I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Pam Sunshine announcement.
Yes. Good evening, acting chair. Today is Tuesday, September 30th. This is a special Jersey City Planning Board meeting with the scheduled 5:30 p.m. start time. And in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, notice of this meeting has been given to the editor of the Bergen Record, L Espelito, and
posted with the city clerk on September 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. Um, here's the Sunshine packet. We will
mark this into evidence. Can we have the roll call, please? Yes. Commissioner Stamato here. Commissioner Patel here. Commissioner Lipsky here. Commissioner Dr. Desai here. And acting chair Gangadan here.
Okay, we have five commissioners present. We have a quorum. Thank you. Can we swear in the staff, please? Maggie and Cam truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes. Any correspondence? No, chair. Um, that's all. That
concludes secretarial duties. Thank you, Cam. At this time, I would like to call in case P2024-000088, which is an amendment to the previous approval of P18-120. Address is 87 Bright Street.
Good evening, Steven Joseph Casano Quigley Tramy. For the applicant, I did notice this evening. I have notices. I'd like to enter these into evidence, please. Thank you, Mr. Joseph. Madame Chair, my notes reflect that we've marked notices previously at
various hearings A1 and A2 which means we are up to A3. Mr. Joseph, do you agree with those markings? I agree. Okay. So, I am received the affidavit know proof of publication with respect to the
application this evening. It was renoticed as this is a special meeting with respect to this application. It does appear to be in order. As such, we're going to mark it as A3 for purposes of the record. And just so
the record is clear, I did see this notice updated and posted to the portal. That is the original of that notice A3 for purposes of the record. Madam Chair, at this time I think it's only appropriate that since this is a
continuation of a public hearing, there are members of the board that not were not at previous hearings of this matter and I think we should certify that they've either listened and watched the video or read the transcripts which were made available. According to my records,
that would be Dr. Desai and uh Commissioner Stamato. I have read both. I did. You did as well, Dr. Desai. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Thank you. Okay, Mr. Joseph Council. Um, so where we left off last time was we had finished direct testimony of James Cornell. Um, there was some cross-examination from
objectors council. Um, but I I know we do have the historic preservation officer this evening that does have to leave at a certain time. Um, if we wanted to do that first for the benefit of of staff. I also think there's um a threshold matter regarding an expert
witness that opposing council wanted to discuss as well. So, why don't we deal with why don't we deal with any housekeeping issues first before we deal with order of witnesses. So, I agree the way we had
left it, we were up to cross-examination of your witness, but council, do you want to come up, place your appearance on the record and address whatever issue council was referring to?
Yes, thank you very much. And um so Ann Studholm of Post Pollock on behalf of the opera at Vanforce, they're the building at 8385. their condo association and I wanted to thank everybody for this
special meeting. Um I think it's been really important. You guys know by now how much we've started stopped started stopped. It's great to be here be able to get as much on as we possibly can. Um I I do have questions for both for Mr. Cornell and of course for their new new
architect. Um and the one thing that I need to bring up on the record is that when Mr. Cam Mr. black when Cameron was asking us for dates. I said, "Well, the only problem I have with the 30th, and I didn't want to be the holdup of that, is
our fireman witness who has been here time after time after time after time as things have gotten inevitably put off. He was going to be traveling and I wasn't sure he would be back in time. He is back. He has COVID and he's actually sick with it. He's not just testing positive. He can't come obviously to a
public gathering. So, we don't have him tonight. I don't want that to hold this up. Um, I understand your chair also had a had a prior commitment. Um, and so what we think would make sense in this situation, and I do apologize for
getting so heated with Mr. Santo last time. I'm really glad we have the chance to have this hearing now just about a year after since it started. But unfortunately, I would like to be able to bring my fireman witness back. His testimony
isn't long, but I think it's very important. Um, Mr. Black has advised me that the next available date is November 25th. Um, Brian Shaw, the fireman, has always with warning been able to arrange his schedule. He tells his boss, "Put me on a day shift because I have a night
hearing." So, he won't have CO again by then. I hope end of November. He should be available. It shouldn't be a problem. We're happy to do that then. And we're just very sorry for this one wrinkle to have to carry into that next time.
All right. So, chair, I would advise that we take that under advisement. Let's see how far we get. This is the only matter on the agenda. I think that if we can move uh we we should be able to get pretty far along if not completed with that one exception. We'll deal with
it at the end of the evening. Uh chair, I think out of fairness to Miss O'Neal and her time, uh we hear from Miss O'Neal. I know that the board had some some questions from or I guess to see if Miss O'Neal had any additional
update or information. And so I think it's only appropriate that at this time we have Miss O'Neal uh tell us whatever it is that that she can. So she's already been sworn. Sure. Good evening. Good evening.
Um so I am here this evening mostly to provide the board an updated memorandum at their request regarding the outstanding historic preservation rel related items that were still to be completed. Um, the memo of course is essentially an update to the memo that
was provided to you in February. There has been no update to any of those items being completed. The I would say the main issue for preservation staff at this point is the signage on the front. Um, the applicant did provide staff with shop drawings last fall. Um, staff did
approve those shop drawings. The signage has not been installed yet. However, the review mechanism for this would be the certificate of occup occupancy application. So staff is okay with the signage being outstanding at this time as long as it is completed prior to them
applying for a certificate of occupancy. Um other than that, I was I'm under the impression there were a couple of historic related questions um that I'm happy to answer. So then I mean the
is the memo that you've generated since the February one on the portal? Yes. Okay. That I did not see. Um I I if you would like I so I have it in front of me. Um it's an updated memo.
So, it really is just one sentence to provide an update, which is that we performed a site visit um last week to confirm if any of the items had been updated. They had not been. Um there was an updated photo that I provided of the property to the board in that memo just
showing that the signage uh remains incomplete. Um but staff is confident that if the signage is inst is revised and reinstalled as per the shop drawings that were approved last fall, we are okay with the changes that um had previously been approved to the front
facade. And at this time of the primary concern for us was the signage because that is um what is visible from the public right of way. Could I could you maybe share that and I'm not seeing it on here. Sure. Thank you. council,
do we need to enter that as an exhibit because I don't think it was on the portal. It is on the portal. That's where I printed it from. Oh, but I don't think it was on the portal um 10 days prior to the hearing. Yeah, that doesn't apply to the board obviously putting things out, but there council, if you'd like, I will
mark it as uh B2 since B1 was the notice. B2 will be the updated HPC memo. Thank you, council. And council, you don't
disagree with what Miss O'Neal just said regarding the sign, do you? No, I I don't disagree. Um, we we have not done any further work at the property and don't intend to until this hearing is resolved. And we continue to
agree to work with uh Miss O'Neal on the the uh the signage. Um, as historic staff said, we have shop drawings that were revised and were approved and that's what we will we will comply with.
So the to your point, Miss O'Neal, it the sentence added updated of 924. Okay. HPC staff performed a site visit to evaluate the quote unquote in progress items items particularly the sign. It does not
appear and council just addressed that we're not doing any work until this gets moved forward. But earlier, I mean, it said that initially that your office had recommended this not go forward and that the board had approved it for two and that there were other concerns besides
the sign. So, and then in reading the transcripts from before and then having sat at on these meetings, uh there seemed as if there were other things like the twotory roof edition construction and I won't you wrote the
memo so I won't repeat it. So um so at this I mean so other than the sign though I mean there are there still outstanding issues or contentions or let me make it very simple. Are you recommending or not
recommending this move forward at this time the hearing move forward? No, not the hearing. We're going to have the hearing but your recommendation back in um December 3rd, 2018 was seeking approval, right? And then so the application was denied a certificate of
appropriateness following 42 vote. HPC staff notes that five affirmative votes are required. So so that here that original hearing um so the HPC you need five affirmative votes that original hearing the staff recommendation was to approve the
project and the board voted um they didn't vote to deny the project but they did not have affirmative enough affirmative votes to approve it. I then went to planning board and recommended that planning board approved the project even though the HPC did not pass a certificate of appropriateness. And then
the planning board had adopted as part of the planning board's resolution the conditions that HPC staff had recommended that the board adopt if they were to the HPC adopt if they were to approve the project. Um
and Miss O'Neal, those are the 12 that are in the memo. Correct. Yes. Those Yes. 16. Uh 16. Yeah. So, the historic preservation board did not did not approve the
approve the project by five affirmative votes, which is what's needed for the HPC board to recommend that the project be approved. Regardless of that procedure, it then came to the planning board as it
does with the recommendation of the historic board as well as historic staff. And the planning board then determines whether they're going to approve the application or not, adopt some of the findings, all of the
findings, all of the recommendations, whatever the case may be. So the planning board resolution as to the original application was to approve it with the 16 conditions put forth by the
historic commission. Is that accurate, Miss O'Neal? Yes. And I do just want to clarify because I don't think it's now that I'm rereading this, I don't think it's clear. The memo the memo says in the first paragraph and the HPC recommended that the planning board deny the project. That means the HPC board, not
HPC staff. The staff recommendation going to similarly to how you know a planner would say I recommend that you approve this. We went to our board and said I recommend that you approve this and they did not agree with us in that case. So could you on record explain why your
board didn't affirm or deny, but your staff or you recommended it? Sure. Um, now I I am reaching into the vault for this. Um, I believe the main concern of the HPC at the time of review
of the original certificate of appropriateness was the visibility of the rooftop edition. Um, the HPC is not in the practice of approving rooftop editions that are visible from the public right of way. In this particular case, because the building is two stories and because Bright Street is a
particularly wide right of way, it's much wider than a normal street because it's two lanes plus two traffic parking. uh traffic parking, just parking. Um the vis you could not construct a rooftop addition here without it being visible. So the staff worked with the
applicant to come up with a scheme that we thought would be would reduce its visibility, hence the skylights and the slope of the addition. Um and we got it to the point where we thought it was an approvable project, which is why we recommended it. The commission did not agree with us.
