we'll we'll enclose it. Um and and you know, as part of the the plan,
>> there are buildings that you have right now down in that area where there it's enclosed and when the truck comes in, it's just basically a door opens up, pulls out a like a container, let's say, and runs away with it. another one will come back and drop off a container. Um,
>> I don't think I don't think any of the other buildings we have approved down there. >> Not not you. I'm just talking in general. >> I'm not talking you particular. >> They're rather highrises that do have what I just described. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Can I also add something here? You know,
we we wanted the retail here to to have its own glass corner, but it seems like that might be causing some issue. And we can actually create a shortcut instead where where 547 loads in a corridor that connects here, and that's a much shorter
pathway, and the containers could load in here. And then the the the management team of 5557 rolls it out closer to the time that the truck picks up. So, at least you've saved a certain amount of distance. you've loaded this tower's containers on this side as well. And
then once they're piled up in this service corridor, within the five minute time, they roll them back out to to this loading area. >> That loading dock is basically for all your commercial areas and everything else. Correct. >> Yes. And it's also to serve the PFC and
G transformer. So I need to confirm with them if they're okay with an enclosment because um they may require opening an open area. Oh, okay. >> Madam Chair, >> Mr. Harrington, I assume other than that shared loading area, we're intentionally
trying to keep the two towers separate for further uh legal purposes. I think also speaking of the architecture itself is that you know with we can go up to the residential layouts and you you want your trash
refuge room to be placed in a central location near your core, right? So if you are living in this unit here, you don't have to walk all the way to to this side to drop off your trash, right? So, I think we still would need the two
shoots and ideally they do go to the ground floor to the compactor with that. Um, it's just it's easier for the tenants to access and not ask them have to ask them to walk the full 200 f feet, you know.
>> So, Mr. Harrington. Again, I think the, you know, the comments of the board are really this concern about dragging or pushing containers across that pedestrian area. And,
you know, I think that that's I agree with the comments. I'm not going to tell an architect how to design a building, how the building has to flow and be used. I get all of that. I think this was the thing uh that really the board
does not like uh for lack of a better term. I think functionally you know it it it's a detriment I think is is what I'm hearing. So um I think that's where the focus of the design team should be.
Madame chair board do you is that is that fair? >> That is very fair. Um to be honest I am not comfortable with it as it is. >> Agreed. >> From sorry may I ask for just from an operational standpoint is it more so the
cleanliness or is it whether what as far as dragging it across um what would be the main concern and maybe I can speak to it. I don't know if >> um I think that's for Chuck and his team to work out together. Um, I will not
tell you how to go about doing it. I'm just >> saying this is not what we um comfortable with. >> It's just I mean that that was the purpose of our changes tonight to to not have it go across uh the walkway.
>> Uh we thought that was, you know, uh we thought it was a good solution. Um >> so to to keep them separate um because we didn't want a curb cut on Pavonia. We didn't we didn't think that was something that that that would work or be feasible. Um >> Charles, on what level do these
buildings connect? >> Let me pull up the renderings. I think we haven't shared them tonight. I wanted to see if the opening doesn't show here, but they're they're two separate buildings with a recess, but they do have a dividing wall between them. And
they they they connect on the fourth floor. >> On the fourth floor. >> Yeah. wondering if there's could be a corridor built on the fourth floor that would be for this purpose. That way you keep everything inside. You don't have to worry about sleep conditions or snow conditions. You don't have to worry about them sitting outside and rotting,
creating a nuisance. Maybe something like that could be considered. I think uh Kaplan mentioned that. >> I do think we can move the compactor from the first floor up to the third floor and then have our team bring them all into one location on one side. Yes. >> Yeah. I think that's something we have
to look into because yeah, I I I agree. If we get a connection to bring it across internally and then drop it into one trash room that's that's in 555 and I mean that's that's not a problem legally. We we can work through documents on that, you know, as an
eastband or otherwise. >> The the only other thing I I concur with kind of investigating that and I appreciate the applicant walking down that that road. The second thing that I'd appreciate when if you go back to the plan just showing the pickup area, there was a conversation about whether it should be enclosed or not. Um I think
just a little bit of clarity from the applicant. You know, my understanding from reading plans, being an engineer, this is covered. this is somewhat contained from the elements, but if you could speak to what this looks like or or if you're having to come back provide a visual of
this space um and what sort of protection from the elements it may have in your design. I think that is the concern and you may have some protection from the elements in your design, but it would be important for you to elaborate on that to address some of the commissioner's concern. >> Got it.
>> I can I can pull up the elevation design. Um, >> so Mr. Harrington, I think we've given enough input into what our concerns are. So I think it's, you know, something the team's got to look at and come back to
us with what what can or can't be done. >> Understood. And we appreciate the comments. you know, we we understand it's not a work a workshop where we're going to build this together and design it together tonight, but the the comments are are helpful because again,
we we don't want to go and try to design something and come back. That's that's not not acceptable. But, uh I think you know, we we hear these and I so we're I think we have our we know our homework uh right now. >> So, if I want to get it right right, Mr.
Harrington, I think. >> Absolutely. Absolutely. It's going to be a beautiful >> building and project and you you want to make it >> beautiful project. >> It's a beautiful project. >> It is a beautiful project. It'd be a great addition to the neighborhood there. Absolutely. So,
>> so if I could respectfully, could we carry this to July 28th? Uh that'll give us some time to to to do some homework and and hopefully come back with a with a solution that works and we'll work with Matt the Matt, you know, on this.
And >> Cam, >> let me call you back. I'll call you back. I think that's a good idea. >> You can do July 28th. >> Thank you. So carried for July 28th.
Yes. Carry with preservation to the July 28th meeting. >> Thank you, Chuck. >> Okay. Thank you, Paul. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> At this time, I would like to move on to new business. I'd like to call KP 2026-000095. It's for land development ordinance amendment. The petitioner on this is Mayor James Solomon and planning staff. Tanya, director of planning.
>> I did not swear Tanya in yet. So, >> what she has about to say? Yep. >> Do you swear any testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Hopefully, this uh will be very simple. Um, our most recent master plan done in
2020 recommended that we remove uh cyber hotels uh or data centers as permitted principal uses within the industrial district. Uh it doesn't hang on one second.
Anybody want a nine-year-old? So, >> stop. >> I'll take two. >> Take two. >> So, just so we're clear, this doesn't um counteract anything in the 2000 master plan. I actually think it's kind of
solidifies it and it's uh backed up in the 2000 master plan. as in the 2000 master plan when we were really kind of looking at data and the internet um in a different lens than we had ever been before and needing the places to have capacity uh in order to get all that um
all that data all that energy. It was really done with the idea of collocation. So there are data centers that exist but they exist within existing office buildings like for example Newport has one of one or two of their floors that exist as data centers and support the other offices within
their building. um and other similar situations within downtown. So, uh this is very specifically for a permitted principal structure where it is only used as a data center within our industrial uh districts. So, again, this
is really just um following up on the master plan recommendation. It just removes cyber hotels, which I for reference, I've never heard anybody use cyber hotels as as a description. Um, so I'm not a thousand percent sure where we got it, but we got it. Um, which are
really just data centers and, uh, changes this, uh, definition so that it is consistent with what we are recommending. Um, pretty, like I said, pretty straightforward. If you have any questions, I'm I'm happy to answer them. Um, but that's really it.
>> Any board comments? >> Just one question, director. Um, could you define a a data hotel? like is there a definition for that term? Again, it's new to me. >> So, yeah, if you in the Yeah, I'm I'll share. Here we go. You
ready? I'll share. So, this is the amendment. Um, you can see that it said uh just really quickly data center. So, we don't even have a separate definition for cyber hotel. Um, so actually, I'm sorry.
Yes, we do. Um, data centers where we only place where I was adding it uh that they shouldn't be considered warehousing um was within the the data center definition. No, I don't have the cyber hotel definition, but I can call it up real quick if you want. It's the same
idea. I think it I pretty sure and I'll check myself that if you look up cyber hotel, it tells you to look up data center, but I'll take I'll take a look just to ensure that I'm not lying. Any other board comments?
>> No, fad chair. >> No comment. >> If there is no other uh board comments, I would like to open for the public. Is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on the land development ordinance amendment?
Anyone from public? >> I see no one from the public. I'd like to close the public portion. >> Second it. motion. >> Tanya, wrap it up. >> Yeah. Can Cammy secretary want to take
that one? >> Certainly. Okay. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> We need to entertain a motion. >> Entertain a motion. >> Second. >> No, Liz. We need to entertain a motion. >> Yeah. I'd like to approve I'd like to
make a motion to approve case P2026-000095 as presented to the board this evening. >> Seconded. >> Okay. On a motion to approve. Vice Chair Wick >> I. >> Commissioner Stamato. >> I.
>> Commissioner Kaplan. >> I. >> Commissioner Patel. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Conaway. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Capers. I >> council person Little
>> I. >> Commissioner Barnaby >> absolutely I >> and Madame Chair Gangaden >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> Thank you. Thank you Tanya.
>> I'd like to call case P2024-000088. It's an amendment to previous approval. P18-120 address 87 Bright Street. The applicant is Michael. Case attorney is Nicholas Chur.
This matter was heard um going back dating March of 2025 a March April September September 30th of 2025 February 226
and April of 2026. testimony has been taken and the commissioners that are present was Wick Patel Stamato and myself. So, I'd like to ask if Commissioner Barnaby, Commissioner Lil,
Commissioner Capers, Commissioner Conaway, and um Commissioner Kaplan, if you had the opportunity to review the transcript and the recording or the >> Sorry, can you um can you repeat which
application number this is? This is P2024-0000887 Bright Street. >> Okay. Um I need to recuse myself from this application. >> Okay. >> So noted. Thank you. >> Should I log off and someone can text me when we move on to the next one?
>> You don't have to log off, council person. You can just shut your camera, mute yourself, and step away. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Madame Chair. I believe I was present at the last meeting, but not all of the meetings. And at the last meeting.
>> Okay. So you were present at the last meeting which was in April. >> Yes. >> And at that time Commissioner Kaplan I think had certified that he had read >> I think he was reading and watching the video is what he actually had had
>> certified. >> Correct. The prior meetings I was not at. I did watch and or read. >> Okay. So you're up to date with your um with this matter. >> Correct. Commissioner Conway, Commissioner Capers, Commissioner Barnaby.
>> Uh, it was painful, but I'm caught up. >> Okay. >> I um I'm I'm caught up. It was very interesting. >> Fine. You got caught up. Okay. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Conway, you caught up as well. >> Yes, I did my due diligence.
>> A lot to do. Yeah. Thank you. >> Um, Stephen Joseph. >> Yes. Uh, yes, Madam Chairwoman. uh Stephen Joseph for the applicant. Uh we also have uh Mr. Abbott here this
evening. Uh he's going to raise his hand. He's uh also an attorney uh with with my office. Um we'll enter his uh his appearance. We did renotice for this evening. Since we
are now virtual, why don't we start off by confirming we have notices. Uh good evening everyone. Skyler Abbott of the firm Castano Kouli Terrammy. Uh on behalf of the applicant, >> good evening. Thank you, councel. Uh Mr. Joseph, I am in receipt of your
affidavit of publication proof of mailing. Uh it does appear to be in order. We did ask that it be renoticed for the obvious reason of being virtual. Looking at my notes, Mike, I was up to A9 is the last exhibit marked.
Is that accurate or inaccurate? >> I don't know. I don't have it up right now. I could pull it up real quick. >> But I trust you, you know. >> I trust me as well. So that notice will be A10.
Great. So, at the last uh at the last hearing, >> sir Joseph, we do need to recognize Miss Hajian. I thought I saw her on the screen. >> Uh Jianis, have you been um >> You there?
>> I'm I'm here. Thank you, uh Madame Chair. And I'm uh appearing on behalf of the opera at Vanvor Condo Association. and it's a condominium at 8 83 to 85 Bright Street. It's immediately next
door to the applicant's property. Thank you and welcome, Miss Hajianis. Madam Chair, my recollection and my notes reflect that where we had left off, the applicant had finished his direct testimony calling his witnesses and we were up to Mrs. Hajianis. Mr.
Joseph, is that accurate? That is absolutely accurate. >> Thank you, Mr. >> So, but if I may ask um Mr. Joseph to do a recap, >> you absolutely may, Madam Chair. >> Thank you.
>> I think that's appropriate given uh we have some new commissioners. So, >> correct. Um, I'm going to do my best here to kind of briefly uh summarize where where we are and where we have left to to go. So, the
the application before the board is an amendment to an existing approval. It was previously approved back in 2019. It was a referral from the historic preservation commission where um the
commission did not deny the application but it didn't have enough votes to uh approve the application. This board unanimously approved an application for preliminary and final major site plan approval with C variances. the um the
substance of the application before before this board is the changes to to the site plan. And um I think Jeff Lewis most clearly articulated what those changes are, but they fall into two
categories. Uh I'll say design changes, so changes to layouts, materials, colors, utility connections, lighting, anacles, and then fire safety code changes. uh the the fire escape is what is what we're we're talking about there.
These um changes are not they're proposed before this board but they were they were already they were already built um due to a conflict in interest. The
construction portion of of this project was sent out to Hoboken. So the the Hoboken building department had jurisdiction over review of the construction drawings, inspections of the property, final approval on on all of that. And the building department uh
approved a variation for the fire escape. They signed off on construction drawings. They did final inspections and ultimately it went to Jersey City uh zoning officer for CO inspection. A CO was not granted. A TCO was granted at
one point. Um, the units in the building were were sold. There's occupants in the building now and we're trying to retroactively get these changes approved in order to get a full CO on on the
property. Um, our position is that there are no uh substantive changes to the project. There are no variances that are changed, altered, no new variances associated with the plans presented before the board this evening. And we
spent a whole lot of time trying to get here. We went through two different architects. We went through some planning testimony. Um, and we've finally concluded our direct testimony. And now opposition is going to present their witnesses uh to give their opinion
of of what the situation is. the property. I would say that's a fair and abbreviated uh kind of summary of of where we are. >> Thank you. >> I would say that's a
position of the applicant as to where we are. >> Fair. >> Okay. Madam Chair, it's Miss Hajianis's case to proceed. >> Okay. Um, thank you very much, Mr. Alampy. And I just wanted to thank the
board uh for the effort and the time they've put in and they've devoted to this application over many hearings. And for those of you who are newly appointed, I want to thank you for the time you put into uh reviewing the record to prepare for the hearing this
evening. Um, so I do recognize that this matter has developed an unusually lengthy and complicated record and we're going to try not to repeat everything that's already been said, but just to clarify uh the portions of the record that we
feel need clarification through witnesses with um direct personal knowledge and professional expertise. Uh so I did just want to talk about some of the uh issues that we're going to be covering. First, we feel there are life safety issues having to do with the fire
escape as constructed and that it interferes with existing emergency egress that serves neighboring properties. Second, we will touch upon property rights including including uh construction within a board of education
easement and the impact that has on neighboring property owners. Third, we're going to talk about uh flood plane and zoning compliance and changes that were made during construction that were never part of the plans originally presented to the board. And finally, we
will be addressing the integrity of the land use process itself. Um because there there's a question about whether significant changes made after an approval can be ratified when there are there are still questions concerning
code compliance, historic approvals and consistencies, consistency with plans uh upon which the prior approvals were based. So we're I'm going to be calling four witnesses. Our first witness is Cecilia Deleó. She will
testify both as a licensed architect and a fact witness. She'll talk about the evolution of the project, the differences between approved plans and what was constructed, and talk about building code, zoning, floodplane, and historic preservation issues raised by
the amended application. Our second witness is Thomas Ogarzalik. He's also an architect, a long longtime adjacent property owner. Um he has he couldn't get into all of his different hats he wears when he uh testifies, but um he'll
talk about the creation and purpose of the shared emergency access corridor, the the history behind that and his firsthand observations uh before and during construction of the project at 87 Bright Ste Street and some
of the practical impacts on neighboring properties and the community. Our third witness is William Slover. He is an attorney in private practice whose practice concentrates on New Jersey real estate law. He serves as the New Jersey
state unwriting council for security title guaranteed corporation and he regularly testifies as an expert in matters involving easement title property rights restrictive covenant and rel restrictive covenants and related
issues. He's going to talk about the legal principles governing easements and rights of access. And finally, we will have Brian Shaw. He's an experienced fighter firefighter and emergency responder. And he'll offer some practical testimony
about emergency operations, evacuation, and how the fire escape as constructed might affect access in the event of an emergency. So, um, we hope that all these witnesses will give the board a clear record, uh, to evaluate the, uh,
amended site plan application. And, um, thank you. Uh, so with the board's permission, I'd like to call our first witness, Cecilia Deleon. Um, if I may interject, um, two of your
team members, um, uh, have to accept the promotion to panelists, Mr. Slover and, um, Brian Shaw. Okay, Mr. Slover uh, is is accepting and Mr.
Shaw. However, I do not see Tom in the audience. Is he under the iPhone or the Samsung? If so, >> I think he's sharing the same screen
with with Cesy because they happen to be married. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Sorry, Tom's with me. So, it's under the same CD studio. >> Oh, okay. Super. >> Okay. >> All right. We'll just get Brian up here
and then your whole team's up here. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Okay. Who who going first? >> I start Cecilia Deleon. >> All right. Cecilia. >> Yes. Do you swear any testimony you give
tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. And >> for the record, can you state and spell your name? >> Cecilia. Cec L I A. Last name Deleon. D E L E O N. >> Thank you. >> M. Is your license current? >> It is. Yes.
>> And in good standing. >> It is in good standing. >> Okay. You're qualified. Okay. >> Um, am I able to share my screen? >> Yes. >> Yes.
um not coming up. Oh, here we go. Okay. >> Okay. And um Miss Deion, before you start your testimony, can you just give the board a little bit of your background? >> Sure. I'm a licensed architect in uh New York in New Jersey. I've been in practice for over 30 years. Testified as
an expert witness in Jersey City, um the historic zoning and planning boards. I'm also a certified zoning officer in the state of New Jersey uh with a certification from the Ruter Center of Government Services. Uh that license is current as well.
Um I've lived in Jersey City for close to 30 years. Um I'm an active member of the Vanor Neighborhood Association. Uh and I serve as co-chair of the Vanvor Neighborhood Association uh planning and development
committee. Um, I live at 8385 Bright Street, right next door to this application, and I am the treasurer of the condo association. Yeah, that's enough. Is that enough? Okay,
hold on. I'll still am I sharing my screen right now? I can't tell. >> You are. >> Yes, >> I am. So, you >> Okay, so I am sharing. You see the timeline, right? Miss Hajianis, can we identify and mark
what is on the screen? >> Uh, sure. I I can do that. >> Oh, sorry. >> She's muted. >> Cynthia, we can't hear you. >> My apologies. Um, okay. the f the first
exhibit and this is part of a a deck but the first exhibit it's uh pages one and two of the deck uh it's marked as exhibit 01 and it's a timeline prepared by Miss Deleon. >> This was this was exhibit that was has
been on the portal. It it it's a 17page document that was um that that goes in in one PDF, but I had labeled each one at the top as an exhibit number
if that helps. >> That actually makes it harder, but okay. So, it's a 17 slide deck exhibit. 01 is the 87 Bright Street project timeline
to December 9th, 2025. >> And it's two pages. >> And it's two pages. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, Miss Dele Leone, as you move into what I presume will be exhibit O2
will be page three of the 17page deck, etc., etc. We'll just identify. >> Yes. Sorry about that. I guess I could have put them all separate, but they're all as one. So, yes. >> Okay. Miss Dele Leon, you prepared that
timeline? >> I did. Yes. >> Okay. It's marked 01. >> Oh, great. >> Mission is your witness. >> Yeah. Okay. So, Miss Dele Leon, could
you walk us through this timeline that you prepared? >> Sure. I mean, I can start there because it's it's a little >> perhaps zoom in on the timeline. It's a little small on the screen.
>> Is that a little better? >> That's better. >> Okay. Um, just as a general overview, I'm going to give you what I'm going to testify to this evening. Um, I'm going to say this application cannot be considered as a minor amendment or an
amendment uh an administrative cleanup. There are major code violations and infractions that cannot be ignored or even resolved by this board. My testimony will demonstrate that the applicant built an illegal structure on an adjacent property without prior
approval from the JC Jersey City BOE, HPC planning board or the DO of Jersey City or Hoboken. Uh it will demonstrate that the applicant build within the flood zone without prior approvals. demonstrate that the drawings and the
application that the applicant has presented as approved are not the same as the drawings that were originally presented and approved by the planning board in 2019. Demonstrate that applicant expanded a non-conforming structure without zoning
approvals. Demonstrate that applicant did not build as per the historic standards of Jersey City or meet the conditions of approval by the planning board. demonstrate the applicant hasn't has misrepresented misinformation and facts
throughout many of the planning board presentations and have taken place over the past two years. There's a lot obviously a lot to be said but since there has been a very long and confusing application thus far and since the board has stated that they are
looking for the truth I wanted to pro provide some clarity on what happened and the set and set the record straight. So I'm going to start with a general timeline of the project. This is a 17page PDF where you went for
each of the items listed that I on this PDF uh where the information is available on the portal as well as where it was obtained is listed as well as other relevant information. I'll start from the beginning which is over seven years ago. Believe it or not,
this project was first presented to the planning and development committee of the Van Boris Park Association and the H and the Historic Preservation Officer during the course of 2018. Staff uploaded the final iteration of
these drawings onto the portal. They are dated 9:22 2017 existing conditions in the title block on the right side of the drawing and August 7th 2018 in the lower left corner of the drawing.
What is significant to note on this particular set of drawings is it also says approved by ARC which are the initials of the director of the HEVC. At that time, the Vanvor Park question association questioned if these initials
on the drawings could unduly influence the members of the land use boards or the staff. We were assured by the planning staff that it would not and that the director had nothing to do with her husband's office. And when the drawings were presented to the HPC at a
special meeting held on December 3rd, 2018, the initials were changed and we did not press the conflict of interest issue any further. It is important to note that HPC application H18216
was never approved by the historic commission, but the testimony and the drawings presented to this board by the applicant for this amendment repeatedly state that it was. The first planning board meeting for this project go down here
um was on January 8th, 2019 and the drawings are the same as those presented to the HPC at that meeting after lengthy discussions. Revisions were requested by the planning board and the applicant was asked to revise those drawings and
return to the planning board when all the changes on the drawings bubbled accordingly. Application P18120 was approved with conditions on January 22nd, 2019.
These re resubmitted drawings are dated 110 19 P planning board sub uh submission revision one in the title block and 10th of January 2019 in the lower left corner. Since this exhibit was originally
created and submitted for the meeting last February, I'm going to say that this exhibit is incorrect. So, the drawings are now available on the portal. Um, planning staff has since verified and uploaded the correct set of planning
board approved drawings. Uh they were uploaded 412026 and are named 87 bright drawings 19_0110PBreise- 1708_87 bright_PB set revision approved_11019.pdf
PDF they are noted planning board approved set. So though this is incorrect that they're not available they are now available on the portal. This set reflects the changes that were specifically requested at the planning board and the changes are bubbled
accordingly. They are not only significantly different than what is being presented as for this amendment as originally approved but they are also different from the sign set in the planning office. I'll get more into that later, but right now I'm just going to
continue with the title. Okay. Uh Jersey City permits, the construct the construction permits were bifurcated, meaning they would allow for partial permits for certain portions of the work while waiting for approvals for
the remainder. The Jersey City Building Department issued permits for the structural work as per plans as per room plans. Okay. On August 14th of 2019, these are screen Oh, sorry. These are screenshots. I'm I'm going to go to
exhibit three at this point. Um, these are screenshots of the public information available on the on the data portal. Joon, did you just change to a different exhibit? I know you're scrolling. >> I'm scrolling. I just scrolled to the next page.
>> Yeah. To a different exit. >> You said exhibit three though, right? >> Oh. Oh, it's exhibit three. Yes, >> it's exhibit. >> This is exhibit 03. >> No, no. O2. >> O2 page three. >> Okay. O2, page three.
>> Sorry about that. >> Identify it. This is exhibit two, page three on the portal, uh, which has the Jersey City permits. So, the these are screenshots of what's available, um, on the public
portal. So, this shows that a permit was issued by Jersey City which included the creation of a new basement in the flood in the flood zone inclusive of new helical piles, a new re a new relocated rear
wall. This work was not on the drawings approved by the planning board on if I scroll down to the bottom of the page on September 23, 2020 an application for the remainder of the work. September 23,
2020 20. The remainder of work was submitted to Jersey City Building Department for the conversion of a 4-unit condo as per forward approved plans from a warehouse to a residential. But 4 days after that, I'm scrolling to
the next page, which will be um page exhibit 03. Exhibit 03, page four. 4 days later on September 27th
uh of 2020 the owner requests transfer of the jurisdiction from Hoboken. Um this was this correspondence was uh received from an Oprah request to Hoboken. I got it from Hoboken.
Um the VVNA states this fact in a 91924 letter which is available on the portal but you can read it. Um when asked about uh this fact by the former commissioner Lipsky from the plan at the PL at a
previous planning board meeting the applicant accuses the neighborhood association of making false statements and states that it was the neighbors who requested the change of jurisdiction. We did not we did not question if it we did question if it was appropriate during
his historic and planning bar phase but we never requested the transfer of jurisdiction and would not do so in the middle of a building permit process because of the confusion it obviously creates. So, this email
uh from the OP via received via Oprah from the Hoboken building department. Um it's dated 927 2020 from the owner Michael Casease uh to Ray Meyer, the previous uh construction code official Jersey City.
Uh I'll I'll just read it. It states and I quote, "Wednesday my expediter Charlie submitted a plan submitted plan to building after the completion of a zoning review. It is my understanding after meeting with my architect late last week that these plan uh these plans
need to be transferred and reviewed outside of Jersey City due to a possible conflict of interest. It seems easiest to move it to Hob." 3 days later, drawings are signed and dated by the by planning staff at the planning office.
These drawings are identified in the title block as 110 2019, the same as what was the planning approved set, but they are dated 10th of July 2020 in the lower left corner and are identified on
the portal as PDF of approved plans. As I stated before, not only are these drawings significantly different from the drawings the planning board approved a year and a half earlier, they also different from the drawings that are being presented as approved for this amendment.
Unit layouts change. The drawings and details have been revised, rearranged, omitted, and even added. Plans that being presented as approved for this amendment were never seen by this this board, the historic board, or the public.
On 10:15 2020, the Jersey City Building Department, we're going back to the previous thing. You can see the Jersey 10:15 2020, Jersey City passed their last slab inspection for the foundation work
under the structure. few weeks later. If I'm going now to exhibit what's listed as exhibit four, uh page five of this exhibit. Um this is
permits >> for the rest of the construction. >> So 11 has been marked as >> we got to try to keep it clean. 04. >> 04.
Oh, yeah. Oh, exhibit 04. It says on the bottom, it's page five of the exhibit of the however of the slide deck. >> And what is it? >> It is a permit from Hoboken. This is a
screenshot of Hoboken's permit portal. >> Okay. >> It's public information. It's a screenshot from their permit portal of permits they issued on 114 2020 signed
up they submitted it the same day but it is for the remainder of the work. So foundations were done in Jersey City. Uh the construction the rest of the construction permit building alarm HVAC plumbing electrical fire portions of the
park are issued from Proo. Um these drawings the the drawings that Hoboken uh that received and went through their permit are labeled 10-2020 Hoboken DOB revised plans and they are
also on the portal. Uh I'll note that no fire escape is shown in any of these drawings. So uh so there so three years later sometime in the fall of 2023 the fire escape is
constructed and our condo associate issues a letter to Jersey City concerning the egress the flood plane and other construction and procedural issues. This letter letter is also on the floor if you need to see it.
Um, in March of 2024, the application for variation for the already constructed fire escape already constructed firescape was submitted to Hoboken. That application and the drawings associated with them
were presented by the applicant. I'll note that those drawings have the property line drawn on the wrong location and they did not have relevant dimensions or details. The final sign off for that firescape was was obtained a year later in
February of 2025. And another year after that, in January of 2026, the Hoboken Building official issued a letter stating that he forgot to check the approved box on the original application two years prior. Um
on 820 2024, these amendments finally show up on the planning board agenda. Now I am going to the next page. Um, is this too big? I'm gonna go
>> actually um I I just wanted to I had a couple questions about the the different iterations of the plans. >> Sure. C. So could you just explain to the board what
what is it important to understand about why it is you're talking about all these different iterations of the plans? Like what's the takeaway for the board? >> Well, I I think it's really disingenuous if the board is being shown things that
are not actually what's going to happen. So, I think that there have been differences in the construction of of things that were built after the fact. Um, >> okay. So, so, so you showed a plan um
that you you said was marked, I guess, January 10th, 2019, or you referred to that plan in your presentation as the original plan, correct? that has now been up uploaded to this application file folder online.
Is that correct? Okay. So, so what what are the differences between those plans and then the the the future iterations of the plans? >> Um I could get into them. I mean I could pull them up. Um I I >> Do you get it? Am I Am I jumping the
gun? Do you get into them further on in your presentation? >> I'll get to it later, but there's >> Okay. the the drawing numbers change. There's no bubbles. It it it goes through. There's plans added. The seller plan is added that wasn't in the original application.
>> Um I could do a side by side. You can't follow it. If you read the transcripts of what was approved, looking at the drawings that are signed, it doesn't you can't follow, you know, things moved around.
So it's quite significantly different. Um >> so Mr. Leon, I would say we will get to that. I think right now I'm I'm following the timeline and your
presentation uh in terms of some of the changes that happened over the time. And I think, you know, when you get to that point that you're going to walk through,
okay, this wasn't approved, but it changed. I I think the board's going to follow that. So, uh, >> we're up to exhibit 05, which is a letter to, uh, Mr. Sammy
regarding uh, it's a notice to cure the encroachment. Again, a lot of this stuff we've already seen and known about and heard, but go ahead. Five. >> This might have been introduced as a, you know, from the applicant as well.
Um, but going over the timeline on actually when this happened. So, this is December 10th, 2024. The board of education issues a letter to the applicant stating the a review of the property boundaries and I'll quote has
revealed an unlawful encroachment which violates the terms of the agreement. There'll be more expert testimony on this particular issue later so I'm not going to cover it at the moment. Um I just wanted to put this in everyone's
head on where when this is happening um you know for everything. So this exhibit is actually two pages. So exhibit five is page six and page seven I guess of the of the document
right of the slide deck. Um so just to finish up with the timeline, there's numerous planning board hearings um since then uh this application uh and on finally on Janu on July 30th,
2025, um a zoning violation was issued for illegal units without a certificate of occupancy with a compliance date of 81 2025 going on a year. We're halfway through 2026.
Uh after numerous planning board meetings um where the applicant has attempted to explain the amendments, we could um very confusing, but we have can finally present the issues and our objections to this particular application.
Um as constructed, this project has major violations of the Jersey City Municipal Code, State Building Code, and National Flood Code. Uh, so I'm going to continue to explain those issues. Um, first I'm going to ask, is this big
enough? Should I make it larger? Um, >> you know what? >> You sure? >> And and I'm sorry. I was going to request a break at some point. I feel like this might be a good time to request a break as you're going into uh I guess this area. And I don't want to just I just don't want to interrupt you.
>> I I think it's a good time. Let's take a 10 minutes break. So I'll be back at uh 7:35. 7:35. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. How you make it out, commissioner? Are you?
How you make it out? >> Hi. You're talking me? >> Yeah. No, Capers. I was trying to get a hold of Capers. >> Hey, I'm here. I'm here now. >> All right. Good. A how you doing? >> Had a little technical difficulty for a second.
>> That's all right. You mentioned a cutaway. How are you? >> I'm fine. And yourself? >> All right. Good. Welcome aboard. >> Thanks for having me. >> I appreciate the warm. Welcome. >> Um, are you related to Sinclair or Lionus?
>> Um, no. >> All right. Different family. So, um, I have a big family. I'll be honest. I don't know, but we family in Jersey City. U, my grandmother used to work at Liberty House.
>> Okay. >> Montgomery Avenue. >> Yeah. Yeah. And, um, my aunt taught at uh, St. Bridget's. And I do have family that work for the city. Yeah. >> All right. Because I, if I'm not mistaken, I might know your family. I worked with them years ago.
>> If it's like this in Sinclair, >> it's um it's of high probability. Yes. >> Yes. >> Small world, isn't it? >> Very small world. That's a nice dog.
>> Thanks. >> You're welcome. >> He always likes to say hi. >> Hey What's your dog's name? >> This is Lola. >> Oh, Lola. Hey, Lola. >> Come here, Bear.
>> Mine's just a little bigger. >> Oh, wow. >> That's Whoa. >> 95 pounds. >> Oh my goodness. >> Oh, he's big. >> Wow. >> That's a big bear. >> Yeah. I just call this one Lil Bear.
>> Can we call the meeting back to order? Is everyone back? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Yeah, >> indeed. >> Miss Dillion, >> this will come up. >> Sorry. Yes, I'm here. I was >> You may proceed. >> Okay, great.
Is this large enough? Should I make it bigger? This exhibit? this. >> Yeah. Zoom in just a little. >> Yeah. A little bit, please. >> A little bit more. >> Little bit more. >> And Madam Chair, we have Mike back.
>> I'm here. Yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mike. >> Are we good? >> Okay, Miss Deleó, we were about to mark this. I believe you had stated it was 06. >> It is 06. Page eight.
number of pages and what is it? >> Uh this is I'm starting to diagram and I will explain the different um violations that I see in this project. Um this is the same exhibit I had open before and
it's page eight. >> So 06 >> 06 >> page eight of the 17 or 16 page slide deck. >> Correct. 17 page slide >> and it is a two-page exhibit. >> No, single page.
>> Single page. Fire escape violation. You prepared this exhibit? >> I did. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. 06 >> 06 06. >> Okay.
>> Go ahead. Thank you. >> Okay. So, this is a photo looking west in the easement area. So, this little recess over here is on on the right side of the photo is actually where you would exit um 8385 Bright Street, the adjacent property. There's a recess door there
that enters into the egress easement. So, as you egress, this is what you would see uh going down the the egress corridor. Um they're immovable from the fire escape. There are movable columns. There's a
platform that you must go under. There's a stair. There's a stair beyond that you have to go around. The stairs also have open risers that you could see right through. That makes it even harder to see. It's like right here. You can see right through them, especially in
emergency situations. The red line here is the approximate location of the property line. Um the masonry wall on the left is the school's retaining wall. The space between these two is what this
easement area is. More testimony on the easement and the necessity of it and the creation of it will be explained later by others. Right now, I'm going to stick with the strictly the code issues. A fire escape was never shown on any of
the drawings presented to the VVNA, the planning staff, historic commission, planning board, or even the Jersey City and Hoboken building departments. It was built outside the applicant's property lines onto BOE property without anyone's prior knowledge or approval and
as evidenced by the BOE letter dated December 10th, 2024. It is unlawful encroachment which in violates the terms of the easement agreement. The original building was a twostory warehouse with two new stories added on
top of it to create a new fourstory four or family building. According to the drawings presented by the applicant, but contrary to their testimony, the new fourth floor and the new fifth floor roof deck above it only have one
means of eress down the main stairs and out the front door to Bright Street. The building code requires two exits in multifamily buildings at the fourthstory above grade plane fire. The applicant's architect testified at
the September meeting that the second means of egress from the fourth floor was to go out the rear windows, hang out the window, drop down 10 feet to a new third floor exterior roof deck. From there, you have access to a fixed ladder
at the rear edge of the building with no side guards, which leads down to a small exterior deck on the second floor. This second floor deck has a cantalvered steel balcony, which I believe the
applicant referred to as a basket with a counterbalance drop down ladder. You could see that counterbalance drop down ladder right here on this photo. So, there's a second floor balcony here. This is the basket they're talking about. It's kind of hanging off the
building. And that drop down ladder uh comes from that basket. Um that ladder goes down to this steel platform uh which has a fixed stair degrade. So, this is all built on columns and
foundations into the easement area. Firescapes are not legal in new buildings. I contacted the New Jersey State Department of Community Affairs, the building code division, as well as the regulatory affairs division. They came out for a site visit in February of
2024 and confirmed that as per the rehab sub code 523 cited here 523-6.32 um any addition to a building shall comply with the requirements of the uniform construction code applicable to
new construction in which case the international building code New Jersey edition would apply. The IBC section 10116 on ladders states that permanent ladders shall not serve as part of the means of
egress from occupied spaces within a building. Ladders and fire escapes are not legal means of egress in new construction and they have not been since the 1960s. They are no longer allowed because of the lack of maintenance. They prove danger
to firemen as well as occupants. Instead, building codes were changed to require a second means of egress to be provided on in the interior of the building with fire rated staircases, corridors, and sprinkler systems.