Now, when you say the commission didn't agree with you, the commission voted 42. 42. Yes. In favor of it. Correct. But they did not have enough affirmative. Five affirmative votes. It was a majority vote for the recommendation to go forward as appropriate. Correct. The majority of commissioners
did vote to approve it. We simply did not have enough affirmative votes. And then this body voted to approve it. Correct. with the conditions as set forth. However, it was not constructed in the manner
that was approved, which is why we're actually here. And the items that and the item that HPC at this point is taking issue with or the main issue with is the reconstruction of the signage in the front. So when you say HPC, it's your staff and
you. Correct. Okay. But those other So since then and to council's point um the recommendations and the conditions were not fulfilled. No. And so hearing that and then me reading
the transcripts for the last three meetings and being at the last two and watching the video. Um so there was a lot of talk from um the applicant that they were working closely with your office. Yes.
And that's uh as a matter of fact or Okay. So they were working closely. They are they are working closely, right? We Yeah. So the as the applicant when we flagged that the signage was a concern,
they went back to their professionals and they presented us with shop drawings of signage that more accurately represented the original historic signage, which was the approval, right? The approval said that they had to reconstruct this signage. Um, so they came to us with shop drawings for that. The signage that is
currently on the building as of the 18th when I went by um was the signage that had originally been installed that staff flagged as not compliant with their approval. So the applicant has committed to we we reviewed those shop drawings that they gave us last year. We said
sure that is consistent with their approval and the applicant as Stephen just said uh is committed to revising that prior to their application for CO. There are of course other issues that with the application um in front of you guys that uh other changes that they
made. The main concern of HPC staff is that front signage because that is visible from the public right of way. So the other changes or the other um the other two items mentioned in my memo are the green roof and the fire escape in the back. Neither of which are
visible from the public right of way. So in your opinion then even with the changes tonight, you would or you would uh still go ahead and
recommend it to go forward or to be approved. Well, why don't we rephrase that question? It sounded to me and Miss O'Neal correct me if I'm wrong. From the historic perspective, the only item that
you and the HPC are still concerned about is with respect to that sign on the front of the building. Yes. The other items and changes need to be approved by this board.
Okay. We acknowledge that they're incomplete um and should be reviewed by this board. The HPC's main concern was making sure that the front facade was restored correctly and accurately. The main part of that that is not completed yet
is the sign which they've committed to restoring accurately. So just for clarity for myself and for the record is that through that process in which the applicant was working closely with you and to the extent that the conditions
have not been met or have been met, I mean we'll see how that goes. Um the only one that then seems to fall within your purview or concern is the sign. Correct. the others. But let me but just so for the record is is is that how is
it that your office acknowledges that and sort of and works with the applicant and it it if it at any point did it send off a flag or a a concern to you that needed to be communicated to maybe Miss
Tanya or uh somebody else or you would just for the for the sign? No, for all the other conditions in the process or the Oh. Oh, okay. So to clarify, there are I believe it's on the portal. So the
applicant did apply for a certificate of occupancy. One of those requirements that the HPC has is they submit a compliance letter to us. It's on the PR, right? This is the compliance letter. We worked with the applicant on a variety of these items that were not the date of that letter, just for the
record. April 23rd, 2024. And that letter is from the architect James Cornell dated to HBC staff. Okay. There were a number of items that they identified as not compliant with the plans. They submitted asbuilt drawings
to for our staff to review. We went through all of these items. We have adjusted as many of them as we can. We have some of them were able to be approved relatively easily. Um, some of them like the ones in front of you this evening, we could not approve at the
staff level. So when I say we're we're working on finishing these items, I've we have worked at the staff level for the amount of time that is possible. We looped in Tanya and everyone else who also needed to be to review these items. And that is
like that's frankly why the applicant is here this evening because there were a number of items that were not completed per their approval. So, they are back at the board to ask for approval of those items. Um, good. Okay. I I do just I'm sorry. I just want to
clarify with the with the green roof. Um, the only thing outstanding with the green roof is that it's not actually installed yet, right? Yeah. And the applicant has committed to do that. I think we even put a purchase order or something on the portal, too, but that will be done.
So, council, I think for the board's edification. The sign in the green roof you've proposed addressing have submitted drawings and details to
address those two items. It sounds as if at least HPC has said, "Okay, these are acceptable, but you haven't move forward with
actually doing those items because this proceeding has been open now for that period of time." Correct. We have a pending matter before the board. Um, so the rest of the items
that have not been addressed, can you articulate exactly what those are for the board? Are you able to do that? So that was James's initial testimony. Right. So that's that's why we're here
for those two items, the green roof and the signage. We're not requesting relief for those. We're not requesting an amendment if we're complying with those. So the the change letter that was submitted with the application and the plans that James presented before this board are the the changes
that we're seeking relief for. So we went through the drawings and we identified and it's skylights and all of the internal changes and we're not going to go through all of that again.
Correct. Uh I went back and and reviewed the transcript in preparation for the hearing and we had left off and we were talking about the power coming to the
front of the building and PSEG. That's where we left the last hearing. That was the conclusion of the testimony. We started to talk about the fire escape in the rear. Uh but it sounded as though that was being left to another witness.
Correct. So does that help the board? Is everybody clear on where we are? Okay. The only other thing was I believe were the skylights the I mean the removal and this the
switching, right? Yeah. Yeah, that was I mean from my point of view it was testified to right that all of this stuff happened. Those are the items that staff wasn't going to just sign off on. And that's what the applicant is requesting is can
we go ahead and move these skylights that we've already moved? Can we do the electric the way we've already done it? closets and we move this bedroom and that bedroom and interior glass and and things of that nature in terms of
internal layout. That's the testimony that we heard and that's part of the ask. So I think the open item in terms of the ask has to do with this fire escape. Is
are there anything else that we haven't touched on? Well, the only other question is based on that B I don't know to the extent that Miss O'Neal was able to review the transcripts or the videos or daddy. Um, but at I mean at any point
did you know that the project or uh was gone off track? I mean was that communicated to you? Skylights power staff was HPC or me in my role as preservation specialist. I was not
contacted when there were changes made to the project prior to their execution. However, there are other people in my office. I can't speak for them. My knowledge is that they were also not contacted, but I was not. That is something that just happens sometimes
with construction. We of course try to remind applicants that they do need to um request deviations for their projects to staff in writing. Um, it was not done in this case even though did the applicant know about
the 16 conditions well in advance and was I can't answer if the applicant knew about the conditions. I can answer that the applicant knows about the conditions. They're documented in the resolution. There is no question that the applicant was well aware of what was approved. And if the applicant
was unaware of what was approved, what was approved was what was approved. Drawings are signed and sealed. Resolutions are granted. They have to be followed. If there's a deviation, there's a deviation. And unfortunately, that's how you wind up in a proceeding
like this. So, the applicant is aware. So, Commissioner Lipsky the just for your per so that in this case condition 15 of the HPC conditions would have applied upon approval of a certificate from the HPC or approval granted by planning board. Deviations from the
granted approval must be approved by the HPC except in cases of emergency affecting public health, safety and welfare. All requests for deviations are to be submitted through written request of the architect HPC staff. So, to answer your question, that is the condition that would apply here, right? And so you being the director of
that department are said have said on record tonight that that at no time or were you made aware of it in writing? I was at no I was not contacted by the owner or applicant in this case. I do just want to clarify for the record that
I'm not the director. I'm I come to you guys all the time. I am I am not. It's okay. You seem so apppropo for the role. I don't know. But so not I mean so but in charge of
HPC right like the staff there. No no no I do that is not Tanya it's okay. Um but I am I I am the one who I'm the secretary for the HPCA the board and I do manage a lot of the case
load in our office. So I was not contacted. So this is a learning experience for me and I don't mind confessing ignorance and the desire to learn. But uh that being said um so who would the applicant needed to have
contacted at HPC? You Tanya any myself Dan any of us? Yeah. Okay. In reality an applicant can reach out to any of the preservationists for something like this and we'll help feed it to the correct place. I I do I I
think it's important for us to understand that the applicant did not necessarily follow the conditions of their approval. I I do think that's clear though and I right I don't want to beat a dead horse here in that we I I the applicant did not follow the
conditions of approval. That is why we are here this evening. Um, I would like to think that they understood that they what needed to happen, but I can leave that if they want to provide testimony on their specific thought process on that that I can't provide that for them. No, the
only reason um I pursue this is because in reviewing the transcripts for the last two meetings and having sat through it and needed to hear that was and I sent an email, you know, requesting, you know, comment from you, which has been excellent, um is because throughout it
was represented that the applicant was working closely with your agency, department, um division, whatever name that it is, it still arose, right? So, um, and that's why you're saying is is that this, uh, memo still stands with
that one exception and council made it clear that the applicant did know because it's part of the record. So, I'm very happy. Okay. Okay. Any other commissioners have any questions for me? No. Great. No, thank you very much. Yes.