Pin has also referenced DCA's for um formal technical opinion, FTO3. I have it available here if if you want it submitted as an exhibit. But this document only provides the guidelines of how, not where, fire escapes are to be
built. It gives guiding regulations, construction details, and dimensions. It states that fire escapes are only permitted as provided in the rehab sub code for existing buildings. For example, in many older historic
buildings, it may not be possible to retrofit a new stair in in the interior. So an exterior firecape may be allowed but they are not allowed in new construction or gut renovations or additions where in when where the interior stair should be designed to
code from the start to accommodate a proper stair as a second means of egress regarding the use of ladders as part of a means of egress system. FTO3 does have an exception
um on where has an exception to the in IBC 1016 on ladders which I mentioned earlier. It states that fixed and counterbalanced ladders shall be permitted from the lowest platform landing to grade where either a fixed
stair flight or counterbalance swinging stair is not feasible due to sight constraints. when you're on property line, when you're over a property line, for instance. It also states that all new fire scopes installations require a totally separate construction permit
application. This exhibit, which would be exhibit seven or page nine in this document, is on fire escapes. This exhibit shows fire examples of existing fire escapes. Fixed stair
flights built according to the regulations set for FTO3 are used at the upper floors. You can see them here on on the upper floors um of the fire escapes. And since these buildings are built to the street line,
drop down ladders or counterbalance stairs are used from the lowest platform of the fire escape uh to grade. so it doesn't impede the public right of way when it's not in use. This is the exact opposite of what was constructed on this
project where ladders are used in upper stories and a fixed stair is provided to grade. Firecapes are not allowed in new construction. In fact, when my building was built in 8 when my building at 85 Bright Street was renovated from a
warehouse to into condos in the 1980s, the fire escape on the back of the building were were removed and two separate stairs were constructed on the interior of the building. There's no reason that this building was not designed from the start with a secondary
interior egress there within their own property as is required and done for every fourstory multifamily building. Building officials do have some measure of discretion of how building codes are interpreted and applied, but it does not
extend to completely negating the state building code requirements. If a mistake was made, it must be corrected within the confines of their own property and without improp improperly impinging on the property rights of others and endangering the
lives of neighboring residents. So what you could see from this photo, I'm going back to exhibit six, is this blue line right here, which is the approximate line of the base flood elevation in the area.
The school was forced to elevate grade on their property to be above the BFE. Hence, that's why we have the retaining law. This is their grade level up here. Which leads us to another significant issue with this project. Flood code
violations. This is exhibit number eight, which is page 10 um of the slide deck. Um, let's see.
The flood zone. Um, at the last planning board meeting on this project in April, the applicant testified that the property was not in the flood zone. That testimony is not consistent with the FEMA flood map, which is excerpted on this slide. The property is completely
within the special flood hazard area AE, which has a base flood elevation of 11 ft. The property here is at the X. The firm, the flood insurance rate map number, the FEMA map number is 3417C1108E,
which I have available if the board would like to see it as an exhibit. I'm not sure, Santa. You can tell me if you want the full map of where I ex excerpt this from. U, but that's where I got this map from. Um, I'll add a little side note here.
Based on future projections, uh, future sea level projections and recommendations, New Jersey recently adopted a new climate adjusted flood elevation regulations. It's called resilient environments and landscapes or real or e. It adds another 4 feet to FEMA's
existing DF. It was supposed to take effect in July of 26, which is tomorrow, but I believe it has been pushed out of here to July of 2, 2027 to give more time for municipalities to understand what the impacts of this change is going to be. Obviously, this
is an issue for every development in the flood zone, but for this discussion, I'm going to stick with the reference of the previous BFE of 11 ft. Contrary to the applicant's testimony, the ground floor of the original
building was in an existing slab on grade with a very small cellar only in the northeast corner of the building. Having lived in Bright Street for over 25 years, I know the previous owner who's familiar with the building. There'll be further testimony
from this others as well. The applicant removed the existing slab, dug down, and built a new slab to create a new full basement. This new basement is approximately 6 to 7 ft below the area's base flood
elevation. This basement contains living space, sprinkler pumps, alarm panels, building meters, elevator, and utility equipment, which for new construction are not allowed to be in the flood zone.
As per the codes cited here, um, Jersey City Municipal Code 172-5.2, the uniform construction code 5223 6.3A, um, the International Building Code
1612.2 and uh, ASI 24 American Society of Civil Engineers. Uh the basement is considered the lowest floor of the structure and is to be elevated a minimum of 1 foot above the base flood elevation.
ASI 24 also requires additional flood proofing measures which are to be used when building in the flood zone such as flood vents, specialized window details that resist water pressure and the interior flood resistant materials.
It is unknown if any of those measures were used in this project. This board cannot approve new construction that is in vi direct violation of these local, state, and national codes. As evidenced in the drawings and
transcripts of the planning board meetings in 2019, when this application was first approved, a seller plan was not provided or even discussed. And the creation of a new basement within the flood zone that had all the meters, utility, sprinkler, mechanical, and
elevator equipment was never presented to the land use boards or the public. And the seller is still not being presented as being needed in this amendment. However, I'm going to exhibit nine, page 11 in
slide deck. This is an image of the seller and pile plan which is on file at the planning office and signed by staff on September 30th. The date in the lower left on this drawing is July 10th. You can see it here, 2020.
Um, the date on the lower left on the drawings approved by planning board is January 10th, 2019. >> Can you zoom in on the exhibit? >> Sure. >> And is this 09?
>> This is uh what page is this? Hold on. >> My computer seems to be freezing. Alignment exhibit. This is 09 page 11. Oh, sorry.
>> Sorry. I have an error on my computer for a second. Don't send. Oops. >> That's right. Just back up. >> Okay. Sorry. I'm going to share a different screen right now. No, all the PDFs closed.
>> Oh, hold on one second. Um open. >> Sweet. Where's the share? >> Sorry, one second. My computer is being not so fun. Can you see this drawing?
>> Yes. >> Okay. So, these are the drawings. um that were approved by the planning board in 2019. >> Um this is on the portal. I don't know if it needs to be introduced as another
exhibit. >> Mr. Leon, anything that you're going to introduce, we are going to mark as an exhibit and we're going to describe it so that we can attempt to keep the record clean. Okay, >> we're showing
the last exhibit I had that we marked was 08, page 10 of the 17page slide deck titled flood code violations >> and and she did bring up 09 and
>> and you started to bring up 09.09 09 >> looked like a screenshot of an approved drawing is what I believe you were you were testifying to. >> Correct.
>> It was a screenshot of the the drawings in signed in the planning office >> right there. >> Okay. So that is 09 and I had asked if you could zoom in on
it and that's when it went >> went wacky. >> Okay. >> Sorry. >> Legal term. >> So what do you want to see? So the the lower >> I'm looking for I'm looking for the date of the drawing.
Okay. This the lower left corner of the drawing says 10th of July 2020. >> And you said it was signed by staff. >> The set is signed by staff. >> Can we see that?
>> It's the staff didn't sign every drawing. I think they just signed the cover sheet. But this is a photograph of what was there of >> so Misty Leon that's why I wanted to zoom in >> of where over here
>> yes >> that whole side. So it appears that this sheet has a date of July 10th, 2020. And I am looking to see right what the
sheet is labeled. >> Okay. So this says pile and seller floor plan, >> right? Sheet A10. 110. >> And it appears
that there were multiple revision dates with the last one appearing on the left side as July 10th, 2020.
>> A10 is the pile and seller floor plan. 87 Bright Street. Does it say renovation? What's the the block say? >> Bright Street. >> Bright Street residences. It says here
under project. Okay. Can we zoom in a little? >> Maybe a little further up. It had something in the other direction. And this is prepared by Mr. Cornwell. >> Correct. These are uh in further up. Oh, this. Okay. Bright Street Residences
in the upper right. >> Okay. Yep. And it is your testimony that you retrieve this from >> I took this picture. I went to the planning office and took photos of what
they had on file. >> Okay. Okay. So, now that we've identified it, you wanted to tell us something about it. >> Yes. I wanted to say that these drawings are substantially different. This
drawing didn't even exist in the drawings that are actually approved by the planning board in 2019. Can you see this set now? Does that work? If I just switch drawings, >> larger.
>> Yes. You've now switched to another screen. >> Correct. I switched to another screen. >> So, these are the drawings. Um, >> is this marked? This This has not been marked. >> Oh, >> this has not been marked. No.
>> Here's what we're going to do. >> Okay. >> We're going to mark this as 09 little A. Okay. >> This is another Cornwell drawing. >> Yeah.
>> Entitled Bright Street Residence. >> Correct. >> Does it have a similar sheet number? >> I'm going to zoom in for you. So, this this is the full set now. Um, so this says Bright Street
Residences. See? Um, >> all right. Keep scrolling down >> a little bit more because this is where your block. Okay. G 100. >> G 100. >> But you're saying this is the full set.
>> Does it tell you how many pages? >> There's the sheet index. So, this is G 100 through Scroll down a little bit more. >> One of 16. It's a 16 page
>> G 100 A001 and then Z uh they're all different. It's 16 pages total. 16page sheet set and the most
what are the dates? >> Um, okay. So, if we go back up here, the dates he lists the latest date is the same 110 2019 PB submission revision one. Okay,
>> which is the same as the other set, but the lower left corner, if I move down here, 10th of January, 2019. Okay. So in this
set, this 16page set is there a A10 sheet? >> No. So if I go through the set. So you have G 100
>> A 001 Z 100 >> Z C Z 02 C Z3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10. 11 12 That's it. That's the last page. >> You said there were 16 sheets, but I
thought we're only up to 13. >> It's Z's are the 13, but he had a G up here and he had a A. He has a G 100, which is another one. So, if I go to the sheet index. Oops. >> Okay. All right. >> They're named differently. So he has an
A and a G and a Z 001 and a Z 00 1.1. So there's sheets >> different labeling but all included >> right >> Santo if it helps on the bottom right it
has sheet number and it's one of 16 and each page is individually identified that way. >> Correct. I'm just trying to keep it as clean as possible, Commissioner Kaplan, for the
record. So, A9 or 09 has a sheet A10 dated July 10th, 2020. 09A. The January 10th, 2019 board approved
set does not have that sheet A 110, which is that seller PL. >> Correct. >> Right. >> That was the only point I was really trying to make.
>> It's a very good point. >> Okay. Um, hold on. Now I have to try to get my original my original document back. Let's see just here. Okay. So I was showing the original seller
plan that Oh, am I on screen now? Sorry. Um only point I was trying to make that this drawing that is signed in the planning office has a full seller plan where planning board never saw that to begin. that seller plan includes digging out of
the new seller because the seller didn't even exist back then. Oops, sorry. Um, within there. So, it's substantially different from what was there before. Um, but talking about the seller in
particular, my my concerns. So, in this set, there's no constru like there were no construction details ever shown to the public of the new lowered slab or the foundation walls. Um, but as an adjacent resident, I would like to know if the existing foundation, my buildings
like right up here adjacent, if when they dug down six to seven feet below from where they were, if my foundation uh was compromised, was my was underpinning necessary in my building? was any damage done or any protection
measures taken? We were never informed and we still don't know what was done. Uh I would also think the historic commission would want to be assured that the existing historic structures would not be damaged from any of the digging. The fact that this was never even
presented to the public or any of the boards um and then to build into the flood zone is just um it's extremely questionable within there. Um
I'll just continue with my presentation lately. So now I'm going to the next page of my exhibit which is this is that same exhibit exhibit 10
exhibit 10 page 12 of that original document of of that original slide deck. So the next issue that I want to explain is the expansion of non-conforming structures.
As per Jersey City Ordinance right here, Jersey City Ordinance 345-60, which I cited here, the area and dimensions of any non-conforming yard shall not be further reduced and a non-conforming structure shall not be changed.
the zoning charts and the original survey site plan on the approved drawings which is excerpt on this slide. These are the drawings that the that the planning board initially saw the 2019 set that we that we just introduced um
say that there's a 1 foot4 setback off the rear property line. The center photo is the rear wall why it's being demolished. So this was taken by a neighbor. They sent it to me. The rear wall totally came down. The application drawings state that that rear wall was
to remain. No new survey or full site plan with property lines are given as part of this amendment. But according to the measurement I took, the rear wall is now 9 in. This is me with a um tape measure
um is about 9 in um from the property line. Mr. Lewis's drawing of the applicant's architect of Asbel ground floor firescape. It's it's his exhibit. I don't remember the exhibit number, but it's his drawing A300
uh detail one. Also indicates a 9-year a 9 in rear yard setback. He also states on his floor plans that 8 in was added to the rear of the building. So this slide, Santo, is another um
exhibit. This is a new exhibit. This wasn't part of the original 01. So I'd like to introduce it as another exhibit. I don't know. >> This is O 10 little A. >> Oh, 10 little A. Okay. >> Does it have a title?
>> Uh, it's brick counting. I didn't title it, I don't think. No, I didn't put a full title on it. I just labeled the drawings. Um, but I would call it what? I'm sorry. Expansion of the
non-conforming structure, >> but it's not labeled that. >> It is not labeled that. It's labeled um it's photos of the rear of the building at different stages of construction. >> Okay, that's what we're going to call
it. Okay, good. So that's 010 A. You said >> 010 >> lower case A. >> Okay. Um this photo >> you took these photos.
>> I'm sorry. >> Did you take these photos? >> Uh I took this one on the end uh of the after construction and the preconstruction. The one in the middle I did not. That was taken by a neighbor who will be saying something later on as
well. >> And you had witnessed the building in that state and you recognize that as the building the middle photo. >> Uh yes, we had many parties back there. So we know um
>> and then you have >> you have put these I guess scaling on the photo. Those look like they've been added to the photo. >> Yes. I I I'll explain. I annotated the
the photos a little bit to explain what you're looking at essentially. >> So please explain it. >> Okay. Um, so this is all of the rear portion of the western wall of 87 Bright Street
as seen from the neighboring property. The photo on the left, this photo here shows the original wall before construction. Um, I don't have a dimension of what that wall was, but using an old architectural measuring method, I counted the existing brick
from the end of the wall of the second floor, which you could see on the top portion of this photo um to the end of the building of the at the first floor, which is on the right side of that photo on the first floor. There are nine full bricks. I can zoom
in a little here. So, here a brick is three inches tall by 4 in deep by 8 in wide. Uh, architecturally, we've done this a lot for a couple, you know, when we can't physically get to something. It's our it's an estimation tool of what these
are. Uh, so by looking at the photo carefully, I put little blue lines uh to try to count the brick. you know how many brick went from one to the other. Um so you can see on that photo I went nine bricks um to the edge of the rear
wall essentially. The second photo here in the middle is a similar photo during construction. So the perspective is a little bit different here uh but you can draw you could estimate just the same way. So you could hear you can see here that the
wall is starting to get demolished. The middle portion of the wall is gone. The top wall top portion of the wall is still there. And you can see the bottom portion of the wall is still there. So you could tell where that existing rear wall was kind of around where that
number seven is. Right? So that's the brick eight and nine are probably the new rear wall. Um so on the photo on the right is post is when they were done uh post
construction. You could clearly see the demarcation line here of where the original building was. You could see the old brick kind of around that number seven line. You clearly see 8, 9, and 10 being an extension of what they built. When that
wall was rebuilt, they took down their own wall and they built it a little bit farther, one brick width farther than what it was. So if the original setback was uh 1T4 is as per the original drawings, 16 in. If you extend that
building by another brick, another 8 in, you get an 8 in rear yard setback. uh which more closely relates uh to Mr. Lewis's asbelt drawings uh that say 9 in and my physical de um measurement of
what I did at 9 in of what that setback is. Um this is considered an expansion of a non-conforming structure and would would require additional variances for the rear yard building coverage and lot coverage. The creation of a new basement
under the structure and into the rear yard setback could also be considered an expansion of of a non-conforming structure. Also, to answer some questions from the last hearing from former chair Chris Langston um of the planning board, this
newly built rear wall is now considered new construction and it should be subject to the requirements of the International Building Code 705.8, eight, which does not allow any windows within 3 ft of a property flooring. The
new floor to ceiling curtain wall glass windows on the rear of this facade are roughly 9 in from the property line. According and according to FTO3 which the applicant states a lot um any window openings adjacent to fire escapes shall
be fire safety glaze but there are no opening protectives for the windows such as fire shutters fire rated glass or even additional sprinklers. The windows are operable and they open out which the windows on that facade are operable and open out which further reduces the width
of the egress passageway. And as I stated before, some of these windows are also with well within the flood zone and would require additional floodp proofing protections. So I will move on from here. So now I'm moving back to the original
exhibit. This is exhibit number 11, which is uh page 13, I believe. No, page 14. Oh, page 14. Sorry, it's page 13 of the original exhibit
>> labeled not per historic recommendations. >> Correct. Okay. Contrary to the applicant submitted drawings, this project was not approved by the HPC. It was later approved by the planning
board if the applicant followed the conditions of approval. They did not. I'll leave the details of the inappropriate and substandard construction to the ASB lower signage corners to others that but as a former member of the chair of the HP and chair
of the HBC, I will note one of very noticeable intrusions to the historic character of the building and district are the new incoming utility lines. As you could see from these a few photos on this slide,
the farthest left is the historic 1938 Feder uh circled in red here shows the incoming utility lines coming in just about above the second floor window uh and then going down. The second photo is
what they showed on their approved drawings which shows it coming up above the higher cornis actually and then proceeding down on the interior of the building u staying out from the front. Um the third photo photo is what they
constructed. So they came in above the second floor but then they put exposed conduits on the face of the building straight through the signage corners into the into the sidewalk. The photo on the right, this one, I'll
zoom in a little. The photo on the right here is uh is 93 Bright Street a few doors down. This is a new fourstory four family building constructed over 10 to 15 years ago. You can see the incoming utility lines
entering the building at the second part into an interior chase which leads to the mechanical room which is directly below on the first floor right behind that little red door. I'll also note to be above to be above the flood zone. This building is
constructed on a elevated slab on grade with no basement. The adjacent building at 89 Bright Street, which is currently under construction, also tried to install and expose exterior conduits for the new incumbent service. We immediately
informed city planning and the developer that this was not as per their approvals and the conduits were relocated to the interior of the building. I believe Maggie might have a picture of this in her updated memo. I don't have it. The planning board's condition of
approval from 2019 number 214 and number 15 state that any deviations or changes to the exterior facade must be approved by the historic preservation commission and this board. There have been significant changes and this applicant
has not returned to the historic commission. Okay, just to conclude. Okay, we have brought up these significant egress and flood code issues numerous times since the beginning of this project in 2018.
We have spoken to the owner, the architect, city planning, and have testified about these same issues at the historic and planning boards. In fact, page two of the planning board resolution for this project has a summary of my testimony and and notes
that the code compliance issues of egress and flood zone would require substantial redesign of the project. But these concerns were continually ignored. To make matters worse, there was confusion and inconsistency in the building department review process with
structural foundation permits being issued in Jersey City and the remainder of permits being issued in Hoken. The illegal fire escape constructed on adjacent property without the city or the BOE's prior approval was not added until the very end of the project and is
now impeding the egress from the residents in my building. As an architect, I find it deeply concerning when the architectural plans fail to meet the essential life safety minimum standards. Minimum standards. One of the primary responsibilities of
an architect is to ensure that their design protects the health, safety and welfare of not just the occupants of the building but also the public. This responsibility goes far beyond creating attractive renderings and drawings used to sell project sell projects and get
approvals. Architects must possess the knowledge and the judgment to ensure compliance with zoning res zoning regulations, life safety codes, construction standards for egress, fire protection, energy conservation, environmental regulations among among
countless others. These requirements are not just bureaucratic hurdles. They are fundamentals to public trust. Land use boards, building departments and public depend on architects to design these code these two code standards and city agencies and review boards should not
have to should not serve as a substitute for professional diligence. Ultimately the design of the building is the responsibility of the developers, their professionals and their contractors. To have city agency turn the blind eye and ignore major violations for certain
applications is not acceptable. But regardless of how we got to this point, if for whatever reason these things were missed or overlooked, the neighbors, the public, the new owners, the HPC, the BOE, and this board should
not be forced to accept the substandard, and as demonstrated, non-code compliant construction created by this applicant. If this project was presented this way from the start with the required second means of egress on someone else's property and the utilities and
residential units in the flood plane, it would not have been approved. This was a full gut renovation and there's absolutely no reason it was not properly designed to conform to code within the confines of their own property before being presented to the public and the
boards and then constructed accordingly throughout this entire project. This applicant has demonstrated a blatant disrespect for the process, the neighbors, the community, Jersey City boards, and even the rule of law. They have done so with an arrogance and with
an ignorance of the building codes, and have done so without consequence. They have cost us and the city thousands of dollars in an unbelievable amount of time in trying to explain the changes they made, and their presentation is still very confusing and unclear.
The board should not rely on additional conditions of approval until the applicant first cures all the existing violations and demonstrates full compliance of the law through properly reviewed and approved plans. Any approval without these pre prerequisites
would condone the non-compliance non-compliant construction rather than resolve it. This application should be denied. The TCO revoked an appropriate maximum fines levied until all these issues are resolved to the satisfaction
of the neighbors, the city, the DOE and the public. The property rights and life safety of the neighboring building residents as well as the current and future occupants within the building cannot be compromised because of this application. Laws and ordinances matter.
Building code matters. They are made for a reason and must be equally applied and enforced. Thank you and I'll happy to answer any questions you might have. That concludes >> Thank you, Mr. Le
for now. >> Madame Chair, I don't know if the board has questions, but obviously Mr. Joseph has the right to cross-examination. But if the board has questions,
>> any questions from the board before I move to Mr. Joseph? Mr. Joseph, would you like to screen share, please? >> Yeah. So, uh, Mr. Abbott's going to take the lead on the, uh, questions for the
witness. Mr. Leon, are you still there? >> I am. Should I stop sharing? Let's see. >> Please. Thank you. >> Great. Uh, good evening. Um, nice to have you here. Uh, so going to ask some questions. They're all yes or no
questions. We're going to try to get through this as quickly as possible. Uh, I'm going to share my screen. I've pre-marked a significant amount of exhibits as AC uh for cross just to make it clean so we can get through it uh without any hassle. Uh these exhibits
are being marked generally for identification purposes and not necessarily entering them onto the record. Uh and if anything gets on entered on the record, I will of course request that that happen at that time. Uh but for now, we are going to share
One second. All right. Can everybody see this? This is uh what's been entered as exhibit 05. >> Yes, >> we can see you, council. >> Thank you. Uh, Miss De Leon, uh, you testified to this exhibit, correct?
>> Yes. >> And you testified that this is a purported encroachment on an easement, correct? >> Yes. It says it violates the terms of the agreement. >> It's uh, ma'am, it's a yes or no question. Please just ask as as it's
posed. Uh, your council has ample opportunity to clarify if necessary. So, thank you so much. Um, okay. And let's start over here. This says December 10th, 2024. Correct? >> Yes. >> Uh, and up here in the writer's contact,
the email is R R I V E R A Kr L A W.com. Correct. >> Uh, yes. >> And at the bottom, it is electronically signed by an individual named Ramon E.
Rivera. Correct. >> Yes. >> Great. Now, I'm going to show you what has been pre-marked as exhibit AC1 for identification. Uh, and this is an email, correct? >> Yes. >> And this is from Raymond Riviera,
correct? >> Yes. >> And his email is r i v e r akrlaw.com. Correct. >> Yes. >> Uh, and this is sent to Nicholas Tramy. Correct. >> Yes. And it was sent on Tuesday,
February 4th, 2025. Correct? >> Yes. >> And the email reads, "Good evening, Mr. Chammy. Please accept this email as confirmation that the Jersey City Board of Education does not have any further concern or objection to your application
based upon the approval of the fire escape by the Hoboken Fire Department official." Correct. >> That's what it says. >> All right. Now, we're going to go to what has been entered as exhibit 06. Uh, do you see this?
>> Yeah. >> Great. Um, and looking at the top right, I think that you had mentioned this. It provides a citation to the uh New Jersey UCC, correct? >> Uh, yes. >> And and so it would follow and you would
agree with me that the uniform commercial or uniform construction code applies in this case. Correct. Can you say that again? Uniform construction code applies to this >> to this >> to this project. Yes. >> Great. >> All right. We are going to go down to
your exhibit 03 next. Um and and you described this exhibit uh a bit earlier. Correct. >> Yes. >> And uh I do want to take a moment and read the email at the top. This email is from Raymond Meyer. Correct.
>> Yes. Uh, it's dated Monday, September 28th, 2020. Correct. >> Yes. >> And it's to Michael Casease. Correct. >> Correct. >> And it uh copies Claudia, and I apologize for this, uh, Berkovic and Mario Patuno. Correct.
>> Correct. >> And it says, Mario, as per the email that has been received, due to a conflict of interest, we cannot review these drawings or issue permits. Michael, they can be picked up downstairs, so you can go to Hoboken. Correct. Correct. >> And you would agree with me that uh by
virtue of this transfer, Hoboken had plan review responsibility for this project. Correct. >> I don't necessarily know how planning how the building department works there and I don't know
what reviews since Jersey City did issue permits what they reviewed and what they didn't and when. I can't answer that. >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm going to I'm going to just register an objection for the record that this that's the internal workings of both building departments. It's not within my client's personal
knowledge. >> I I don't necessarily feel that I need to respond to the objection. That can just be the testimony. If she doesn't know, she doesn't know. That's totally fine. Um but we'll continue. All right. Now, I'm going to show you what has been pre-marked as exhibit AC2
for identification. Uh, and here it reads NJAC 5 col23-2.13. Correct. >> Correct. >> And below that it says authority to grant variations. Correct.
>> Yes. And uh this statute reads, "The enforcing agency with plan review responsibility shall have the sole authority to grant variations." Correct? >> That's what it says. Yes. >> Now, we're going to go to what has been marked AC3 for identification.
And at the top here, it reads NJAC 523-2.9. Correct. >> Correct. >> And below that, it reads variations and exceptions. Correct. >> Yes. >> And this A section reads, "No variations
or exceptions from the requirement of any sub code of these regulations may be made except upon the following findings. One, that strict compliance with any subcode provision, if required, would result in practical difficulty to such
owner. and two that the exception if granted will not jeopardize the health, safety and welfare of intended occupants and the public generally. Correct. >> Correct. >> Now we're going to go to what has been pre-marked as exhibit AC4 for
identification. And this reads NJC 523-2.10. Correct? >> Yes. And below that it reads application for variations. Correct? >> Yes. >> And subsection A of this states, an
application for a variation pursuant to this section shall be filed in writing with the construction official and shall state specifically one, a statement of the requirements of the sub code from which a variation is sought. Two, a statement of the manner by which strict
compliance with said provisions would result in practical difficulties. Three, a statement of the nature and extent of such practical difficulties. And four, a statement of feasible alternatives to the requirements of the sub code which
would adequately protect the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants or intended occupants and the public generally. Correct. >> Correct. >> We're going to go to what has been marked AC5 for identification. And at
the top here it reads NJAC 5 col23-2.12. Correct. >> Correct. >> And below that it says final decision on variations. Correct. >> Correct. >> And we're just going to read the first
two sentences here. We won't do the whole paragraph. Uh the appropriate subcode officials shall make the final determination with respect to matters within their jurisdiction. The construction official shall notify the applicant of that determination.
Correct. >> Correct. >> I'm going to show you. And this is marked. I have it marked as AC6 for identification. Uh I'm under the impression this has already been marked and entered into evidence. Uh I do apologize. Um I didn't have the the
proper number. Uh but I just AC6 for identification uh for this purposes is is fine. um if if that's okay with you, council. >> So, council, let's do two things. One,
AC 1 through five are going to be moved into evidence. They are the uh statute. They've been referenced but have not been shown and marked. So, we are going to mark them for purposes of the record.
This is the application for variation. It's dated March 15 of 2024. Uh yes, that is the that is the date of the signatures at the bottom. It was uh dated March 11th, 2024 by the applicant.
>> So, Mr. Joseph, I have this marked as A4 for purposes of the record, but we're going to cross reference it as A6, previously marked as A4. >> Okay. Thank you, council.
All right, Miss Dele Leone. Um, let's start at the top here. Uh, and this is, I guess the best word for it would be the New Jersey UCC logo. Correct. >> Correct. And this reads application for a
variation. Correct. >> Correct. >> And it says identification block 13905 lot 12. Correct. >> Correct. >> And work site location 87 Bright Street, Jersey City, New Jersey 07302.
Correct. >> Correct. And here in the applicant statement section, it states, "Please state the requirements of the sub code for which a variation is sought." Correct. >> Correct. >> And below that, it's in handwriting. It
says, "Rearard fire escape conformance with FTO3. Existing conditions open parenthesy glass curtain walls close parenthesy. Do not allow for install of brackets for a basket. Correct. That's what it says, but it doesn't give
me a sub code. >> Uh, how would compliance with the next section, how would compliance with said provisions result in practical difficulties? Explain the nature and extent of these difficulties. Correct. >> Correct. >> And the writing, the handwriting below
it states, "A drop ladder would not be allowable from second floor since it would be 25 ft long." Correct. >> Correct. And below that it says, "Please state an alternative to the sub code requirement that will still protect the health, safety, and welfare of the
occupants." Correct. >> Correct. >> And the handwriting states, "A platform with post supports allowing adequate headroom for egress, fixed stair to grade from platform, and fixed ladder to second." And then it's illegible. Correct.
>> Correct. And it's dated uh March 3rd, 2024. Correct. >> Yes. >> And there's a signature line above the applicant section. Correct. >> Correct. >> And right here it says determination. Correct. >> Correct. >> And below that, it says after reviewing
the facts, we uh there is not a box checked for deny. There is a box checked for grant. above variation request in accordance with NJAC 5 col23-9 through 2
uh13 >> right >> right and uh below that it is dated March 3rd 2024 correct >> uh March >> sorry >> all right and there is a signature above
the building subcode official line. Correct. >> Yes. >> And there is a signature above the fire subcode official line. Correct. >> Correct. >> And there is also a signature above the construction official line. Correct. >> Correct.
>> All right. Great. Let's move on to your exhibit 08. Um, and you previously testified to this, correct? >> Yes. Um, and you provide a a snapshot of the map utilized in your analysis.
Correct. >> Correct. >> And you mentioned that you have the map, but it wasn't provided in the slide deck presentation. Correct. >> Correct. >> And that's not a problem. We we got the map. Uh, and I've actually pre-marked
the map AC7 for identification. Uh, however, because of technology, I went ahead and got the better copy so that we can actually all see it. So, this is AC7 for identification. Uh, I zoomed in here wh to make it easier. Uh, this is the
map. Uh, and so is this a copy of the full map? Oh my gosh, my computer's freaking out. I apologize. Great. And so this is a copy of of the full map utilized. Correct. >> Can you zoom in on the map number, please?
>> The map number, where would that be? >> Lower right corner. >> 17C 018 preliminary January 30. Yes. >> Okay, great. I have to move myself. Sorry. Okay,
we'll come back to this. All right, so going back to your exhibit 08, you had cited the Jersey City Municipal Code at section 172-5.2, correct? >> Uh, yes.
>> All right. Great. Now, we're going to go to what has been marked AC8 for identification. Uh, at the top here, it states chapter 172- flood damage prevention code of ordinances, Jersey City, New Jersey Municipal Code Library.
Correct. >> Correct. >> Let's go down. And this is here you see uh this reads section 172-5.2 uh dash specific standards. Correct. >> Correct.
>> And this is the ordinance you cited. Correct. >> Um you don't see it from your what I'm seeing right now. If you go a little bit further down. Yes. >> But the the whole section 5.2 is what was referenced. Correct. >> Correct.
>> Great. And right here it states in all areas of special flood hazards where base flood elevation data have been provided as set forth in section 172-3.2 basis for establishing areas of special
flood hazard or in section 172-4.3B use of other base flood and floodway data. The following standards are required. Correct. >> Correct. Now, let's go to section 172-3.2.
And I don't know if you see this, but this reads section 172-3.2 uh- basis for establishing area of special flood hazard. Correct.
>> Correct. And here it reads, "The areas of special flood hazard for the city of Jersey City, community number 34223, are identified and defined on the following documents prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency."
Correct. >> Correct. And below that, subsection A uh states a scientific and engineering report, quote, flood insurance study, Hudson County, New Jersey, open parenthesis, all jurisdictions close parenthesis, quote, dated August 16th,
2006. Correct. >> 2006. That's before Sandy. The that was changed, but yes. Uh, and subsection B states insurance rate map for Hudson County, New Jersey. open parenthesis all jurisdictions close parenthesis as shown
on index and uh I believe the 3C logo is in the way that we would be map numbers 0039 0043 0 1 0 1 0 1 02 0 1 03 0 1 04 0 1 06 0 1
07 0 1 08 0 1 09 0 111 0112 0116 whose uh effective date is August 16th, 2006. Correct. >> Correct. >> And let's quickly go back to the map
utilized in your analysis. And if we go to the bottom of this map, this states uh that the map is dated January 30th, 2015. Correct. >> Correct. That was the map that was in effect at the time of the application.
>> Uh, so you used the wrong map in accordance with Jersey City ordinance. Correct? >> No. >> No, I used the the map that was in effect if the Jersey City ordinance wasn't updated after Sandy. Uh, this is a national flood code, not
the Jersey City flood code. All right, let's go down. We're going to go to exhibit what was marked as 010 uh lowercase A and you testified to this exhibit. Correct.
>> Correct. And you would agree that you would agree with me that there is no citation to any statute, administrative regulation or professional regulation contained in this exhibit that supports the counting of bricks as an accepted standard of measurement. Correct.
>> It's an architectural common practice to estimate size of building. >> Um, and now you mentioned an easement, correct? In your testimony. I did, but other people are going to testify more know more about the
>> um Yep. And uh your your slide deck uh did not provide any written easement, correct? >> No, it did not. >> Okay. Now, we're going to show what's been marked AC9 for identification.
And this states NJSA 405D-25. Correct. Correct. >> And it's the powers of the planning board. Correct. >> Correct. >> And this subsection A reads, "The
planning board shall follow the provisions of this act and shall accordingly exercise its power in regard to one, the master plan pursuant to article 3. Two, subdivision control and site plan review pursuant to article 6.
Three, the official map pursuant to article 5. Four, the zoning ordinance including conditional uses pursuant to article 8. Five, the capital improvement program pursuant to article 4. And six, variances and certain building permits
in conjunction with subdivision site plan and confessional use approval pursuant to article 7. Correct. >> Correct. And below that, subsection B, the planning board. It reads, "The planning board may one, participate in
the preparation and review of programs or plans required by state or federal law or regulation. Two, assemble data on a continuing basis as part of a continuous planning process. and three perform such other advisory duties as
are assigned to it by ordinance or resolution of the governing body for the aid and assistance of the governing body or other agencies or officers. Correct. >> Correct. >> And you would agree with me that this statute does not provide the planning board with the authority to establish an
easement. Correct. >> Correct. Great. >> I have no further questions. Thank you. Sorry. >> I I have for purposes of the record,
I've got AC1 through AC9 and council. We're going to mark and accept all of those for what they are. >> Go ahead, Miss Hajianis.
>> Yeah. Um, Mrs. day Leon. Um, actually, could we pull up AC3 for a moment? >> Yeah, one moment. Okay. Um, thank you. >> Yeah. Thank Thank you very much. So, um,
Miss De Leon, M. Mr. Abbott asked you to read uh this regulation into the ordinance and the ordinance references the necessity of making certain findings
uh in order to grant a variation or exception. Do you recall having seen any specific findings made by the Hoboken code official Mario Patno? with specific findings? No. You know, um
>> Okay. So, you didn't see anything in your review of the record that that that showed that Mr. Patruno made specific findings? >> I did. No, I did not. >> Okay. And um if if Mr. Patruno did uh
grant a variation or exception. Uh do and do you feel he was mistaken in doing that? Do you have any idea what what he may have overlooked or what information may not have been provided to him? >> I do I think he was mistaken because the
drawings that were shown to him did not have all the information he needed to make a proper judgment. It didn't have the property lines shown in the correct location. didn't show uh the extent of what that easement and properties had
served. Um that was the drawing. Those were the drawings that were submitted for the variation but had the property lines. He had no idea that he would have no idea that that was not the applicant's property.