All right. So that case I think where we left off was uh cross-examination of Mr. Cornell. That is correct. Sworn in. Council, I have a question. Absolutely. Commissioner,
I would like to know why they haven't followed directions accordingly. I mean, I don't think that's been explained. I think I'm getting confused on this. Just turn your mic on. Turn your mic. Oh, excuse me. I'm sorry. I want to know why they haven't followed directions. I mean, that's that came up. I'd read
everything and um the way it was explained listening and listening to the tapes. I'm just confused on exactly what happened as far as not following the directions. I understand that's why they're here tonight, but I'd like to have a reason why they did not follow. I
know I keep repeating myself, but bottom line is I want to know what happened. Yeah. I I mean I I can make a bunch of excuses for for my client. I I think they're, you know, they're they're just excuses, but um there were three different contractors involved in this project. First one died, second one
ended up in litigation. Um Hoboken was reviewing the the uh uh the the permits during the construction process. It it was it was it was confusing and things changes were made in the field and there's no good reason why it
happened. It shouldn't have happened. it it just shouldn't have happened. Um so I don't want to come across as if I'm trying to provide an explanation or an excuse for something that that shouldn't have happened and we know shouldn't have happened. Um so commissioner to your question
there's no good answer. I I agree. I there's some explanation but there's there's really no good answer. All right. Tonight is going to be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes. For the record, James Cornell. J A M E S C O R N E L L. Good evening, Mr. Cornell. Is your license current? Yes, it is. Thank you. You may proceed.
Mr. Cornell, you were sworn previously, so yes. Okay. Uh councel, your witness. Great. Thank you. Mr. Can you turn on your mic, please? Uh, where do I turn? There might be a button on there somewhere.
It's right where the white tag is on the bottom. Oh. Oh, I see. Okay, it's on. Okay, lower it. Can it lower without dropping? Yeah. And I can't hold it because I got
to take notes while I'm sorry, thanks. Okay. Thank you. And Mr. Carell, I'm Ant Studhome. We've met very briefly before. Yes. Multiple times. Um I am I know there's another architect who's going to be testifying. I'm not trying to ask you any gotcha
questions. And I have two different sets of questions because of all this. Um, I'm not trying to trip you up and have you give different answers to another question. Sure. So, if you just answer the question, these are pretty much cut and dry
questions, but if you have any problem, obviously, you know, your client's lawyer is here and I think we can get through this quickly. Okay. Um, so, can you one second? Sure. The mic is still turned on. Oh, it's still off. No, it's on. It's on. Council, it's on. You just got to stand a little.
I just have to stand closer to it like that. Oh, now I'm getting the feedback. Yes, it's definitely on. Um, okay. And that was preliminary. That wasn't questions for the record. Um, okay. I don't normally have to stand on tiptoe. Here we go. Okay. The building was originally a twostory warehouse. Correct.
And the and the scope of work of this application was a full gut renovation of that warehouse and the addition of two new floors on top of the existing structure. Is that correct? Um, uh, I believe so.
Okay. Thanks. Um, and a change of use from a warehouse to a 4unit multifamily was required. Is that correct? Um, I I'll let Stephen answer those kind of zoning questions. Okay. So, you did not do a zoning
review. Uh, we had a planner. you had a planner and the planner told you what either was permitted or that you he'd go for variance for and um the lawyers who worked out the variances. Did your plans and I apologize. I mean I
just I can't remember. Do your plans show the zoning chart? The ones that were submitted to the building department? Yes. Yes. And did you sign those plans? Yes. But you basically just and and again I'm not trying to beat you up. just trying to show where his testimony starts and
stops because they've got other people. But so I'm I'm understanding right now you didn't you didn't generate that zoning chart. You just put it in your plans. Somebody else generated I did I did I I worked on the zoning chart myself. But but you don't reviewed by other people.
It was reviewed by other people. And you don't know and again there's no harm in it. But you don't know as you stand here that a change of use from a warehouse to a 4-unit multif family was required. I would speculate it was okay. This was 2016.
2016. And what I'll do, Mr. Joseph, if I can you I'm sure you'll have another witness in a second. I want to nail that down. I I thought he would just say yes, of course. But if he he can't Well, I don't want to. Yeah, I think in Jersey City, unlike some other specific council, why don't you come up to the mic if there's one right here?
You're going to make comments. I I think just the confusion there's in Jersey City, unlike in some other towns, there's not a specific form of relief for uh change in use. For a change in use, I just want to make sure the architect knew what was going on with the building. Basically, I'm again, I'm not trying to trip you up or get you in trouble.
Okay. Um um and and and partly but partly I'm asking because let me put it this way. You knew this was going to be an application with variances. Is that correct? We did have some minor variances. Yes. I have we worked with a planner in the planning department.
Okay. And it sounds as if that's the person I should ask about the detail of the variances that were required in the original application. Uh it depends on what the detail is, but yes, I would I would imagine that you would speak with the planner for the planning part of it.
Okay. And if I have so this this question I just have again for the clarity of the record a change of use from warehouse to a 4unit multif family. My question I wrote it was required correct. I understand you to be saying you don't necessarily know but there are other people in the applicants team who
will know that. Well let's leave yeah I'll leave it like that. Okay. Okay that's fine. And if the if we have any questions like this as we go along just just let me know. Yes. The planning stuff uh and variances I would leave up to the lawyers. Okay. Okay. Thanks. Um, in the initial
designs that were presented to the historic commission and the planning board back in 2018, was a fire escape or other second means of egress shown on the drawings? I
do you mean the ones that were presented in front of the planning board? The Yes, the original ones that got approved. Yes. Was it was a fire escape or a second means of egress shown? Yes. And can you describe what that was? That was true. I did during my testimony. I pointed out
where the um gutter ladders were uh on the plan. You pulled them out and you went down the ladders. You pulled them out and you went down the ladders. And can you can you review just briefly why
those were ultimately changed, not built as shown? I do not know that information. Okay. Um, were egress and flood issues ever brought up as a concern in meetings with the community if such meetings
happen with the historic preservation commission or in the planning board meetings and hearing? I don't recall. Don't recall. Sorry. And I apologize. That's a double bower question. Egress. Don't recall. Egress. Yes, we we did talk about you did talk about. So, not flood
issues. I don't know. I'm sorry. So you did talk about eress when when do you recall and you may not recall it's a long time ago. When were you told that a second means of eress was required? Um I think we were always going for a
second means of egress as far as I know for for all that's why we had a um a egress uh running down the back of the building. We had it extended from the um building down the street. It is. Oh, when you say
down to the street, what do you mean by down to the street? Well, there is an egress that was run to uh one of the properties um further to the west of our property, two away um that they had uh gotten approved from the board of ed and then
we had ours extended that egress extended down to our property um by the from the board of ed. And and you said in the street, do do you mean to the rear of the building? Do you mean street level basically? I just um It runs from the back of all the
properties out to the the driveway access of the school, I believe. Yes. And you're correct about that. I just wanted to make sure that was clear. So when you say the street, I just want to make sure for the record, you're talking about the access way, alleyway, whatever we want, whatever you want to call that, right?