>> Okay. And so um what was the context that he he would have needed to to make an informed decision? >> I would think he would need a full site plan more dimensions that that showed
what the actual um egress with was he would need the full easement. I don't know if he, you know, if he had that and the wording of easement and I don't think building officials can actually rule on wordings of easements. So I I
think you would need an opinion if you're allowed to build there or not. >> Okay. And um do you know whether a a code official outside of the city of Jersey City has any regulatory authority to make permitting decisions in Jersey
City? No, they do not. Well, like can they make permitting? Well, isn't that sort of happening? I mean, they transfer the jurisdiction of this project. So, in terms of Hoboken issued the construction permits for it,
but they can't issue like the final certificate occupancies, I guess, is how I understand it. >> Okay. And but but you're are you're you're not sure, right? You're just describing what happened here. >> I am describing what happened. I have not gone through that process myself, so
I do not know the exact um process on on what would happen with that. >> Okay. So, it's pos So, it's possible Mr. Patruno didn't even have authority to issue a permit or a variation or an exception. >> Possible. Yes. >> Okay. Uh that that that's it for my
redirect. >> Can we stop sharing the screen? >> Yeah, no problem. Sorry. >> Miss Hajian, is that um one of your witnesses testimony there? >> Yes. Um our next >> was your next
>> Yeah. Um, the next witness is Thomas Agarzalik. Give us one second. >> Hi, Tom. Are you settled in? >> Yeah, getting there. >> All right. I don't want to rush you. >> We don't have PC.
I'm sorry to hear that. Not a good guy. >> But uh I'll swear you in. Okay. >> Sure. >> You swear any testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> And could you state and spell your name, please? >> My name is Thomas O' Galik. I reside at
83-85 Bright Street, Unit 3A in Jersey City. >> And Mr. Gazalei, you're testifying as >> um Hold on. I'm just making adjustments. Um, all right. So, tonight I'll be
testifying as a fact witness in regards to three specific items. >> Um, the first the first item will be my personal role in the creation of the egress passageway with the BOE. Um, the other thing I will be testifying
to this evening are my observations as a 27-year resident at the adjacent property. Um, I reside at 85 Brightite. it's adjacent to the subject property. I'm going to be testifying to my knowledge of the site prior to construction as well as the site post
construction. And I'm also going to be voicing concerns as the president of the Opera Van Dors condo association. Um lastly, I'm going to be reporting on my role. I wear multiple
hats. I've been a community activist for 25 years. Um, I'm currently the co-chair of the planning and development committee of the Vanvor Neighborhood Association, formerly known as the Vanforce Park Association when this project's over. Um, specifically as it
relates to this application. >> Yeah, >> um, okay. Uh, Cynthia, is there anything else you want from me before I get into sharing my screen? Um uh do do you feel you gave the board the
the some uh context about your background? >> No, I didn't I didn't give any of my background. Um so just for the board's knowledge, uh I've been a resident of Jersey City for over 30 years. Uh member
of the Van Doris Park Association and co-chair of the planning and development committee for them for the past 20 years. Uh I am currently a senior university lecturer and I hold the designation of master teacher at the Hillyard College of Architecture of Design at NJIT
and I also have an active architectural practice with my partner Cecilia Delh Hill in the New York New Jersey metropolitan area. That would be some of my background. I've testified in front of these boards before for our projects as well as on
behalf of the community. >> Anything else, Cynthia? >> Uh, no, that that's good. So, um, if you could >> I'm going to I'm going to start sharing. >> Okay. So, uh, before I begin, um, I think we're going to want to mark this in the
slide deck. >> Sir, is this a different slide deck? >> This is the same slide deck. Uh, council, we wanted to try to make it easy. This is just the next page in the slide deck. So when you say the same slide deck, we are referring to the 17
page slide deck we were and left off at 0 11. >> Correct. >> So this is now 012. >> Correct. >> And what page the slide deck?
>> Say that again. I'm sorry. >> What page of the slide deck? >> Uh page 15 of the slide deck. uh sorry 14 of the slide deck uh and it's titled 2005 block plan. >> Thank you sir.
>> Okay. Um so first I'm going to talk to you and explain to you how the easement came about and specifically my role in developing and creating this easement passageway. I'll be I'll begin with the emergency access passageway, but we're
going to first take a look at the 2005 block plan. And just before I get started, um is this large enough for everybody or should I enlarge this? >> It's good for me. >> It's good. >> All good. >> It's all good. Okay. Um this is a
drawing that I created. Um, and it indicates uh basically the block and the properties along Bright Street and where Bright Street meets Jersey Avenue adjacent to the empty property
that would eventually become PS3 MS4. And just to give you uh a quick background on how to read the graphics, these shaded areas indicate um where buildings are actually located on the physical site. Um the numbers refer to
the street numbers. Uh, and there's some small arrows you're going to see here, and I'll get into what those mean, but just so that we're very clear right now on the western side of this drawing, the left side of the drawing where it says empty lot, and then there's another
term, empty lot, this becomes school property, this becomes a parking lot. The school property actually runs along the western edge of 97 Brightite and it runs southerntherly all the way to this line. Then it runs easterly all the way
about to the middle of 83-85 Bright Street. Then it runs southerntherly again and then it runs back to the east south and then eventually out to Jersey Avenue adjacent to the property at 427
Jersey Avenue. And then all the space back here where these little circles are that I'm highlighting um where it says open yard that is essentially properties that were behind all these blocks that were it's open yard. I'll describe that
a little bit more but that's eventually what the school purchases. So um it's important to understand the history and how the shared access passageway was created specifically my direct role in the process. um PS3 and
MS4 were constructed by the state at the time around 2004205. At the time I was concerned with the existing second means of egress for my building. So when you're looking at this slide, there's a note here in the back
of 83-85 Bright Street existing egress. There's two arrows that are kind of indicating that that's where you go out of the building. Those arrows indicate the fact that I have a door back there and so did some of the other properties or they had a gate and a fenced yard.
Um so this is actually when I got um involved in the Van Doris Park Association now known as the Van Doris Neighborhood Association and my role was to become uh a construction liaison because I have some background and expertise in the field of construction
and architecture. So my job was to advocate for the community's concerns, particularly for the buildings along Brad Street and Jersey Avenue that were adjacent to the school property. I communicated these concerns to the school construction team. I personally
met numerous times with the board of ed facilities committee. Uh this included Suzanne Mack who at the time was the chair of the board of ed facilities. Um I also met with the district. I also met with the district architect Diana
Pedalino. I met with the design architects for the project and I met with state representatives overseeing construction of the new schools in Jersey City. Time um for those of you who lived in Jersey City, the state was
in control of the board of ed and was in control of our schools. So this particular slide um shows the block before construction. These lots that I'm showing here that are all shaded. They're all located in the Van
Boris Park Historic District. At that time, most the Bright Street properties had existing doors and gates at the rear of the property line that opened onto what was then largely an open field. There were some small wooden structures along Grand Street. Grand Street is not
indicated on this on this diagram. Um, but one thing to notice, uh, 87 Bright Street, which was an existing warehouse, did not have a rear door. Um, and there's a reason for that that I'll get to in the future.
One of the first issues we needed to address with the school design team was the flood plane. the flood plane um the property that the school was purchasing plane and as a result it is code that
schools need to make sure that their properties and their floors are out of the flood plane. So that would require the school to raise grade and build a retaining wall around the perimeter of their entire property. However, raising grade along the shared property line was
not possible. When I say shared property line, it's this line here alongside the southern sides of these lot line historic buildings. This wouldn't be possible to do without disturbing foundations and existing um and blocking
existing rear egress doors. So my job for the neighborhood was to kind of voice these concerns and kind of act as a liaison to kind of figure out well how are we going to resolve this so that everybody can maintain their kind of
egress in the back. So as the neighborhood representative I helped negotiate the agreed solution. The retaining wall would be set back approximately four to five feet from the school's rear property line. An existing grade right behind the buildings on the
school's property would remain as is. This created a shared passageway along the rear of the Bright Street properties that continued through the school parking lot where the walkway was striped and marked as no parking. This would then actually extend to a gate at
the sidewalk onto Bright Street but with panic hardware. This was installed by the school at no expense to any of the properties at the time that this was construct at the time PS3 and MS4 was constructed. So just to
give you again orientation for this diagram, this is a 2024 plot plan that I created. Bright street is at the northern part of the drawing. Jersey Avenue is at the eastern part of the drawing. Everything that is shaded represents where there is a building at
this point in time in 2024 on the on the properties. So what you see right here, I'm going to start on the left side of the top of the drawing. You're going to see this dark line that runs all the way down to here all the way over to here. When I say I'm sorry, sorry, Santo. this
line that runs southerntherly along the board of ed properly then it runs easterly then back to the south and then all the way out to Jersey M. >> Thank you sir. But you did not you did not identify the drawing. So this is
013. It's page 15 of the slide deck and it is titled 2024 site. >> Correct. >> Thank you Santo. My apologies. >> All right. Um the darkened area here represents MS4,
the rear of MS4 and then where MS4 goes out. For those of you familiar with the building, this is where the auditorium is. And then this area just to the east of the auditorium is a small lot that
the BOE uses for parking. Um, what I'm going to show you now is this thickened line that will, it's easier to see it from Jersey Avenue. This thick black line denotes a retaining wall that the board of ed built as a result of my
negotiations with them in order to keep a shared passageway. Everything to the south of that retaining wall, that thick black line, the board of ed was able to raise grade here. So they brought in five plus feet
of fill. They also used this for their detention system. What is the detention system? The detention system is basically the way they manage the storm water on these buildings and delay it from going back in to the Jersey City Public School and inundating it too
fast. this other graphic, this little kind of hatched line that shows a dashed line within it that represents the shared egress passage that runs behind all the buildings on Bright Street and then runs
adjacent to the property at 97 all the way through the parking lot out to the public right of way. So along the parking lot here, there is um a hatched kind of grid pattern, no parking, and
then at this exit area where there is it meets the sidewalk, there's a gate for the cars, and then there's a a gate for personnel with the panic hardware. So that would allow all of these properties to be able to get out to the public
right of way. Um, okay. So, you know, the neighborhood um was appreciative of of I would say our negotiations, the board of ed, the school, they were incredibly gracious in
the way in which they kind of spent their time during construction to make sure that none of the existing properties along Bright Street, their egress would be compromised. So this created the shared passage um which continued through the school parking
lot. The actions themselves, the actions of actually building the wall physically recognized and preserved the existing rear egress for not only my condo building but for other buildings along Great Street, formalizing a shared passage in public right away.
No additional documentation was deemed necessary to access the shared passage at this time as everybody already had the legal right to existing access to the previously open field and the constructed retaining wall in gate
respected this. Now, one thing I just want to point out on this on this diagram, this exhibit, this little hatched area right behind 87 Bright, that roughly approximates where the uh constructed
um fire escape is at this time. So, during this time, um you know, I was working with the board of ed and I recently spoke with Suzanne Mack. recently, meaning I spoke with her back in 2020 2024 when this case started um
and then recently got back out in touch with her after she wrote the letter that we will um put in the exhibit. Um at the time, Suzanne Mack served as the board of ed chair um when the school was built and she's currently the planner, city
planner for Bayon. Unfortunately, due to her own professional schedule, she was unable to attend this meeting this evening and she's provided documentation to me that stipulates the negotiation in terms of the shared passage as pre-existing. So, I'm going to just go
to the next slide. Um, >> and Tom, I'm sorry. Uh, as you're going to this next exhibit, I'm just going to request a break. That's all right. >> Okay. >> Thank you. I appreciate it. Do you Santo, do you want to enter the exhibit first or you want to take the break? I >> I'm going to object to this exhibit
council. >> We're going to take a break because the court reporter needs a break and he's the hardest person, hardest working person on the call. So, we're going to take a break, Madame Chair. You tell us how long that break will be
and we will take it and we will leave off right here and council when we get back we will deal with your objection. >> Thank you video. We can't hear you. >> I'm sorry. We'll take a break and be back at 9:20.
>> Thank you. >> Thanks all. Can we call the meeting back to order? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Yes. >> Okay. It's connecting with my followers out there. >> Okay, Madam Chair,
>> please. >> Are we all back? Mike, are you back? >> Back. Ready. Thank you. >> Thank you. So do we have the witness? >> I am I am ready and available. >> Okay.
So we had left off. Council, you were raising an objection. >> Uh yes, council. Um this exhibit is a objection letter submitted by an individual who is not here to testify and therefore unable to be cross-examined. Accordingly, pursuant to
Sbert verse Dover Township Board of Adjustment at 174 NJ Super 548, this evidence cannot be admitted. >> Okay, hearing no response, I'm going to Is she there? Is she back? I I I am
>> I am here. Um I I think that I' I'd like Mr. Ugger Alec I think he can address some of the content of the letter during his testimony because he's had all of the dealings with uh with the Miss Mack.
>> The letter is not coming in. So 014 is not going to be admitted. It needs to stop being shared. How's that? Let's move to the next. I'm I'm returning to a previously um
a previous document, a previous exhibit. >> But before before you do, do you Mr. Ogazalik, are you comfortable just characterizing the communication you had back with with Suzanne Mack back in 2005?
>> Sure. And the and the reason and the reason I wanted to submit the letter, I would have loved to have had her here. Um, she was available earlier. Unfortunately, it's taken eight plus meetings for us to get to this point. Um, so I wasn't able
to get her here. The reason I wanted her to testify and the reason um it was important is just to demonstrate that it was the board of ed that created the easement intentionally alongside with collaboration by the Van Doris Park
neighborhood, specifically myself as the construction liaison to provide continued and shared egress for all the properties along Bright Street that were lotline buildings. Um the history of
this block, this entire block was mostly warehouses for those of you who have been around Jersey City long enough. Um there they were all warehouses. So that was the reason I wanted to kind of have
Miss Max, you know, um documentation. I I understand council's objection to it. Um, but considering I've had personal dealings with her, I have no problem not presenting it.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> And sir, for the record, the document you have on the screen has been testified to multiple times. >> Correct. Uh and that document is and has been referenced
most recently as 05 this evening. >> Correct. >> Council 10th, 2024 >> council. Um to the extent that this testimony is going to be the same just generally about the letter I I would
object as cumulative this has already been entered discussed um and I would object. Thank you councel and sir obviously we've all heard we understand we understand I think both
there was a notice to cure sent and then the subsequent uh email sent with respect to the board of ed and quite frankly we stopped the proceeding a year and a half ago to deal with the board of ed and what the board
of ed's position was with respect to what they felt was going on with the easement. So, uh I think the board, the planning board is very well aware of that issue, but to the extent there's
new testimony to offer, please. >> Sure, no problem. I'm not going to reiterate anything. I'm just going to speak to it in relationship to how it impacts development along the back of the easement. Um, so this is a little
bit different testimony. I'm not reiterating what's there. I just thought it was there as a reference, which would make it easier for the commissioners to follow. Um, I can I don't have to have it on the screen if you don't want me to. >> Sir, we've all read the letter multiple
times, but whatever you feel you need to provide. No, I guess I guess all I would like to add is that when this easement was created. All right. Um, no written documentation was required for any
property along Bright Street. However, once somebody chooses to develop a property, it is the prerogative of the Jersey City Building Department to request written documentation from the Jersey City Board of Ed
in order to stipulate to the city that developers have the right to access a second means of egress. So, 93 Bright Street was the first property to do this.
It received its first written easement from the school. Incidentally, 93 Bright Street chose to demolish the existing full lot line warehouse building and build a fourstory 4unit building with two interior egress stairs and a
conforming rear yard. 95 Bright and 87 Brightite. The subject property also have a written documentation easement demonstrating access which are extensions of the original easement document. The easement will be talked
about a little bit more in detail later. However, the language was the same. And while I will say that I appreciate council's email letter and secondary letter from
Mr. Rivera, in no point in that letter that he presented does that letter state that they are still not in violation of the terms of the agreement. They are in violation of the terms of the agreement.
They just did not say they had a problem with this applicant moving forward with this presentation in front of the planning board. That's all it says. So I will move past
this and we are going to introduce brand new document alternative ladders. This is a new exhibit >> not part of the Yeah, right. It's not a new exhibit. It is it is an exhibit from the original
slide deck. Um, what's the next number that you want to mark it as? >> This is from exhibit crypto, >> but we didn't submit exhibit 14. >> Santo, how do you want to admit this? Because we didn't accept exhibit 14.