That is that is in the that we had property street level. Again, I don't mean to trip you up. It's possible that it's not topographically at the same level of the street. I don't know. Um and so so do you know I don't know what you're what are you asking?
Is it the same is the is the street level of Bright Street the same as the the level of the ground of this easement access that we're talking about? Um I believe it runs downhill um the property from the street level to the
back. Okay. Um, and did you understand, and I understand you're an architect, when you when you designed the Egress, did you understand that the
people using it, I just want to like draw out your testimony, I think you did, but I want it clear on the record, were going to have to pass behind the houses at I believe it's 91, 93 essentially as they proceeded west as they were using the escape route. They
were going to have to go buy all those other houses you just mentioned and then turn and go out to Bright Street. Uh yes, that was why we had the property cleared. There were trees and vegetation in there and fencing that we had removed in the eastment that we got extended down.
Okay. And did you know that the people what I've been calling in this hearing upstream, which is my clients, you're at 87, they're at 83, 85, would also have to use that same No, they couldn't. There was a fence and
rubble and Yes, I didn't testify to any council, you're going to have to come up. It sounds like you're making an objection. I've been waiting for it, council, so why don't we put it on the record? Um, James didn't offer any
testimony about the easement. He wasn't involved in creation of the easement, the drafting of the easement, getting the easement from the uh from the board of edge. I I I'd like to limit the cross- examination to what James actually testified to, which were the architectural plans and the changes from
what was previously approved. and and I I understand he'd like that, but the witness himself started offering, I think appropriately and I think correctly, his understanding as the architect who designed that second means of egress
that was never built, how it would be used. He needs to know that as an architect. It's appropriate for him to have offered that in his testimony. And I'm just exploring his knowledge in both directions, east and west in that in that east. But I think he's doing a good job. I think he can answer the question
without hurting the application. I think he's he's testified that he designed egress from the building that gets to a a legal egress area, a legal easement, right? To the right of way. I I don't correct that it runs along an easement
to the right of way. But here's and but here's where we're going. But we're not going to have an architect interpret what and who has rights to that easement. asking that that's you were asking that his testimony was very clear to say yes I designed this
secondary mean of egress out the rear to then your question was however we want to describe this area an alleyway however we want to describe it he testified that he understood that he
could design the uh secondary mean of egress into that area that that area was cleared by his client. That was his testimony. I would like who has the rights to that? I didn't ask him that. I'd like the the qu my question read back and it's a
little while ago by now where he said well the people do want your question for my question his answer I don't think you've I Sand you're working from memory as am I believe you've accurately characterized what I asked but we have a record right here we can find out
we can but the objection is what it is so Mike are you able to read back the question and the answer just prior to the objection. Is that how far back you want to go? Council probably a couple before that cuz as you
noted it took it took Steven Lwell it it's it's and Mike it's my it's my recollection that that he brought it up and that's You you had asked one more question. You had started talking about you want to go all the way back. Yeah. Go back before that because I think he was the first one to bring it
up but I may be wrong about that. He go if you go back to the first time he said street level because that confused me genuinely. I I thought maybe there was an extra exit to the front. You would ask when you say down the street, what do you mean down? Actually, let me go further back. Okay.
Uh, you asked, do you recall, and you may not recall, when were you told that a second means of egress was required? And the answer was, I think we were always going for a second means of egress, as far as I know. You said for for all the units. And the answer was, that's why we had a an egress running down the back of the building. We had it
extended from the building down the street. And you asked, oh, when you say down to the street, what do you mean down to the street? And the answer was, well, there's an egress that was run to one of the properties further to the west of our property to a way that they had gotten approved from the board of ed. And then we had ours extended that
egress extended down to our property by the from the board of ed. And you asked, you said in the street, do you mean to the rear of the building? Do you mean street level? Basically, I just the streets in front. Answer. It runs in back of all the properties out to the the driveway access to the school, I believe. Question. Yes. And you're
correct about that. I just wanted to make sure I was clear. So when you said the street, I just want to make sure for the record you're talking about the the access way, the alleyway, whatever you want to call it. Answer. Whatever you want to call that, right? Question that is in the back. Answer. The easement that we had that ran to our property.
Question. When I say street level, again, I don't mean to trip you up. If possible, it's not topographically the same level of the street. I don't know. Answer. Question. So, do you know? Answer. I don't know what you're What are you asking? I'm sorry. Question. Is it the same? Is the street level of Bright Street the same as the the level
of the ground of this easement access that we're talking about? Answer. I believe it runs downhill the property from the street level in the back question. Okay. Did you understand and I understand you're an architect. When you when you designed this egress, did you understand that people using it I just want to like draw out your testimony? I
think you did, but I want it clear on the record. We're going to have to pass behind their houses at I believe it's 91 93. Essentially, as they proceeded west, as they were using the escape route, they were going to have to go by all those other houses you just mentioned and then turn and go out to Bright
Street. Answer, yes, that was why we had the property cleared. There were trees and vegetation in there and fencing that we had removed and the easement that we got extended down. Question, did you know that the people what I've been calling in this hearing upstream, which is my clients here at 87, they're at 8385, would also have to use that same
egress? Answer no. Okay. Okay. Yeah. And I'm fine if if his answer is no. He didn't know that. Well, he didn't know that they were gonna have to use it. That's that question is what I was objecting to. Right. So that you're you're saying you're you're
saying it's irrelevant or that he didn't have that he I'm just asking. It's not an appropriate question. Who else was going to be there for It's not an appropriate question for for James to answer. Well, it has to do with how he designs
the egress. I think it's I, you know, it has to do with how my followup is going to be. Did you design the egress to impede anybody from upstream? And I presume he'll say no, but I'd like to be able to ask him that question. Yeah, I I mean I would
I won't that I won't ask him that question. Okay, I'll move along. Um Okay. Um so the current existing fire escape stairway, when was that added to the building? I don't know.
Okay. Um, you may not know this. Which unit does the current existing fire escape serve or units? Um, I I don't know. I wasn't prepared to answer question.
Um, do you know if the newly added fourth floor has two means of egress? Um, yes it does. It does. Can you describe those two means of egress? Um, it goes down to the uh roof below
into the back. The first one goes right out from the second floor to the street. Mr. Cornell, you got to do better than that. I mean, I'm sorry. I mean, it's without a drawing. It's Do you have a drawing, Mr. Cornell?
Pull up the drawing she would that help you? Yes. I guess we would have to do pull up the asbuilts. Thank you, sir. So, Mr. Joseph, yes. Thank you. Do we have an asbuilt
drawing? Yes. Is that what we're going to be shown? Yeah. Because I I know Mr. Lewis is here and I'm I'm just not clear on what Mr. Lewis
is going to be testifying to. So, so, so I'm going to ask for a profer, I guess. I mean, can we Sure. So, so the drawing that we're showing that was presented last time is the is the side by side uh the the approved versus the asbuilt. That's what
James testified to last time. He'll use this to answer uh the questions. Now, Mr. Lewis um was brought in as an independent architect to evaluate um what was approved versus the asbuilt. Um
he did a site visit at the property. Um I'm sorry. This screen is flashing on me. Mr. Lewis was brought in to do an asbuilt of the building. He he didn't create a a drawing. He was brought in to evaluate James's James'
drawings um to confirm to confirm what the testimony that that James had given. And Okay. Yeah. So he took the drawing, James's drawing. He he reviewed he reviewed the drawings.
He reviewed the approved drawings and he did a site visit at the property. Okay. And he reviewed the transcripts from the prior hearings. Now, can I ask one question on that? And sure. So for what purpose was that done?
that was done um that was done because the board had had a lot of questions. Um there were obviously a lot of things that went wrong during the process of the construction. James was the architect of of record at the time throughout all of that. So we felt it
would be beneficial to have a an architect that wasn't involved in the process that wasn't involved in the entire process to evaluate where we are and how we got here. Yeah. But I mean nobody I as I recall as I
read was questioning what Mr. Cornell had put out. So I mean there were there were I believe there were some questions um that were raised by the by the chairman that I don't know were fully answered um in James'
testimony. U Mr. Lewis was intended to be our our last witness this evening. So, um, so I think council's question is perfectly, uh, appropriate. I think that
I just wanted to know what Mr. Lewis maybe was going to testify to. And if this witness couldn't address some of the questions, perhaps that's what Mr. Lewis was going to do. But I just want to make sure that we're looking at an
asbuilt as prepared by this witness as testified to this witness that yes, I mean, let's let's all be clear. There was a deviation. So, I don't fault the witness for saying, "Look, I drew this.
Something else was built and it wasn't what I drew." Understood. If that's what happened, however it happened, that's what happened. what's there now and is that what we're looking at on the drawing because that's council's concern, right? Is this is this what's
there? Yes, this is what's there. Okay, next question. Show me the ingress. Show me the egress. That's fair. Yep. Absolutely. I agree with that. There's there is also uh George Weiner here who who's the architect who designed the um the fire escape specifically which James had
mentioned at the the beginning of of his uh direction. Right. But presumably however that came to be to council's point the drawing should identify it. Correct. whether
however that happened that testimony will come but council wants to know right now. Okay, show me the ingress and egress life safety issue. I don't disagree with that. Yeah. So, let's see it. Let's go. There's only four units, so
let's start at the top. Start at the top and you can point them out so we can all follow along. And it may make it easier for you, u Mr. Cornell, if you say, "Well, I'm looking at something, but obviously not what I designed." You know, that's hard. If you say, "Well, I'm expecting to see this
over here because that's where I put it, but oh my god, looking at this now, it looks like it's over there. I I got no problem if you explain that. Again, we're not trying to trick you up just to get information as as as boards council." Got it. So, um,
and I did ask about the fourth floor first. So, I guess we'll start there and then go down. This is the fourth floor. Um, the drawing on the bottom is the fourth floor as built and the drawing on the
top I believe. Uh, can you zoom in? No, not my computer. So, uh, a second here. Not not touchreen. Sorry. Um, thank you, Mr. Lewis. Thanks,
That's all right. That's good. So, on the on the top floor, um all the windows in the back are egress windows and they could drop down onto where the rear of the building, which is to the um
right of the drawing, is a huge deck um that's two stories up. Oh, and I have a question. So, the roof of the deck, we're looking at a fourthstory apartment, but the roof of the deck is not immediately below those windows. It's two stories down. Is that
correct? It depends on No, it's not. No. Okay. I apologize. It would be one story down. It's one story. Two stories down from the roof. From the roof. Well, is the building four stories in the back? It is two stories and it steps in. in as
you can see in this elevation. Um and then it's two stories again back down to the bottom. Right. So the terrace roof is that is that sort of large area. You have the cursor. I don't. But the the large area
on top of the bricks there to Yes, that is um a deck in the back. Right. So it's is it three stories above the ground from there? No. It looks like it's three stories above the ground. One, two, three.
There's there's a that floor where the arrow is is the mezzanine area. Okay. Um and you see that little where the ladder is in the rear. The roof deck loads onto that ladder and comes down to that little tiny platform
area there. Okay. Um which you would see in the plan before and then it goes into the fire escape and then down to the back. So, I just want to make sure this is a fourstory building now. Correct. Yes. And the I'm going to call it the white space. It has a label, but I can't read
it. Has a sort of a diag that exactly that white space. Is that one story or two stories? That is two stories. Okay. So, we're talking about the fourth story. We're talking about going out those windows. And I said it's a twotory drop down to It's not. How is it not?
Because you're you're on the floor. You're not at the roof. The roof is two stories up. Oh, so you're hanging out the window. You're just dropping down. Mhm. Okay. So, you're going from the fourth floor to the roof of the second floor, which is the floor to the third floor. Which is the floor of the third floor.
Exactly. So, you're going basically the floor of the fourth floor down to the floor level of the third floor. Or as in many buildings, you go out the main entrance. E Garris or you go up to the roof um out the bulkhead. Well, well, wait a second though. I'm I'm still I'm still
But question council, what is the question? The second means of egress out of the fourth floor. Fourth floor and I am confused. I can't tell whether that white area is two stories or one story. Is that a to that is a twostory area, right? That white area. Okay.
So, if you're getting out the fourth floor, you have to get down somehow to the floor level as as Mr. Sandra said of the third floor. You have to get down to that. Yep. And how would you do that? Um, if you needed to get out the windows, you would go out the egress
windows like in any normal house. Drop down. And is there any and you'd have to drop down to that? If you were going out the windows, correct? Is that the second mean of egress out of the fourth floor? Well, there's actually three for that unit. Okay. Um, you can go up to the roof like I I have to the bulkhead door and then go down
the ladder that goes down the the side. So there's a ladder from So if you go up to the roof to the bulkhead door, there's a there's a ladder that's not shown on this slide. Then um you know, is there a ladder anymore?
I didn't change the uh So Mr. Cornwell, we understand that this is an asbuilt and not your design. And if you don't know where that Yes, sir. Second mean of egress out of the fourth floor is
you're going out you're going out the windows the egress windows that are there and dropping 10 ft down to that yes or you're going up to the roof um the uh the egress um right it's gotten you out of the building but now I'm on the roof correct
and there's no way down from the roof there no no and it doesn't appear to be no there doesn't appear to be in the as bill which obviously isn't yours and you don't remember No I I drew the aselt there oh you drew the bill oh Okay. The asbuilt is his. The design is not right. Okay.
It deviates from what he had designed. I apologize. I didn't understand that. So, you did do the asbuilt. So, you did both these drawings. Yes. Your drawing and then you measured the asbuilt and you drew that. So, it are we correct that if you go up to the roof, there's no way to get off the roof.
Uh, no. Okay. Right. Which is typical of many buildings, even the one next door. Is it typical of new buildings? Um, I I couldn't answer that question. Do you know if it complies with code for
new buildings? It was reviewed by two different municipalities and approved. Do you personally know whether it applies with code? Uh, I would have to review the code myself right now. Does part of your lensure require you to know the fire safety code where you
built? Not off the top of my head. It's not You're not required to know it? No. Yes. You would have to look at I would have to research it because it changes all the time. Okay. So to your knowledge at the moment, you do not know whether a new building that traps someone on the
fourth floor with no way to get off. It is not trapping anybody on the fourth floor. It is code. It was approved by two different municipalities. We'll put it this way. Council council just one second. It may have been approved, but that doesn't mean it's code. Let's ask a question. Let's get the
answer. Let's not talk over each other only because Mike is working very hard. Yes. And he's trying to get this verbatim. Good question, right? Oops. Sounds like you have to review the code
in order to answer the question. If I understand your testimony, you went out there, you looked at what was there, and you drew it. Correct. Yep. Okay. That's what your charge was. That's what you did.
So, so I have I do have a a question now and I apologize this wasn't prepared. This is based on on your testimony. The fourth I I started with the top floor and I asked if there two means of eress and you said yes. One is you know hang and drop which we know um and the other
is go up to the roof. Is there another eress to that apartment the fourth floor? That's two different questions. I'm not understanding. Okay. I'm I'm sorry. Other than hanger drop or go to the roof, is there any other egress from the fourth floor?
Yes. You go out the main entrance. Okay. Thank you. I presume that was correct, but I just needed to know. Um, so is the It's a fully sprinkled building as well. Okay, that's fine. That's very two-hour fire ring,
but you still need to be able to get out. I understand. Okay. Um, so the fourth and third floors, are they different units or are they one duplex unit? It's one. Wait, the third and fourth floor, the top two floors, the the addition is one unit.
One unit. Okay. Um, if you're in the third floor portion of the third and fourth floor unit. Mhm. What are the aggressors? You go down the main entrance out to the second floor and down out to the front or you go into the back um deck area and you go down
the fire escape. Okay. And how did you design it originally? If you remember, it still had a fire escape in the back and you went out to the back the same way. More or less. Well, more or less. Different type of fire escape. Different type of fire escape.
It was a ladder, right? Um yes. So, we were trying to minimize the look of a fire escape with um historic and we came there was a system that looked like a gutter that extended out of the gutter. Okay. And
so for the I mean a leader, not a gutter. Yeah. I don't I'm not an architect. I don't know the gutter's horizontal and leader goes vertical. Um so for the fourth for the first floor, it's pretty easy, right? How do you get out on the first floor? Yep.
you how how do you get out? You go to the front or the back? Yeah. Or the back. Can you show us where that back door is at the moment? On the first floor. Okay. So, um it's where the door swing is in the right side of the drawing. Okay. I'm seeing at the bottom of the drawing where the cursor is moving. Yep.
There's like a quarter circle basically showing the door swing. Correct. That way. Um do those windows there by any chance I believe those are are also windows in that wall. Do they slide open in any way?
I don't I couldn't answer that question. Okay. Okay. Thank you. No, they wouldn't slide, but they wouldn't have open um originally they were open operable. So when that door, if I'm reading this correctly, I want to make sure I'm reading this correctly. I'm looking at I
call it the the quarter circle, right? If the door is open Mhm. Then if it stays open, can you tell me how someone who is coming from
the east which is towards the top of the picture and coming down. Mhm. They can't get through where those stairs are. They can't get through where that open door is. Yes, they can. They can get through where that where that open door is. How? Um, well, the door opens more than 90 degrees, but
also, um, there's plenty of room between the stair and the door swing to get by it. And also, there's a video of somebody walking through the fire escape area. It's more than than somebody. Was that video taken in preparation for this hearing? I haven't seen that video.