So 14 was marked for identification and then we can move on to 15. I don't we don't want to change >> sorry 014 is going to be previously marked unadmitted into evidence. This is
>> and it's titled alternative ladder options. >> Correct. And I suspect it's page 16 or the 17 page slide. >> Correct. >> No, it's the last page of the
>> Even better. Page 17, >> but we have another one. >> Okay. It's the last page of the slide deck. All right. We have Okay. Um so, um a couple of things um here. Um and and I
and I before before I get to this um I just need to I want to kind of just I had to shuffle my presentation a little bit. Um so um this exhibit shows a possible solution that we prepared some time ago. And when I say sometime ago, this was
prepared uh back in the fall of 2024. U this exhibit showed a possible solution. We can no longer endorse that specific option. We believe other solutions may be possible, but it is not our responsibility to redesign the applicant's project. The applicant has
not shown a willingness to pursue a mutually acceptable and lawful solution. I only raise these points to clarify for the record and explain why the fire escape is considered a life safety concern for my building as well as anybody else who hears the passage. Um,
and speaking about the fire escape, I want to kind of uh move on to some of my direct observations during construction. Um, and specifically, I need to address a couple things in the architect's letter. Um, the architect's cover
letter, the original architect, we had three architects testify. The original architect's cover letter for this amendment application titled HPC letter of conformity and deviation. This was posted on the portal and dated July
12th, 2024 regarding the proposed amendments for this application. And he states, and I'm quoting specifically, the rear fire escape system type was changed from the HPC approved expandable ladder type to
traditional steps and landing type as requested by the fire subcode official of Hoboken. So there's two important points here I just want to bring up. This letter is on the portal so you can reference it. The first is that the historic preservation did not approve
this application H18216. We've already established that even though the plans presented for this amendment stated otherwise the plans presented to the BVPA, the HPC and the planning board and the signed plans in the planning office as well as the first
submission to Hobok and building department. All the drawings, none of them ever showed second means of egress and did not show an expandable ladder, nor did it show any type of fire escape. Secondly, in the architect statement, it
says the Hobok and fire sub code official requested, and I'm quoting traditional steps and landing. The constructed system is not simply traditional steps and landings. It includes a series of drop down and fixed ladders from the upper levels as well as
the fixed stair to grade. The applicant did request a variation from FTO3 and our position as stated in prior testimony is that FTO3 is not applicable to this project because the work involves new construction. This project is classified as new construction and an
addition and it should instead comply with the international building code. FTO3 only applies to existing buildings, not new construction. Even if FTO3 were considered, the submitted drawings lacked necessary dimensions and appear
to show the property line in the wrong location. I say this because it's misrepresenting to the construction official at Hoboken what they were looking at and suggests that what they would be approving for a variation would
be on the applicant's prop property. Okay. So moving on um >> let's go to the next slide. I want to also just before I move to the next slide, I need to share something that I personally witnessed um on May 24th,
2024. So, the Jersey City Fire Department was called to our building because somebody reported smoke in the area. This is May 24th, 2024. So, for people who want to look up the records, you'll find it. After determining there was no fire at 85 Bright Street,
firefighters continued checking neighboring buildings and yards, including construction at 89 Bright Street. That is not the subject property. That is the property directly to the west of the subject property which was under construction.
I was with the firefighters on the first floor. They exited the rear of our building. Two of them exited the rear of the building. They turned. They faced the egress passage. They took five or six steps from what I recall towards the
89 bright street direction, saw the stair, saw the exit stair, turned around, walked past me, and they said, "We'll get to it from the front instead." The only thing I can assume is that the fire escape created enough of a visual and physical impediment that the
firefighters chose an alternate route because they were fully loaded up with equipment and gear. So, as the president of the Opera Van Doris condo association, I'm especially concerned about the fire escape. It's constructed in this shared access passage, and we have eight units in my building. We have
families of all ages, from newborns to seniors, a total occupancy load at any given time of 24 to 30 poor people that rely on this exit in case of an emergency. Our building has had unimpeded access to the rear public
right ofway since its conversion to condominiums in the 80s and possibly earlier. The fire escape which appeared in 2023 of November, that's when we noticed it for the first time, narrows this passage and impedes both emergency
access out as well as first responder access to the building. God forbid they would have to come from the back if the front of my building is compromised by fire. The applicant also testified that rear windows are operable awning windows that open out. So those are the windows
that you're seeing in this image. This is why I'm keeping this image up that curtain wall glass that is there with these operable awning windows. So they also testified that that would open up and further impede or restrict access
down that shared corridor. And it remains unclear whether those f those windows are fire rated or tempered as required by building code. And this was a point specifically raised by chairperson Langston.
The resulting structure for unapproved construction has provided not only impediment for approximately now two and a half years, but a continuing concern for everybody in my building because that's how long this testimony has been going on. This case has been on the
docket. So, I'm going to move to the next slide. I'm going to end the fire escape and exit access way and hopefully that clears up some of the ways in which that was actually created and why it's kind of important.
>> Um this >> is a new exhibit >> is a brand new exhibit Santo it is from we don't have it in that slide deck. This is a brand new exhibit. It consists of four, it actually consists of five
pages and this is a cert elevation certificate for flood insurance for 85 Bright Street 2014 >> council. Uh I'm going to object to this on on the basis of relevance. This is a neighboring property and I believe on
page three of this exhibit it it in fact says that a majority of the flood plane, the majority of the building is is not in zone AE. Um it it's not it doesn't show any condition on the subject property whatsoever.
>> Miss Gianis. >> Okay. Okay. Just >> this is the flood ele or the insurance elevation certificate flood insurance of your client's building. What does >> what does it have to do with the subject property?
>> Um I can answer that question council. Um, >> sir, >> I need Miss Hajianis. We have a objection from council, so I need Miss Hajianis to deal with the legality of the proposed exhibit.
>> Well, um, I' I'd prefer my client to answer because this is from their building, but I I think the idea is that the the buildings are adjacent. They're in the same zone. I'm May I speak?
>> Sir, I'll accept the fact that your building is in this zone based on this certificate. How are you going to get that to their building? >> It's It's not I'm not using it for the flood zone. I'm using it to refute testimony from Mr. Lewis with regards to
the expansion of the non-conforming rear wall because there are photographs in this document that show the rear wall of 87 bright in relationship to 85 bright in 2014. >> Okay. >> That's why I'm okay.
>> And I'm going to overrule their objection. 016 is in. It is what it is. Can you show the photograph? And that's the basis for the exhibit. >> Got it. So, what we're looking at now
in 2014, insurance companies were faxing things to us. My apologies for the kind of graininess of the image. I'm going to help kind of clarify this in the next image. So, what you're looking at in this top image where it
says rear of 83-85 Bright Street, pick 4114. Um, you're looking at the back of our building and it's very difficult to see the back of 87 bright. Um, but this will be made clear, a little clear in the
next image to where I zoomed in for you and I've added some information so that it will correlate to my um to my testimony. Um, >> sir, let me just stop you and ask this question.
It's your position that the rear wall of 87 Brightite has been built out about a foot. >> Yes, that's correct. It's been built out approximately 8 to nine inches.
>> Okay. Mr. Joseph or Mr. Abbott, >> do we stipulate to that fact? then you want to talk about it. >> Skyler, >> uh I I believe that there was uh
testimony by Mr. Lewis that uh indicated the opposite >> opposite. >> Can you repeat the stipulation again, please? >> That that rear wall has been built out, for lack of a better term, by
eight inches or so. I thought that was testimony. >> I I believe his testimony that the was that the wall was substantially rebuilt but in the same location. >> Our recollection is that it was built
out. >> Okay. Go forward with the with the evidence, sir. >> No, just go forward. >> Okay. >> All right. >> I go forward with this. So on this image on this image I've added two colored
lines. Um the blue line basically indicates the southwest corner of 85 Bright Street, the rear of the building.
And then the red line indicates the intersection of the rear wall of 87 bright with the western wall of 85 bright. Now, this is difficult to see. So, what's easier to understand is
you're going to see some white spaces in here. Those are the mortar joints in the brick. And what you're going to see is where they hit the red line, they change their angle and they go off in a different direction. And that's where you indicate the change of direction. And in fact, 87 Bright's rear wall was
perpendicular to the western wall of 85 Brightite. And what you'll also notice in the white lines is that the white lines I'm going to go back to um a very simple thing called
counting the brick. All right, bricks on my building are 8 in. There are two bricks minimum to the back wall of 87 bright. That would be 16 in. That would be approximately 1t4 in.
The original architect's drawings as presented at 1t4 was where the building existed prior to construction. I appreciated Mr. Lewis's um hypothesis that there was not access to that and
the survey was always wrong and they built it wrong. But this is just the facts. I've lived at this spot for 27 years. I've done rear yard inspections of this and I thought it would be useful since
this application was in 2018 to show something visible that gave you visual evidence that their building was back about 1 foot4 and they have expanded it. I don't know why but they did. >> Thank you sir.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um, okay. So, I'm going to try to wrap up a little bit here. Um, for this portion of the testimony, I'm kind of just, um, speaking in my capacity as the role of
the co-chair as, uh, for the Vanforce Neighborhood Planning and Development Committee. Um, this applicant is seeking approval for construction that has already been completed. As previously testified, several elements built after the
planning board approval appear to create life safety concerns. They interfere with the property rights of others. They conflict with flood code requirements and they conflict with Jersey City zoning regulations. In addition, the drawings currently
presented as previously approved are not the drawings that were presented at the 2019 planning board and HPC public hearings. The life safety and flood concerns that were raised by the owner and the ar the life safety and flood concerns were
raised with the owner and the architect by myself and the VVNA planning and development committee in meetings back in 2018. They were also communicated to the applicant's attorney and planning staff as well and placed on the record before the historic preservation
commission and the planning board. I did that myself. those concerns were consistently ignored by the applicant. So here we are again eight plus years later and this is what I want to kind of talk about. This raises a broader
concern about development review in Jersey City. Applicants should not be submitted to have substantial deviations from approved plans. The applicant is already admitted to this and then seek after the fact approval without
consequences. The problems with this project were created by the applicant's own choices and a complete disregard for the issues being raised by multiple people. The applicant has had more than two and a half years and multiple hearings just at
this phase of the project to present a compliant solution. Yet the record remains confused and unresolved. Neighbors and professionals, the public, this board, and the city have spent significant time and resources addressing issues that should have been
resolved before construction proceeded. Minor interior layout changes aren't the issue here. The unresolved concerns for life safety and flood compliance, property rights, zoning compliance, and the overall misrepresentation of the project and failure to complete the work
they promised to do. and that's inclusive of the green roof and the cornice signage required by the historic preservation officer. These actions clearly demonstrate a pattern of behavior by the applicant that the rules don't apply to them. All the hardships presented by this
application are self-created. This is evidenced in the documentation we have provided this evening as well as the recorded planning board resolution. And I want to be clear, there are solutions to each one of these issues regarding life safety in the flood plane, but the applicant refuses to
pursue them unless legally required to do so. The project creates serious life safety concerns for my condominium building and for the current occupants even of the owners of Bright 87 Bright Street. If these plans had been presented to this
board the way they are now at the start of the project with an additional extension of a full cellar and a living space in the flood plane along with construction outside of their property.
This board would have probably asked or strongly suggested that they go back and revise it before being heard to kind of make sure that it's compliant. And if if at very least all elements of egress are
on their own property, all similar fourstory and four-unit buildings are subject to the same requirements. Yet tonight, this board is being asked to approve substantial deviations after the fact, including conditions that violate state building
code, Jersey City Municipal Code, and the National Flood Code. The applicant is provided inconsistent information throughout this application by its own admission. For these reasons, this application should be denied unless and until life,
safety, plug zone, property rights, and zoning issues are fully resolved. Approving these substantial deviations after the fact would undermine the integrity of this board and it would weaken the public trust and the review process.
So that ends my testimony. I want to thank the commissioners for listening to my rambling. Uh I appreciate your patience. I know this was a lot to get through. Um I'm here to answer any questions if people have questions. Any
questions from the board? >> No. >> Hearing none. Um I think we'll go to Mr. Abbott. >> Question markers. >> I I have no questions. I' I'd rather get through this and and I've said I've hit
every point so so we can move on. >> Okay. Miss Hajianis. >> Yeah. I'd like to uh call our next witness, Bill Sllover. Um, council, I would like to request a profer as to what Mr. Slover is going to be testifying to.
>> I Yeah, he's going to be discussing um how well he'll be testifying about how um an easement can be created without a written easement agreement. >> Uh yeah, I I would object to the
testimony in its entirety. As we've already established, the planning board does not have the authority to establish an easement. That would be the superior court enchancery. Um, it's therefore irrelevant and frankly going to be confusing to the board to to hear this
testimony uh about a decision they cannot make. >> Well, right. So I understand that the planning board does not have jurisdiction to decide easements and that's an issue um that that would be decided by chancery court. But here the
applicant is heavily relying on its easement rights uh and its egress rights that are in a writing. And we want the board to understand that uh my client has also has colorable rights to egress
that were um created uh through a through a pattern of uh or through a course of dealings at the BOE as shown by construction and site conditions. And I think it's important for the board to appreciate that and it
is uh necessary because your client has relied so heavily on its written easement. >> So madame chair uh I can advise the board that obviously there are ways in which an easement can
be created without a written document. The applicant does have a written document. We've heard the testimony. I do not know that we need to hear another lawyer offer their legal opinion. I am more than capable of advising the board.
The gentleman is not going to provide any actual fact testimony. He's going to give a legal opinion. Uh so madame chair I am capable of addressing that and advising the board of our rights and the
fact that an easement can be created without a written document. Not sure if it's necessary. The board may have those questions. We may have to deal with them when we get there. But if madam chair and the board wants
to hear from a fourth lawyer and what his legal opinion is as to uh the creation of easements without written agreements. >> Um no I don't think we do need um a
fourth um opinion on it. I think you are more than qualified Santo to give that board that advice. um the way an easement is created um I'm very wellversed in easement as well myself but um if you want to just give a brief
explanation not everybody you know has the same understanding but you can also do that Santa I don't think we need another witness for that >> when we get to the board deliberation we can discuss it and I'll render that opinion >> thank you your position is noted for the
record do you Yeah, he he he does he does have a certain expertise though that I would say surpasses. I don't know about your expertise, Mr. Lampy, but I it does surpass mine and I think he'll be pretty quick in testifying if that
alters your opinion at all. >> It doesn't, but it's noted for the record. >> How about the other witness that you have this evening, Mr. Short? We have we have um a a fire uh a fireman, Mr. uh
Brian Shaw, uh ready to testify. >> Council, uh could I could I ask for a profess to this witness as well? I apologize. >> The profer is he's going to testify as to the impedement of the fire escape from the easement area, which you're going to object to, and I'm going to
overrule. So, let's have him testify. >> And I would like to I would like to hear that testimony as well. And I'm sure the entire board would love to hear that testimony as well coming from >> um a fire a fighter. >> Agreed.
>> Yes, madam chair. >> All right, Mr. Charles swear in. >> Yes. Good evening. >> Do you swear any testimony you get tonight? It's going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. And for the record, can you state spell your name?
>> Name is Brian Shaw. B I A N. Last name is S H A W. Thank you. >> And Brian, if you can give us a brief uh background of yourself. >> Yeah, sure. Um, my name is Brian Shaw. I'm a 14 year resident of Jersey City.
I'm a 15y year uh member of the 15 15 years on the Bloomfield Fire Department. Um, I'm also a uh I've been served eight years in the US military, do combat tours in Iraq, and I've been a Jersey state resident at 87 or 97 bright street
was my former address. I was there until about until last year, 24 actually 24 and um right when this uh case started. So I was there when everything began. Um that's that's pretty much it.
>> Okay, you may proceed. To be honest, what is he being offered for? >> Uh yeah, to to disc Well, he's he's seen the fire escape and he wants to uh testify about how it could present a
challenge if uh to to uh emergency responders in the event of a fire. as an expert in firefighting and accessing fires. >> That That's right. >> Mr. Abbott, your objection to that if
you have one? >> No objection. He's been a firefighter for a long time and I do thank him for his for his service. >> Thank you, Mr. Shaw. The floor is yours. >> Um, yes. Um, well, Cynthia, you want to uh guide me on this or am I just going
on with this right now? >> Sure. Um, sure. So, so have you seen the fire escape that has been discussed throughout this hearing? >> Sure, I have both in person and in pictures. >> Okay. And do you have any comments on its configuration and location?
>> Uh, yes. Um, it as the staircase comes down off the fire escape, it's about I think it's two I think it's 24 inches wide. I was told they're around that. It also has the four legs that are that support the structure that are also in the easement itself which do cause an obstruction if you look at the
staircase. It's in the middle of the uh of the structure which requires you to go around to the side of it making the the exit path even smaller. Um so um with that um New Jersey is a uh a state that follows the international
fire code the IFC and in turn we have our own fire code in New Jersey which is New Jersey uniform code of uh New Jersey uh fire code uniform fire code excuse me um that fire code is our version of that. We just pick the IFC's um template
which is pretty much a committee that makes up safety regulations for uh maintenance uh prevention safety and uh I think the other one's uh retrofitting. So it's it specifically states I believe the section in the New Jersey uh uniform
fire code I think the section is 1031 I believe um it specifically states that no means of egress is to be obstructed. that can be anything from floor mats to a pair of shoes and let alone a fixed structure. So, um that that's my belief
on this that this is obstructing a secondary means of egress. And a secondary means of egress, even though a secondary is still a means of egress and it's going to pose it's it can pose it's going to slow it's going to slow operations down and can even become a minor threat to uh people trying to flee a fire. Fire scenes are
chaotic. They're it's it's madness. People are panicking. first responders are trying to do their job. The easement itself back there is also a tight space. So, everyone's going to be asking, "Wait, just go to the front door." It's not always their option to go to the front door. We're going to have to get
to the rear of that building to get people out to perform operations. And that easement is just going to be in the way. It's going to slow things down. It's going to cause a bottleneck between us, between people trying to get out of there. Um, it can it can be a danger. I mean, um, it's
>> And what type what type of equipment would you be try if you were fighting a fire and you had to go through the back? What type of equipment would you bring be bringing through the easement? >> We'd be bringing back well, obviously hoses. I'm stretching the hose line back there and it can get in the way of that. It can even kink a line, which can cause dropping water pressure at the nozzle,
putting firefighters in danger and the property itself in danger because there's no water pressure. We'll be carrying tools like axes, haligans, which are sharp, which can cause injury if there's a lot of people back there getting bottlenecked up in that one spot. Um, and if someone gets hurt back there, we're going to have to get them
out. If say if the the way through the building is blocked, we're going to have to go through the easement at the back way. And that can require if someone's down, not able to walk with an ambulatoratory, we have to use a stretcher or a a Stokes basket or something or some kind of stretcher to get them out of there. And carrying a person out on a stretcher is not an easy
job. And going to that small point is going to is going to um it's going to add on time in my line of work and any emergency situation, especially fires. Uh, seconds do matter and I can tell you there's been a few times I've been to been the fires where seconds have mattered where people have lost their
lives. >> Okay. And um when you when you talk about seconds, I mean you you heard some testimony about how many people if there were say there were a fire at um 83 85 Bright Street and I think Tom Ogarzalic
testified that any given time there could be between 24 and 34 people. I mean, how how fast should people be able to get out of that building? >> As soon as possible. Um, it should be as soon as possible. As soon as you can't
put a time to it, but it's just as soon as you possibly can. I mean, it all starts with I mean, going off off topic, it starts with their own prevention inside their building. Do they have smoke detectors? Are they aware there's a fire um you know, in their building? Or how are they going to get notified there's a fire next to them? Because
those are all row houses and fire can extend. That's what it's called. And fire jumps from one building to another. It's called extension. That can happen. So, it's just you can't put a time to that. Uh it you could have a fire start in one building and then minutes later people figure out what's going on. It's going into their building. But at that
time, it could be first responders back there performing operations and causing a bottleneck. And and also there could be there could be fire, there could be embers, there could be there could be smoke. And uh and people think smoke always rises. Not the case. People can
be back there trying to get out and if they're back there too long taking in smoke, it's smoke is toxic and you could be breathing in stuff that can give you cancer or whatever. So, it's just you want to get people out of there as soon as possible and having that in the way is just going to slow things down. >> Okay. And have you ever encountered any other types of obstacles when you're
trying to respond or to a fire? I've never I've never really encountered uh fixed structures except maybe partition walls that weren't supposed to be in buildings which are dangerous to us because fires can jump over them. We can't tell because the smoke's up high. We can't see that. But that's one big
danger as far as the structural uh obstacle that I've seen that shouldn't have been there. But you see obstacles everywhere, especially in a dark smoke filled room. You're going to trip over furniture, shoes, it could be a hoarding condition, uh all kinds of stuff. It's it's it's the list goes on. You can't
you I can't name everything. >> So, even something small could be an obstacle. >> Yeah. Like I said, a pair of shoes isn't even allowed in an egress uh pathway. >> Okay. Um did did you want to add anything else, Mr. Shaw?