I don't know if it was ever entered or not. I've never heard of it before now. Happy to see it. Okay. It's a picture. So, it's your testimony that despite the fact that the door swing is shown as a quarter circle, it actually swings. Does it swing 180°?
Um, yeah. Well, listen, I I'd have to go and check the door myself, but there's six feet between more or less. Well, between the door and the wall. Well, no, because between the door and the wall, but you have to get by. So, we
see those stairs with a little arrow on them, right? Does everybody understand what a staircase? Yeah. So for scale, the door is 3 ft. So you can see that there's plenty of room, right? So use the door as a scale. Swung from the the top and you come down close to the building because you have to avoid the stair and then there's the
swung open door in front of you. Who? So what you're saying is then by then the stair has stopped. So by then you you you if I'm correct, you then move along to where the stair is because there's there's a wall on the other side of that stair, right? You can't go past that, right? I believe so.
Okay. I would love it if it were possible and I don't know if it's possible. I know that people can mark up things with their computers. We see it all the time. I don't know how to do it. I don't know if it's possible for you to draw in that little curving S-shaped path you've just described. If you can,
I'd love it if you would. If not, the Mr. Cornell, is it your testimony that a person could bypass? Absolutely. Door coming out of the staircase. That's your testimony. Yes, I myself council. I am sure you have somebody
that would be able to counter that point when we get to your witnesses. So, understood. Okay. Commissioner, do you have a question? Yes, I do. Mr. Cornell. Yes. Mr. Cornell, this door is opening opening away from the stairs coming
down. Correct. It was at the time um that the way I see it designed right now, and I'm not trying to lead you or anything like that. It seems like to me looking at this drawing it's what it's opening away from the stairs. Right. So in essence a person can come out out
of that door without any problem and also go down the stairs. Correct. Yes. Yep. Okay. That's all I need to know. Thank you. Right. And I'm talking about I mean not that I don't have concern for the people in that building, but I'm talking about the people further along the alley. Is there a question for James though?
Well, but because because the the the the board member I thought made a good point which is talking about people coming out of the house. They come out the door and or down the stairs and there they go. But my question and my witness will talk about All right. So then that's not a question
for Mr. Cornell, right? Mr. Cornell's testimony is that with that door open, a person can come down the staircase and pass the door. Mr. Cornell, if anybody else was able to get past that
staircase, would the door impede their flow? No. No. So, as long as they are heading, I believe it's west if you're going down the page. Correct. Right. That door open in a 90° angle.
You could still go right by it. Your testimony is you can pass that door. Correct. That's your testimony. That's your testimony. Thank you, sir. Um, so there's no property survey or indication of the property lines in the
asbuilt drawings. Can you explain where the property lines are located in relation to the new construction? And by that I mean that that wall with the windows in it. Where is it in relation to the property lines compared with where it was originally?
Council, I don't understand your question. There was originally a wall there. They rebuilt it. Yes. And they moved it. The rear wall of the building. The rear wall of the building. Yes. Okay. Yes. And I'm asking if he knows how much further to the property line or closer to the property line.
Um I imagine it is pretty much right where the original wall was. We had to put in screw pilings. Um it's a pretty heavy duty uh steel structure back there. um that uh four square frame to
to brace the building from going side to side. Uh we had to put a bunch of screw pilings down there and a very large footing uh and then then supports all the steel going up to help uh take some the lateral load of the building and the floors going up. And when you say me, do you mean that
you I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. When you say I'm not the contractor, not the contract. So when you say me, were you present during that actual construction you just described? I had visited the site a few times. Yes. So, were you the supervising architect while at least some portion of the
construction was going on? Um, I would say I don't know what you mean by supervising architect. I wasn't supervising anybody. James, you were the architect of record. I was the architect of record. Yes. Okay. Um,
but I think you've testified that until you did the asbuilt drawings, you didn't, and correct me if I'm wrong, you didn't have personal knowledge of the deviations between what was built versus what was approved.
I had visited the site a few times over six or seven years and different contractors and had discussions with people. Okay. Do do you understand that that that I believe part of the application right now is for a variance the
difference between the proximity to that rear lot line what was approved versus what was built and you may not know that I don't believe there's a a variance James is there a change in the rear wall of the building
from the original Sorry I apologize I apologize Um, is it your testimony that there's there's no there's the rear wall of the building is not a change that we are requesting this
evening from the original approval beyond the exterior uh material modifications and the fire escape that you previously testified to. Correct. We we not changing anything to
the rear wall the way it was proposed. Um besides what we had listed in our um So the location of the rear wall in relation to the property line is the same as was originally proposed
as far as I know. Yes. Okay. Okay. Before you continue, uh councelor, I just have a quick question as council brought it up. When you did your site visit occasionally and you look back at your plans, did it
an alarm went off that what is on your plans is not what's being built currently? And did you I would say no because typically in in many construction pro projects the floor plans change slightly depending on owner preferences during the construction.
Happens all the time. Do do you know whether those are field chang? They weren't major they weren't major changes. They were not major changes out of typical changes. But as you as it's being built and you're seeing the as built,
did that sound did you did you inform anyone? Well, they they already the owner already knew uh what changes he made and we were just documenting what was there for. So then it continue on that path
as building as he or the contractor move away from that plan. No, the asbuilt drawings are done after after it's built. It's as somebody had built it. So, it's at the end of the project.
As I understand, what the um commissioner is asking is I understood her to say, were you noticing changes between your proposed and approved drawings and what was getting built? This is long before you did the asbuilts. And my understanding
of what you responded was, well, there's often changes. I mean, yes, but I didn't think any, you know, the owner knew. Um, are those would those would I be correct to say you're speaking of what are called field changes? I I don't think that's what I said.
Okay. First of all, then Mike Okay. Uh, Mike, would you would you mind? But the changes were field changes. Yes, if that's what you're asking. Okay. They were field changes. To your knowledge, do field changes need to be signed off on? not by this board, but by building department personnel.
The building department reviewed it during inspection and I I believe they I mean I can't speak for the building department. Okay, fair enough. Um this is this is a couple of questions from my clients and I apologize. I'm not positive I fully understand them, but I think
so. Council, why don't you read them silently and see if you can make them into do something that I can appropriate questions. Okay, I will. Okay. The asbuilt drawings do not have any
dimensions. Did you take actual measurements of what was built? I don't recall. I imagine that um I must have jotted things down when I was in the field. They weren't changes that they were
interior changes, so they're not, you know, I don't know. They weren't a big deal. No. Okay. Um, there were no existing conditions. Is it correct that there were no existing conditions drawings provided now or
approved in 2018 of the building prior to construction? council. I don't understand the question. Existing conditions, existing conditions, drawings. Oftentimes an application will say this is what we've got, especially if it's historic building. This is we've we've
dimensioned the current building and this is how we're going to change it. And there does not seem to have been that step done. And I was just did you see um we must architecturals of the thenexisting
building. See, the existing building had an approval from the planning board previously. Um, so a lot of the initial ideas were based off of what was already approved. But I think the question is there was a building on this property.
Yes. Did you see any architectural plans from what was on the property prior to any change to No, there were no there were no ones created beyond what the previous owner
had created which were development plans for a a project for a project. Yes. Not here's an existing asbuilt of the existing I guess warehouse building would be no question you know it was a large open
space with two two floors of open space so uh there was a little tiny room um that was used as an office but uh as far as I recall but most of the building was empty you know but there's no record then of exactly
where the existing walls were in relationship to each other I don't believe there you know He I think James Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. I said I said I I think what James testified to is that he he doesn't know and he didn't prepare anything.
I I I I think he's answered the question. Um I don't know if we have the seller floor plan available here. Can you explain what in your seller floor plan previously existed and what was created as part of the new construction?
There was an existing seller there in that area. Uh where the stairs go down, which is on the left, the top corner where you see the little circle is a sump pump that was put in. So what is that gray rectangle? That is where the garage floor is.
I'm sorry. I I apologize. That is the garage floor. That's the garage, correct? Did you say the garage door? Floor. I'm sorry. Can you show us where the garage door is? It's in the front of the building at the Yes. There you go.
Ah, so they do they come in the garage comes in on the on the ground floor exactly where it used to. Okay. And so that gray area is is it just not excavated? Correct. Uh it's not excavated. So that wall at the very bottom of that
drawing that's next to the non-exavated area, is there a reason it's shown as a wall? Is there actually a wall buried in there? Uh, I'm not clear. Okay. So, my understanding is that the gray area is is solid. It's not excavated. There's nothing underneath
the first floor garage there. Um, correct. There are screw pilings that we had to put in during construction. And but it is showing a wall. It's showing a foundation at that level. Okay. And and that is existing there. Yes. Okay. So, and how do you know that? I just I'm just curious because it's
filled in. I'm just curious. Did you excavate down to see that it was there? No, there's a seller on the other side of it that goes down. I'm sorry. Wait a second. I for some reason you said there's a seller. Yes, there was a there was an existing seller. You could see it right on the other side where they had electrical and
plumbing in the water. I can't and I apologize. Please explain to me. I'm getting very confused about this. Let me go over to the screen. Mike, you want to take a mic now? Let's finish the witness. where the ar where the arrow is located right now is an existing cellar that was there.
That was there. Yes. Okay. So, underneath it is the gray area that is solid that was never excavated. Right. Correct. And below that, just move the cursor down. There's the exterior wall of the building. Uhhuh. Does maybe it doesn't indicate It looks to me like this indicates a full
foundation all the way down. Yep. And so if that gray area is all full of dirt, how do you know that that wall is there? We did test bits. Okay. And that's fine. My father's an archaeologist, so that's why I was curious. So, you did do test pits. Can you show us roughly where the
test pits were with the cursor? Uh, no, I could not. Um, they were randomly throughout. Um, we did several on each side to to uh determine the basement um the depth of the footing. Um, and it went down far below what we
uh we were doing. Yes. Okay. No, that's very interesting. And it went down. It went down. It went down below what I guess you you'd expected, but I think it probably at one time it was all excavated out was excavated out. That that would be my um my impression.
Okay. Very interesting. Um so then is there anywhere excavated out now that was solid when you started working on the building? And in the past it might have been there might have been full seller, they might have filled it
with dirt. We don't know. But did did did did did your drawings in increase that square footage of the below ground area that we're looking at now? Uh, you know, I
I don't know. Don't know. Mr. Lumpy just uh for reference I think what I think everybody's trying to get at is the board approved plans didn't reference a seller but the as bills and the show reference a seller so they're
um now the the seller the seller was all already there even in the rear signature sets you know I'm trying to think back of what the original building was like there um if you don't know just say if you Just
I'm going to say I don't know, but I know for sure there was a seller there uh at that elevation because there was a water. But you don't know the size of the cellar. Um it went beyond what it what is caged over there. I'm sorry. What is caged? That which not caged, but you know what? No, I don't.
That front area in the top corner. The seller was beyond that. So you just moved the cursor. You're you're right now you're pointing the cursor. Well, you're moving it again. So, when you say this seller was beyond that, can you show me what you mean by this and
that? Um, I'm not going to be able to tell you exactly where the original seller went, but the rest um let's make this very simple. Yes, I'm the seller was expanded from what was
there. Is that accurate or inaccurate? It is probably slightly expanded. Um, I think there was there was a wood floor on that level and there was you could barely walk underneath of it from what I recall. I don't know how much you know
the lot was taken to put in the screw pilings and stuff. So, and is it your testimony that what was approved at the top dated or identified on the drawing is H18-216
approved 09320 is the same footprint as the asbuilt below it because again to council's point there's no dimensions. I'm I'm sure for that 100%. Yeah. I didn't change the they didn't change the
so for for for example because because council is exactly this is I am less skillfully trying to get to the same thing um the quite square portion towards our right of the drawings that shows a little reoriented staircase
coming down into it. My understanding is that that's essentially the living area if you will of the ground floor unit. Yes. And it is below the grade of some other rooms in that unit. Yes. So the ground floor unit is to a degree
a duplex. Uh that back area is there's a mezzanine area in that. Um and was that shown as excavated? And this is going to be two
two-point question. Was that shown as excavated on the proposed plans that were approved? It was always shown on the proposed approved plans. Okay. And did it change in any way other than the
orientation of the little stairs between the approval and the asill? I'm going to say no, but uh that's best of my recollection. Okay. Mr. Cornwell, is your testimony from your recollection? I'm your testimony with respect to what was
approved versus what was constructed is it doesn't appear and you're not showing us the original plan, right? Are you going from your memory? No, that the top drawing is the approved
drawing and the bottom drawing is um when I went back and I made corrections to what was approved. Um do you recall whether the approved drawing showed the actual floor level of
that entire lower level of the building or of any part of it? Uh yes I do because we have sections we had sections that we had to submit at the time. Okay. Do you have any of those sections available now for us to see? Uh I only have available what we submitted.
It's on the it's on the portal the the approved at least the original but I I know it's going to be a pain in the butt to upload. So I don't I'm just saying there's there's Put it this way. I've noticed discrepancies but I don't want to testify about them. I was hoping I could get from Mr.
Okay. Uh, I'm going to say that council, how much longer do you have for Mr. Corwell? I didn't think this was going to take this long and you know, frankly, well, if you weren't trying to trip me up, let's say it seems to me there's a there's a I don't know here. We'll see if we can if we can straight
if you're straightforward. One of your questions as I am to testify. That's why Okay, Mr. was laughing. But how much longer? Look, I think just like three minutes. Um, all right. So, um, the asphelt drawings do not indicate where the new
services are located. Can you explain where the new electrical service sprinkler, fire, pump, and other utilities are located? Yes, they're all in the cellar, which is that top right hand uh left hand corner
where the stairs are coming down. and were in the in the upper drawing, which as I understand as proposed, were they all showed in their current locations that they're shown now in the plans as proposed that were approved?
Yes, the the approved drawings had um all of the mechanicals uh displayed within the drawing. So, not something that was going to put in the as drawing. Um, can you There is a small I will use the technical term doohickey at the in
the new asbuilt along the bottom wall. Yep. You're coming down towards it. That thing that looks like a gas pump or something. Can you can you tell me what that is? Well, that was put in because that specifically was a change from what was approved. That is the uh forced hair um mechanical unit and that's hung from the
ceiling in that location. Hung from the ceiling. Are the others on the floor? The other ones are in the apartments. They're in the They're in the apartments, but they're on the floor of the apartments in each individual apartment. Okay. So, like closet, right? We're looking at the at the I
don't know, basement, ground floor, lowest level of the building. And I'm seeing some things within circles that look like pumps and equipment. The things that look like a circle and they have a dot in the middle are some pumps. Okay. And can you show us where the electrical equipment is? It's in the
cellar along that upper um Yep. Right pretty much where the arrow is. Okay. But it's not shown on the plan. That's where the original uh meters were and that's where our new ones are. And do you have mechanicals for the sprinkler system? Can you tell us where those are?
They're in that location on the opposite wall. And they're on the wall. Yes. Is that that thick black line there? No, that is something that was added different from the approval. That's why this in the drawing. Um, it's a electric baseboard heat that they put down there. Oh. And is any of this within 2 ft of
the floor? Uh, I don't recall the location exactly of the electrical heat. Okay, we'll we'll find that out. Um, here we go. Did you know that the property is in a flood zone? Um, I believe so.
And are you aware that there are regulations that govern what could be built in a flood zone? Mhm. Was is that a yes? Yes. Okay, I'm done with you. Thank you very much. Thank you guys. Thank you. Thank you. Just uh question. Sure.
Just real quick. So under the conditions that were submitted to or put on the portal February 19, 2025, it said that um at the time um so the last sentence in the first
paragraph says said recommendations are attached and include conditions requiring the applicant to request and be approved for deviations from the approved plan set prior to work being uh undertaken. Then specifically of the
16, number 14 says any and quote any changes or deviations any changes or deviations from the approved drawings are to be clearly bubbled on the construction drawings and noted in an
accompanying signed and sealed letter from the architect addressed to staff. Mhm. So earlier I think, and I'm not going to ask Michael to read back, but I think I heard you say that there were some changes where this was going on. Would
they ever uh submit it to a HPC or to planning staff? I I don't believe so, but I was not um retained during construction. Well, the fair. Well, the only thing then maybe you can clarify this is because it says
under item 11, the architect James Cornell U. It says shall be retained during construction and shall submit a signed and sealed letter representing and noting the site's construction was consistent with work approved under the
final certificate of appropriateness which never it didn't get approved or denied. It just floated in media's rest. Right. Okay. or planning board approval before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Yes. So at what point did I mean so if 11
says that you were retained during construction? Um the project went on for several years. So it was a very difficult situation and um
I did submit the changes to HPC um in a letter form and with the asbuilt drawings bubbled. When was that? Because this letter saying and Maggie O'Neal testified earlier at the request of the CO.
When was that? At the point we requested a CO before February 19, 2025. I couldn't tell you the date. That's this year. Well, I think we requested a CO a year or more ago, right? I mean, I don't have the act dates in front of me.