>> No, I think that's pretty much it. That's all I pretty much wanted to cover. Just get it out there to you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Thank you, >> Mr. Abby. >> Nothing from me, council.
>> Madam Chair, does anybody on the board have any questions for this witness? >> I have a question if that's all right. Sure. So, Mr. Shaw, so what would you recommend to make it safe back there? Obviously, the optimal thing would be for them to have a second staircase inside the building. Outside of that,
what are some other recommendations? >> That's that's pretty much all it I mean, you have to have the means of egress isn't supposed to be impeding the the easement or egress point. So, you're going to have to get the the way to get out of the building and the secondary egress has to be inside their building somehow. U recommendations I can't
really give you because I'm not a uh I mean I'm not a um I don't do zoning. I'm I'm not a construction work. I don't I don't build buildings. So, I'm that all I can say is that it should be in the building. It has to be a secondary means of egress to get out inside of that. Please.
>> Makes sense. Thank you. >> Any other board comments? >> No. >> No. >> Mission, is that wrap up all your witnesses? >> Yes, it does. >> Okay, Mr. >> Jose.
>> Um, yeah. So, I I don't know how we want to go about this. if you want to jump into public comment or if Cynthia had a a closing remark to make before we went there. >> We're going to open a public. >> No, we're going to open to the public.
>> Um, can I have a can I ask a question to the attorney for the applicant? >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> Um, so on any FEMA map that I was able to look up, uh, this does come up as AE, which is moderate risk of flooding. Um,
I just don't understand how every single developer, everyone since Sandy has known that you cannot put utilities on either the ground level if you're in the flood zone or even below. So, how they would even consider to dig down to put utilities in a living space down there,
I can't wrap my mind around it. Is there an explanation? I think that would probably be a better question for uh for the architect, but I think what I could say is that the the flood map in effect at the at the time the project was constructed was
different. And obviously there were changes that needed to happen during construction. Um so there there were some changes. That's that's why we're here. I don't know the thought process behind why the building was designed the the way it was.
>> Yeah. I mean, it it was designed way after Sandy, and Sandy was what redrew a lot of the FEMA maps. So, just I find it bewildering, honestly. >> Does that answer your question, Miss Barnaby? >> No.
>> I mean, it's more of a comment. >> If there's no other um comments from the board, I would like to open for public. At this time, I would like to open for public. Is there anyone from the public? >> Are there any comments on P2024-0000887
Bright Street? >> We have iPhone raising their hand. I am promoting iPhone to panelist. >> iPhone. You can unmute. Turn your video on. There we go. >> I can see you and you hear you. I just need to swear you before you speak.
Okay, if you could raise your hand. >> Of course. Yes. >> You swear any testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes, I do. >> And for the record, can you state spell your name and give us your home address, please? >> Yeah. My name is Craig. The last name is Z. I'll spell that for you. Z is in
zebra. E H Ms. I live at 326 York Street. Thank you. >> You have three minutes. >> Thank you. Um, as I said, my name is Craig Zays. I've lived on York Street
for the past 13 years and I'm currently the president of the Vanvor Neighborhood Association and also serve on the board of directors for the Barrow Mansion. My neighbors are very passionate about the community that we live in and we
take great pride in our sense of community. We've discussed the 87 Bright Street issue at several of our meetings and I want to assure everyone that we have never made any false statements about
this project. I've attended all almost all of the meetings about this over the last year and a half and what I've gathered is that the architect of record has blamed
the contractor for making a large number of changes in the building and he hasn't taken any ownership of those changes. But what's most ex upsetting to me and our members is the code violations.
The defiance of safety regulations is quite honestly frightening. What if a fire would break out and the only egress that you had was at the rear of the building? People would die. The VVNA strongly asks you to reject this
proposal. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Promoting Tony Sandamp. Look like he put his hand down. >> Okay. Promoting Diane Casease. And Diane, you can unmute and turn your
video on. Hello Diane. >> Hello. >> Great. I will swear you in. You swear in testimony. You get to ask the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> And for the record, can you state and spell your name and give us your home address, please? >> Sure.
>> One case, K A E S E 192 Washington Street, Jersey City, New Jersey. >> Thank you. Hey, you have three minutes. >> Thank you very much. Uh as a registered architect I can look and see that this is a project that has
failed at so many levels. To me it is simply scary. But the real crux of the matter here is that we are talking about life safety. >> It's not just life safety for the occupants but also for the neighbors and the respondents.
Those of us who lived through and observed the lightning fast flooding of our neighborhoods during Sandy don't take this lightly. And it is to me still scary to this day some of
the stories that I heard and observe and some of the things that I observed during Sandy in Falls Hook. And that's the same flood waters that would be hitting the area that we're talking about here on Bright Street. Many
residents of North Carolina, the floods in Texas and elsewhere have also lived through this. >> And unfortunately, many didn't live through it. We were lucky here in Jersey City with Sandy. we may not be so lucky
the next time, especially if the professionals who are supposed to address these conditions choose not to do so. While there is an overabundance of failures and places to point fingers, the only thing the sole thing that should be foremost in your minds as
commissioners is the life safety of occupants and the neighbors and the first responders. I request and really request that you do the right thing and require that this structure be modified to meet all the
current codes and accommodate the special conditions of its location. Frankly, it's the least that can be done to address the negligence that has occurred here and the that has put many people in harm's way for unfortunately
too many years. Thank you so much for your service on this one and the long long time that has been uh spent trying to untangle this project.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Promoting Tony Sand Cample. And Tony, you can unmute and turn your video on and hear you and I will just swear you in if you could raise your right hand. You swear any testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. And >> for the record, can you state and spell your name and give us your home address, please? >> Tony Sandamp, S A N D K A M P, 91 Bright Street, Jersey City. >> Thank you.
>> I'm here speaking as a private citizen and a neighbor 25 ft from the address in the application. I'm also a member of the Jersey City HPC and I was the chair when the application came before the commission in 2018. Due to my proximity, I was recused from
the application, but I'm very familiar with the building and the resulting construction. I visited 87 Bright Street many times when the previous owner occupied the building as his magazine distributorship. some of my observations and firsts that this application has exhibited that I
have not experienced in 22 years of my time on the HPC. Number one, this is a contributing structure in the local, state, and federally recognized historic district, and this application never received a certificate of appropriateness to my
knowledge and proceeded with work on the facade and structure and storefront without ever returning to the HBC with an amended application. Number two, in 22 years, I've never seen a conversion of commercial building to residential with twotory addition
resulting in a four-story structure without adding an IBC secondary egress. Number three, in 22 years, I've never seen a lot line building add a fire escape that exceeded the 100% lot coverage, resulting in a construction on
BOE property in an easement created for emergency egress only. Number four, the applicant in their application said they would embed the power mast within the structure to minimize the impact on the structure as our neighbor at 93
Brightite and 89 Brite did. They ne neglected to do this and claimed PSSENG would not let them. But many of us in the area know this is false as it was done two doors away. Instead, they added two PVC masked and attached them to the
facade constructing the storefront through them. Number five, the storefront never received approval from the HPC. This is a requirement for storefronts. They are there there's still issues with this construction and they need to receive a
certificate of appropriateness from the HPC. And number six, having been in the building many times, I've been in the stair landing below grade and the meter room. I know this space as the only space below grade existing prior to the current application. This space below
grade was approximately 4TX 6 ft. had an electric meter and a gas meter just be behind the pedestrian bright street entrance. The remaining ground floor was a concrete slab on grade and multiple test pits were dug into that slab on grade at the beginning of the
construction as the applicant wanted to cut trees in my vacant land that I owned that was lined with trees on 89 Bright Street. It was determined the trees were not undermounting the the foundation. And in conclusion, to approve the
deviations is to become party to the code violations they're asking for. >> Sorry, Tony, your time is up. >> Thank you for your time. This application must be denied. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else from public?
>> Last member of the public promoting Marlene Sandamp. Good evening. >> Good evening, Marlene. Hi. >> Turn your video on, please. >> Um, >> and uh, if you can have your >> I don't have my video on. Do you need me to turn my video on?
>> I do. >> Can't hear him. I can't hear what you're saying. >> I do need you to turn it on. >> Oh, okay. Sorry. Um, go ahead, turn I'm trying to find it. >> If we could just try to have one
computer on at a time. I don't know if it's worth switching over to the other one. >> My camera is not coming on though. >> Um, for some reason I can't get the camera on. I'm sorry. >> Are you able to switch to the other computer?
>> That would be my husband's phone. >> Let me see. Hold on one second. >> Thanks. >> Um, >> we'll we'll have to promote your husband's device again. We'll we'll promote Tony. >> Okay.
>> Thank you, Kim. No problem. >> Hello. Tony has to >> allow the promotion on his device. >> What's Okay, Tony's joining.
Thank you, Kim. >> Okay, start video. Perfect. >> Here I am. >> All right. Thank you so much. I appreciate you. >> Thank you for your patience. I apologize. I will swear you in now. Um, raise my right hand. Sorry. Yes. >> Right. And uh, do you swear any testimony you get tonight? It's going to be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> And for the record, can you state and explain your name and give us your home address, please? >> Hi, my name is Marlene Sancamp and I live at 91 Bright Street. >> Thank you. >> You have three minutes. >> Thank you so much. Um, thank you all
commissioners for your time tonight. Um, I will keep this brief, although I have waited seven meetings to speak, but I promise to keep it brief. Um, I don't know where to start, but I just want to say really and truly enough is enough. You know, developer after developer,
architect after architect, they're wasting the board and the community's time by standing in front of you and in front of us and swearing up and down that they will do what they proposed and what you've approved. This architect and
team is not the first, and I can only assume that they won't be the last, to come after work is completed and beg for forgiveness. And time and time again, this board and other boards forgive with little punishment. But this time, the
architect's disregard for human safety by installing an illegal fire escape is not a time for forgiveness. And the punishment will happen when the child or the disabled person who can't jump the 10 ft from one outdoor floor to another
passes away. And as it goes, if they get away with all the changes without getting historic or boards permissions, word gets around Jersey City. Lawyers line up to say, "We can get it approved. Just watch." If you're a new developer in Jersey City, you heard it here. do
what you want and get a good lawyer. So, when will this end? Look, I don't want to see my new neighbors have to deal with this. I really don't. Um, but this architect and the developer, they weren't honest with them. And I think it's time for some tough love. And as a
side note, having lived at 91 Bright, two doors down during Hurricane Sandy, our entire backyard was a pool. We had 5T in our basement. Everything floated to the top of the ceiling. It floods
whether they want to believe it or not. I thank you for your time tonight and for the last seven meetings. Thank you and good night. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else from public? >> I see no one else from the public. I'd like to close the public portion.
>> Second it. >> At this time, I would like to ask Mr. Joseph um to do his final statement. >> Sure. I uh does Cynthia want to does Cynthia have a statement to make as well? >> Yeah, I I do.
>> Do you want to go first? >> Um either way is fine with me, >> Miss It is It is usually the objector that goes first. >> That's right. Okay. Thank you. Um so, uh
thank thank you. Um, this has been a long saga. Thank you everybody. And this has been a long evening. I'll try to be brief. So I think because Mr. Joseph's going to have the last word, I would like to anticipate a little bit what he's going to say because I won't get to
say anything after he does. Um, and I think he'll probably say the Jersey City Board of Ed education granted us some kind of easement. um we haven't been forced to remove the encroachment yet. Um and they'll wave around their their
piece of paper that was recorded in Hudson County. And I and what I would just like to say about that is that the the the decision to grant the easement cannot cure safety issues. And if there are safety issues that the board feels are real issues, um I I I think that the
easement is is not relevant. It's immaterial. Um the second thing I think Mr. Joseph may try to say is that the board is stuck with the approval from Mario Patruno and that this insulates the fire escape from further scrutiny.
Um so we don't we don't have Mr. Patuno here to testify. We don't I don't really know. Um he didn't make any findings or none were no none of his findings were presented to this board if there were any. Um, and uh, I don't know that he he
he had the full context about the egress and whether the the fire escape was over the property line. My understanding is that um, he he may have believed that everything was self-contained within the property and that the applicant was putting the fire escape on its own
property. He would have had no way of knowing what the surrounding conditions were. But irrespective of that, I want to submit to the board that his issuance of the per of any permit or any variance or exception was in and of itself ultra
virus under uh New Jerseyy's administrative code section 5 col23-4.5J um which allows when there's a conflict of interest you can transfer to another code official or another municipality
for review, but ultimately Jersey City has to be the permitting authority. They cannot have another municipality issuing permits. So, um I think his his action
may not or or or is not consistent with the the regulations. Um, now just going into what this board's duties are. You know, one of the p purposes of zoning is
to secure safety from fire, flood, panic, and other natural and man-made disasters. And so here we've got some issues with with safety with fire and flood, possibly panic. Um, there's also
public health uh purpose to zoning that has to do with health, safety, morals, and general welfare. I'm sure you've heard that many times. Um, and if you go to the Cox treatise on zoning and land use, they have a section on when a
planning board is permitted to deny a site plan application. And um there are three major things. one is safety, one is misrepresentations in the plans, and the third is zoning
compliance. So, here we have a trifecta of all three issues um uh that would allow the board to deny, and I don't mean trifecta in a in a good way. Um so, safety issues, and I'm sure you you you got this during the presentation, so I
just want to recap. Um, I think there was some testimony that this isn't even safe for the residents of 87 Brightite, that they might be having to jump out a fourth floor window onto a balcony below. Um, that uh there's no interior
second egress, it's not code compliant, and that the drop down ladder that connects, I guess, the third floor to a second floor landing, that's also not code compliant. that the windows are less than one foot from the from the fire escape and they there's been no
evidence that they're fire rated um or that they have safety glass. So, um, even for the residents of 87 Bright, this may not be safe. But then, as you've heard, the the fire escape will
obstruct emergency egress. Whether or not there's an there's an easement, there's not an easement, there's still this issue of egress, and people have to be able to get out of 83 to 85 Brightite in the event of an emergency. Firemen
have to be able to get in and other first responders. So, I think this safety issue is really critical. Um, to to recap some of the misrepresentations and omissions in the plans, and I think there's probably more than I'm able to summarize here, but um there was no fire
escape and no second eress on the plans originally submitted by the planning board. There was no seller on those original plans. There was Oh, wait. Going back to safety, too. There is obviously a flood issue. Um, this this
is this may be in a this is in a flood zone. I I think that's the applicant hasn't established that it's not in a flood zone and um I think the onus should have been on the applicant to establish that. Um but I I believe this
isn't a flood zone. So they they dug out they dug out the basement. That also was a misrepresentation on the original plans. you couldn't tell whether there was a seller or not, but the first set of plans didn't show a seller. Then the seller was dug out.
Then they uh put a livable area, mechanicals, electrical within uh a a below the base flood elevation. That is never permitted in a flood zone. Um
there was a Yeah. So, this board has never seen the seller plan that they're being asked to. Okay. Now, and I think the applicant even glossed over it uh in their testimony. Um the real the rear wall was expanded. I
think you heard a lot of testimony on that. Mr. Lewis's explanation was it was a little bit convoluted, but I believe he said that his own drawings were mistaken because he took them from an older survey because he didn't inspect
the property. But I think my client has presented counterveiling evidence showing and you showing that the back wall was expanded. So I mean with all of these misrepresentations and omissions, this this is tantamount to a fraud upon the planning board. Uh, and I and I
don't believe that um the planning board can be backed into a retroactive approval for an unsafe, illegal project just because it's already uh been built. Uh,
now on zoning compliance, you heard that and that's that's the third reason the board is empowered to deny this plan. we've got an expansion of the nonconforming use both with the extension of the back of the building and with the digging out of the seller.
So, um, with that, I think the board is perfectly within its rights to deny this application. Um, and I I thank you very much for your time and patience, >> Miss Mr. Joseph.
So I mean f first I think first I think I I owe this board a bit of a bit of an apology. Uh you know this has obviously been been quite a mess. This could have been more organized. Um
the witnesses could have been better prepared. Definitely Otana uh an apology who's had a tremendous amount of stress about this. Um, so I'm sorry for all that. Uh, but at the end of the day,
I I don't think anyone expected this application to be where it is. It's this is a this is an an amendment to a previously approved site plan. There are a bunch of design changes that happened in the field, and we don't need
to rehash all the reasons why. I think that's pretty clear in front of the board, but those are interior changes, utility changes, um changes to the layouts. Uh the windows in the rear, some color, some
materials. That also doesn't really seem to be the focus of of the board or or of the objector. There's the the rear wall. and and I did have an opportunity to to consult a transcript from the last
hearing and and what um what Mr. Lewis testified to was that the back wall that's there now is exactly in the same place that the wall had been. And his explanation for that was that Mr.
Cornell's plans were were incorrect, which I don't think is very hard to believe. Um Mr. Lewis also had testified that he reviewed applications for the adjacent property that wasn't contested at all during
during his testimony and and on that application he had found uh a survey which which conformed uh confirmed his testimony. Um the real focus of of all this has been has been the fire escape. Um,
and I I don't I don't know how much more there is to say about that. It's the fire escape was added with consultation with the the Hoboken code official who had jurisdiction. It it was it's there to meet fire and safety code um
by the the code official by approving the fire escape. it made the determination that the fire escape would not jeopardize the health, safety, welfare of the occupants and the general public. That's that's in the statute um
that my colleague pulled up during cross-examination. I I don't think this board confines differently than that. We also heard a lot of objections, many of those objections just rehashing what happened in 2019.
There are a lot of the same the same objections about the flood zone about the project as a whole and this is not the opportunity to get a second bite of that apple. The remainder of the objections are
around the fire escape and about the building being illegal or unsafe. And I think by the building being approved by the code official, it's conclusive that it it is safe. It's been occupied for two and a half years
already. Um, it's not illegal. I I don't think there's much more to say. Um, I don't want to rehash the easement. Board knows what our position is on the easement. The objector has had a whole lot of time to go to chancery
court and easily have our whole case upended by getting an order from a judge and and that hasn't that hasn't happened. Um, I would ask this this board approve this this site plan amendment. It's not variant relief. The application was
deemed complete. It it's a site plan. It's an amendment to a previously approved site plan. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Joseph. Um, I'd like now to ask um Planetian
Sure. So, just some clarity at least on my role here. when an applicant whether they've gone to the board or they've gotten permits gets an approval for something and then obviously we go
out during the co process and if there's things that are changed there are some things that we have the ability to approve administratively if they're very minor um and then there are some things if there were changes that were made have to come back to the board which is
why in your resolutions we always say if you're required to make any changes that were asked of you by the construction code, by fire official, by anybody, let us know. So, we're not at this point than we are tonight, right? Um, where we
are like at this point, like I want to tell you that I have spent as much time as the last as much as you trying to at least find the original documents. Um, so the documents that were uploaded and
presented that have Chairman Langston's signature on it, Cameron's signature on it, and Dan's signature on it that are presented as the board approved plans. Um, I can understand that they were signed and accept them, but that is not
the behavior of Dan Rearen or Cameron Black. We sign every single page, right? So my first red flag with that's that set of plans is that you have a plan that only is signed on the first page and no other pages. So we finally had to
go we finally got Hoboken to give us the plans that they submitted after Ray Meyer construction code official decided that it was a conflict of interest and sent the application out for permit review to Hoboken. when they submitted
the building plans to Hoboken's building department those plans which are uploaded on the portal you can tell the difference because every single page is signed by Dan Rearen right so that's to me like I think in one meeting Mr. Joseph said that they were kind of
irrelevant. But when I am in this phase of trying to figure out what the differences are, like I try to put a lot of the onus on the applicant and the developer, give me a list of every single thing that is different so that we can make sure that everything is
right and getting approved. We have spent more time just trying to find the actual plans that were approved. Okay. So, we have plans that were approved by the by the uh the building department uh in Hoboken that are slightly different than
the planning board approved plans. And then shortly after that, well, the only thing I can assume is that there was some back and forth about the fire escape. And so, an amendment to those plans includes the fire escape. So, we've got an original submission to the
DOB in Hoboken and then maybe a month or two later a revision including the fire escape. Uh Dan did not sign off on the the fire escape. I don't know if um Dan was aware of those things. Dan is our historic preservation
officer, right? Um Nick Taylor, who is a zoning official had had signed off on it. Why Nick Taylor decided that he didn't have a conflict but Ray did, I don't know. Right. We only got involved in the end of this trying to clean it up so we could get an application to this
board that made sense and you knew exactly what you were voting on. It wasn't until the last meeting that we understood that um the survey was incorrect and that even if the wall was 14 off the line, it was moved 8 in. But
really the moving of the 8 in had more to do with a correction of the survey and the on-site conditions. So here are the changes, right? The changes are there was a change to the rear wall. There's no question about it. Um it was rebuilt. The you have the fire escape.
Um the seller was expanded. Like I've looked at multiple um plans and at some point the kind of the middle section if you will of the seller has crawl space and it's under seven feet and then we're getting to the approved uh under 7 ft and we're getting to the approved it
becomes bigger and it becomes storage spaces. So the seller was expanded and I guess based on the rear the rear the rear yard wasn't expanded but the plans were corrected. I don't know. Maggie um O'Neal, the historic
preservation commission uh representative officer has provided you memos, has provided us testimony before this board kind of going over the uh changes. She had worked with the applicant, you know, kind of highlighting the changes that needed to
be made. There are still changes that have not been made, right? So, there are still changes to the sign and still changes to the green roof. Um, Maggie issued her first report before she had her baby and she issued her follow-up
report um in February when she was back from maternity leave and the baby's won. So, here we are. Those changes still haven't been made. So, my goal, my role in this is really just to make it clear what you need to vote on. Right? We've
got we have facade changes to the rear. We definitely have an expansion of the seller. Um, and unless unless you decide otherwise, I'm still missing the proper signage and the green roof and the other things that Maggie are requesting. Um, the fire escape I you know I kind of
want to it is not a setback issue. That is much as I can say about it. Right. So we have an exemption for setbacks for open fire escapes that can be five feet and it doesn't become a part of the setback. So from a zoning perspective I can tell you it is not a part of the
setback. It is a building code life safety issue. Um, and I believe that that is part of the this the discussion that's happening tonight. I am in no way, shape, or form an expert to weigh in on that. But I can tell you that the plans that you approved didn't have it, and the plans have it tonight that you
need to look at again. So, the fire escape is at least different, new, something that you have to approve that was not approved in the first place. Um, my opinion is that there's no real variance triggers here, right? Um, unless you want to retake a look at the
rear yard wall. Um, and that is a little ear and tricky itself. Um, the seller, even though it's expanded, the way height is defined, it's defined from the front of the property. So, it doesn't technically count or in zoning world
doesn't count as an expansion of a story. um even though it becomes living space. Um so I don't know if that was helpful or not. I've kind of been in the same boat as you are just kind of on what felt like Indiana Jones searches trying to find the proper papers trying
to at least get everybody on the same page so that you knew tonight what you needed to vote on um and what the changes were. So, that's I don't know if that made any sense, but that's kind of where I believe where where we are. We
do have um exchanges to the exterior wall, not just interior changes. We have an fire escape that was not there when you approved it originally, that is there now. Um we have a seller expansion and again, unless um unless otherwise, we have two items that are missing from
Maggie's memo, which would be the proper signage and the green roof. Council and Tanya, I just did want to clarify we are not requesting relief for the items on Ma Maggie's memo. Um I think we we testified that a couple about that a
couple times, but we're we're not requesting that as part of this application tonight. The applicant is still saying he will comply with those two items as per Maggie's memo. >> Thank you, Tanya. Um, madame chair, just a question. I don't
know if this for Tanya or Santo. Is there also a a site plan review considerations that we have before us? >> Yes, this is a site plan amendment under the site plan review. So while it may not
trigger variance requirements or requests, they are asking for a site plan amendment. Uh and all of the site plan considerations come into the decision.
>> Thank you. >> There's no other questions. I would like to entertain a motion. So I I I guess maybe just a further clarification from from Santo here. There's obviously a lot of history
things have gotten built not as per plan. Um I guess I'm just looking kind of for some legal guidance here in terms of the what are the the guard rails of what we should be considering when making a decision on this application as
commissioners. So the fact that the project has already been constructed is not something that the board needs to consider.
Had this been presented to you in this form or fashion, would you have approved it? Would you have asked for different modifications because of any
one of the reasons that concerned you when reviewing a site plan? Uh earlier tonight we were talking about trash in a building and how it didn't work. That was under our power as a site plan
review. We're looking at something and we're telling the applicant, "This just doesn't work in this project. We want you to take another look at it. We want you to do something about it." So,
that's within your power under a site plan review. That's what you were doing, whether you recognized it or not. That's exercising that site plan review power. So, uh,
here you are. Something was done completely different than what was presented to you. Had this been presented to you, how would you have looked at it? That's kind of the lens that that the board
needs to view this application through. The board has heard a lot of testimony, a lot of conflicting testimony, a lot of inconsistent testimony, a lot of confusing testimony.
We've been here for hours upon hours, looked at hundreds, if not thousands of pieces of paper, photos, experts. I cannot imagine how much time Tanya and the rest of the staff have spent combing
through the departments. But here we are >> and I can tell all of you it's not because anything that any of you have done
and the process is the process and if you're going to go through the process you're expected to know, understand and appreciate that process. There are currently people living in
there, right? >> Yes, >> there may be. But again, you know, none of that factors into the decision you have to make in terms of, oh, well, somebody already is there,
right? That's you have to separate that from what it is you're being asked to weigh and determine. And I envy none of you. >> Are we ready for a motion?
>> Yes. Um, I will make a motion to approve case P2024-000088 as presented to the board. Is there a second? Second that. on a motion to approve.
Commissioner Capers, >> you're on mute. >> Thank you. So just based on the hours that I put in from looking at everything and hearing everything tonight and I'm familiar with u you know
I used to live on Whiten when Sandy happened. I'm going to vote no. >> Commissioner Patel. Well, based on all the testimony and everything, I know it's a little, you
know, too many different testimonies, a lot of conflicts, but I'm still going to vote yes. >> Commissioner Conway. Uh yeah, based on all the testimonies that have been previously given and um
all the legal evidence that's been provided here tonight, um I just think it's in my best interest to vote no. Uh just based on the safety of the fire escape, maybe with conditions that they just kind of rethink that situation if possible, even
though I know it's already pre-existing. Um, and then as far as the uh utilities in the basement uh situation, I just feel like the board probably wouldn't ever approve putting uh utilities in a basement below uh a flood level. So, I'm
just going to vote no. >> Commissioner Stamato, >> I vote no based on the safety issues that were brought up. Uh like was just stated, for example, having the electrical down in the basement and a and a water flood area. Uh the other
thing that kind of bothered me was um Tanya basically saying there's still stuff that needs to be completed that hasn't been completed and this has been going on for over a year besides the testimony. It seems like the place isn't even finished yet. So there's some
things I I'll overlook, but I cannot overlook stuff that's not done when the people have agreed to get it done. So I vote no. Commissioner Kaplan, >> I have empathy for those who have an
interest or who are living in this building who through no fault of their own are going to be impacted by this. but with integrity to the process and you know with the variances or not variances but the site plan being put before us I I don't know that I'm been
convinced clearly that the site plan elements meet a criteria that a board would have voted on and it was constructed without the board's approval what was previously approved. So with that I'll vote no.
Commissioner Barnaby, >> I think if we were to approve this, it would set a terrible and dangerous president to other developers that they can just do whatever they want um as long as convenient or they want to save money or whatever his indefensible
argument is. I think I feel bad for the attorneys actually. I think what they're trying to defend is indefensible. Um and with that, I vote absolutely no. Commissioner Wick. Uh, Vice Vice Chair Wick.
>> Yeah. Um, I know all of us as commissioners and the staff, we take pride in what we do and um, you know, the integrity of this board really matters to all of us. And so I just want to echo what all the other commissioners have said tonight.
And I am strongly voting no. And Madame Chair Gangaden, >> I want to thank the public for um coming out and voicing their concerns um and for the witnesses as well um listening to today's um testimony from since
September of 2024 to present. It's been a long time and it's been very clear to me that the applicant totally disregard the historic preservation requirements and the planning board. We spent a lot
of time here on the board and to just disregard like that sets a very very bad precedence for other developers. Um safety is paramount and for the fire and the flood issue here that has not been
addressed that is also very major for me as well. Um making the changes is necessary. Again, it's the safety and that well-being of everyone. And I
would suggest that the board attorneys um work together together with their clients in bringing this together in a matter where it can probably come back to the board at some other time where it can be approved. Um so my vote is no.
>> Okay. Okay. So, on a motion to approve, we have one recusal. Council person Little. We have one vote in favor and we have seven votes for no. So, the motion to approve has failed.
>> So, do we need to make a motion to >> in an abundance of caution? I always ask that the board then entertain a motion to deny. >> And a yes motion will be to deny. Everybody should vote the same way obviously in terms of how they voted
before, but the motion to deny should be made and passed. >> So I'll entertain that motion. >> Um I would like to make a motion to deny QP2024-000088. >> Second. Okay.
>> On a motion to deny, Commissioner Kappers. >> Yes. Is to deny. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Patel. >> No. >> Commissioner Conway.
>> Yes. >> Commissioner Barnaby. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Kaplan. >> Yes. to deny. >> Commissioner Stamato, >> yes to deny. >> Vice Chair Wick,
>> yes. >> Madame Chair Gangaden, >> yes to deny. >> Okay, so on a motion to deny, we have one recusal, we have seven yeses to deny, and we have one no.
Motion is approved to deny the application. >> Thank you everybody. >> Thank you all. Appreciate your time. >> Good night. Thank you. >> Good night. >> Other board business. Madam Chair. >> Yes. Kim, do we have any attorneys are
in touch with you to carry? >> I'm about to promote Mr. Harrington and um Mr. Lean. promoting Charles Harrington. Okay, I have um
agenda item time. >> 19 147 Academy Street. So, I'd ask that that be carried um with reservation of notice.
>> Okay. Uh Mr. Harington. Uh we are carrying we have three spaces left on the August 11th meeting. So I uh I will carry 147 Academy with preservation of notice
to August 11th. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. >> Any other attorneys there? >> Um, I'll try promoting Thomas Lean again
here. He's joining. >> Uh, good evening everyone. Tom Lean of Connell Foley. Uh, I have item number 18, which is case P 2026 00013, which is a minor subdivision for 627 Palisade Avenue. I would ask that it
be carried with preservation of notice. Uh, if August 11th is the next date, I will take that. >> Thank you. We will carry this. >> Thank you everyone. Have a good evening. >> Thank you. You too. Pam, for the record, we should just read
the other cases and when they're carried to. >> Yes, council. So, item 15, a minor site plan with C variances, case P2024-0240, uh 240, uh addresses 916A and 918
Westside Avenue. They'll uh be carried with preservation of notice to August 11th. >> 17. >> Uh August 11th. >> No. Case number 17. >> Uh 15. That's 916 West Side.
>> What about 17? >> Oh, 17. Yes. Um we'll we'll carry them to August 11th. I know I said three spots left, but it's a signage application. Um,
those don't take too long. So, uh, we'll we'll carry item 17, case P2025-0266, uh, signage with C variances at 99 Hudson. Um, carrying with preservation notice through August 11th. And the the
last one, um, I'm going to consult my director. Um, uh, Director Marion, this is 506 Summit A. Um, I don't see Gerard in the audience. Um, what where would you like
to have this one? >> Um, for now, let's just have it carried to the next agenda. Um, there are some >> July 20 >> July 2. >> Yes, >> July 14th. >> It doesn't doesn't mean just for
consistency, we just need to carry it to that date. >> Okay. Okay, July 14th. So that's item 21, preliminary, it's a preliminary major site plan uh case numbers P2025-0169. Address is 506 Summit Avenue being carried with preservation of notice to
July 14th. >> Madam Chair, you do have someone with a hand up. >> He's counsel for one of the applicants. I thought you carried his >> We did. I'll promote just in case he has something he needs to add. the record. Do we want to show to
council woman? Um, little is back with us. >> Okay, that concludes all the carries. >> Good evening members. This is Oswin Hadley. I just wanted to confirm I did notice Cameron earlier by email that we
had consented to carry our application uh P2373 to August 11th as well uh with uh no requirement for additional notice. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> And that's it. Right? Yes, Madam Chair. >> Okay. I'd like to move on to resolutions. Sure. Um, Mike, you're good. All right. Case number P2025-0228.
Applicant Manila Avenue Partners LLC for preliminary and final major site plan with deviation and design waiver 468-480 Manila Avenue, New Jersey City, New Jersey, block 101 03, lots-
case number P2025-0133. applicant is 547 Summit LLC for preliminary and final major site plan improvements. >> No, vice chair. >> Oh, yeah, that one was uh 555 summit.
Yeah, we pull pull that res. >> We pull that one. >> Oops. Okay. Sorry about that. Next then is P2025-0225 applicant storage works JC LLC property
55-559 Kar Avenue Jersey City New Jersey block 28801 lot 4 decided on Tuesday April 28th 2026 memorialized on June 30th 2026
application for a preliminary and final major subdivision with C variance city of Jersey City Planning Board in the matter of 252 Central Avenue application number P2026-000067 decided on June 9th 2026 memorialized
June 30th 2026 application for extension of preliminary and final major site plan approval with C variance deviation in design waiver/exception relief resolution city of Jersey city planning board in the matter of 36 Mechadoo
Avenue aka 1-5 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive. Application number P26-0085 decided June 16th, 2026. Memorialized June 30th, 2026. Application for extension of preliminary and final major
site plan and deviation approval. Subdivision deed made between Storage Works JC LLC and New Jersey limited liability company. Tax map reference NJSA46.15-2.1 Municipality of Jersey City, County of Hudson State of New Jersey, block number
28801, lots number four, commonly known as 55-59 Kar Avenue. Madame Chair, we should also recognize that the uh LDO amendment was approved this evening and found to be in
conformance uh with the master plan in the city of Jersey City and recommend adoption back to the governing body. >> Thank you. Do I get a second for the resolutions? >> I second it.
on a motion to approve the five resolutions tonight. Uh, Commissioner Capers, >> I, >> Commissioner Conaway, >> I, >> Commissioner Kaplan. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Barnabby.
>> Hi, >> Commissioner Stamato. >> I, >> Commissioner Patel. >> I, >> Council Person Little. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Wick. Uh, Vice Chair Wick, >> I, >> Madame Chair Gangadan,
>> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor to memorialize five resolutions. >> Thank you. Do we need any executive session? >> All good on my end. >> No, I don't think we do. >> No, we're all good. Motion to adjurnn.
Santa, anything you would like to add? >> Nothing from legal. Motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. Everyone have a safe 4th of July weekend. >> Enjoy with your families. >> Thank you everybody.
>> Thanks everybody. Good night. Good night everybody. Have a good night. Bye.