I uh I don't recall when the CO was issued the exact date, but I I think that condition was somewhat complied with because a CO wasn't issued. We didn't get we didn't get a permanent CO on the building because because James submitted the
there were things that didn't match. Right. But obviously when we are applying for a CO construction is complete. Correct. Yes. So correct. In theory everything has already been finished and now we're submitting and we shouldn't be
submitting plans with changes at coing. Right. That should happen prior. Absolutely. But it sounds like it didn't happen until we were applying for a CO. The applicant was applying for a CO. That's correct. So I have a follow-up question to
Commissioner um Leiski and maybe I didn't hear this. You Mr. Cornell, you said you were not retained during construction. you know, it was um I I can't it's hard to believe. Um but
the project started in 2016 and it went through lots of issues, different contractors. Um it's just no way to be fully involved in a project for that long. So then my question to Mr. Joseph is who
was the architect on file during the absence? I was on file. You were still on file. But you were not retained. I I wasn't it wasn't I can couldn't go to the site every day for seven years or
whatever day it was was you know it's just not not practical. So your name was on file but you were not physically visiting the site if if that is correct. I I had visited the site um on several
occasions but um yeah I don't know what what else to say. Can I ask one more? I'm sorry. Thank you. The punch out windows that were originally on the side elevations they they weren't put in right. No, all of those most of those L
items in that list were part of what the then submitted approved drawings took care of. Okay. Was that was that because of the construction code? Just curious. Uh that was because we couldn't never get a a full quorum with the HPO. Um and then it
went to planning uh and then uh instead uh and there were some recommendations for things to be changed during that meeting I believe. Uh and that's when those items were listed out. Okay. Thanks.
So, do you recall when you were um uh retained for construction? Is there a specific date or time? Well, let me back that up if you don't mind. My my apologies. How I mean, are you the owner of the property? I am not the owner of the property.
Fair enough. Then that's good. So, at what point were you retained? Um, it was sort of an open thing where then when there was an issue, um, I I came to the site to try to help rectify it. No, no, that's not my question. I mean, it wasn't it wasn't something like it wasn't retained. That's all I
could say. If maybe I could just try to cut cut through this, right? So, James, you you were you were retained to work on the project. You were retained at one point. Yes. for for HPC for planning for construction and because the project drew on for so long there were periods
of time where maybe you were not fully retained for right because there's times where nothing happened you know for a year or so yeah maybe your maybe your retainer ran out maybe some something to that effect is what you're trying to say right correct y
but here we have a letter from Mr. O'Neal who spoke earlier and it in the uh memo on February 19th of this year saying that um Mr. Cornell should be
retained or shall be retained during construction and shall submit certain things. So, but and then when you're then when you're both saying it's like I mean it it just I mean I'm I obviously Michael can't read my hand. So um um you
know but saying I'm retained I'm not retained I'm I'm some things are not happening things are happening I mean either you're the commanderin-chief or you're not right you can't be half pregnant right you either are or you're not are correct yeah I mean James was the
architect of record throughout the the pendency of of this of this project okay next chair get your question and we have to take a break. All right. To get your question. I have a question.
During this saga that you were going through Mhm. anytime did you ever have any correspondence going back to the contractor or the owner of the property about the situation where you were retained, not retained?
No. No. Um, I don't think I had any conversations about that, but I did have conversations with um at least the uh the second contractor uh at various points, but um there were issues with that contractor. Go ahead.
And and I apologize. I have two more very quick questions based on what he was just testifying to. Um were you retained to design this building? Yes. And you had mentioned you were working
off plans. Did you work off those other plans or was this your design? This is my design. Okay. Thanks. That's that's what I thought. Um, you know that the the the TCO was issued my notes are May 24 and expired July 24. Do you do you know whether or not that's true? Because I
mean I'll put in all the rest if you don't know. Do you know what the current status is? No. Do you know what the building occupied? Is there a year on those months? Yeah. May 2024 and would have expired in July 2024. Fair enough. Thanks.
Um but he said he doesn't know and I'm asking and so he didn't know and that's okay. I just if he did I would get it in through him. Um do you and do you know of the current status of CO or TCO? Steve, do you want to speak to that? Well, it's a question or don't know.
I don't know. Okay. And do you know is the building occupied? I don't know. Oh, okay. Yeah. So I just have one follow-up question in regards to the retain. You were retained by the project manager or you were retained by the owners?
By the owner. By the owners. And when you went to for site visit and you see what was happening there, did you not inform the owners? There wasn't anything typically out of typical construction that was happening there. you know, there was
So then how we ended up with an approve and an asbuilt. Um those are slight field changes that were made during construction. They're not big changes to the project. The bulk department did not change in size or
scale and it's the same approved square footage. Um the same basic layout. The layouts are not very different. It was just a change uh based on a few items like mechanical unit uh mechanical
system changes. Um there's no uh major changes to it. And so you you you didn't find it necessary for um those changes to be informed planning.
Uh, you know, typically changes happen all the time during construction to layouts and they're submitted as the outbuilt asbuilt drawings. They weren't changing the square footage or intent of the project, but especially this is somewhat part of a historic
um part of it as well. Well, nothing happened to the front of the building, which is what historic's involved with. Thank you. Mhm. Any other questions for Mr. Cornell? No, not at Okay. So, we'll take a 10 minutes break, sir.
Thank you. All right. Back. Next witness. All right. Um, next witness. Uh, we're going to bring George Weiner up to testify about the, uh, fire escape. He is the architect who worked with the Hoboken building department in designing
the fire escape. Get you sworn in. Tonight is gonna be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do. George Winer we ei have we qualified you before? Uh number of years ago.
Okay. Is your license current? Yes. Good standing. Can you just give us some of your background and how you're related to the project for for the record? Um, I was brought in uh by the owner uh
specifically to uh address the issue of uh a secondary means of egress, that is to say, a fire escape uh from the rear of the building. And that's in conjunction with your license as a licensed architect. Yes. Okay. Uh, Madame Chair, I think that we
can qualify the gentleman as an architect and his testimony is with respect to the fire escape on this particular project as well as whatever history he has with fire escapes. Is that a fair characterization of your
participation in the project? Uh, yes. Okay, it's fair. Okay, you're qualified. You may proceed. So, George, help us out here. tell us a little bit of the history about the fire escape, about the interactions with the
building department, about why this particular fire escape was designed the way it was, how it got approved by by Hoboken. Um, just let's just start with a little brief history of how we got to where where we are. Mr. Weiner, were you
brought in at the beginning of the project? When were you brought into the fold, if you will? I'm the caboose on this. Uh, at the tail end, it was pretty much a fatal comple. Uh, we have done a
number of fire escape inspections and fire fire escape designs specifically over the years both in Jersey City as well as in Hoboken and and uh we hawken and areas of that nature. Um we uh are expert in the uh the requirements for
fire escapes which basically is the FTO3 uh guidelines which uh basically set out what is a legal fire escape. Um there's a lot of language in there that allows for interpretation uh by the building
code official in the case of unusual uh geometry andor circumstances which in this particular case uh was the case. So when do you get introduced to the project? At what stage in the project? Prior to the project
originally being approved or just help me out. uh I would say sometime within the last six to seven months uh when the building was was uh in substantial completion um and we were specifically looking only
at the rear uh area for the secondary means of egress. The front of the building could not be used was not doable. Uh moreover, it's an historic district, so that that's a secondary uh requirement to to to make the rear exit
work. Uh the rear glazed walls uh were the main barrier for doing a conventional fire escape, which would be something where you'd hang it off the wall. There'd be a basket, uh a stair, another basket, and a drop ladder.
That's a conventional fire escape. Okay. Okay. And FTO3 uh sets guidelines for the angles of the stairs uh not to exceed 60° but typically 45° when doable. The baskets have to be 5 ft
uh wide. The stairs have to be 22 in wide. The landings have to be 3 feet minimum. what we uh tried to do uh was something that uh worked with the geometry of the
building. But can I just respectfully interrupt? So if you were brought in 6 months ago and are is are the fire uh in in egresses or the fire escapes were they already in place?
They were not. They're not. So they're not there's no fire at that point. The building was not occupied. There was no So 6 months ago there's no occupants. Well, no. So I I did want to correct uh George a little bit there. His his timeline may be a little bit off because we've been this application's been pending for for 6 to 8 months. So So
George, you were you were brought in at at the time. I I believe that the applicant was told that the proposed fire escape on the original approved plans would not work and that something else needed to be fabricated to make it
work. Right. So, it's probably almost a year almost a year ago or more at at this point. But in any case, the rear the rear facade was completed. Uh there was no fire escape or fire stair or a ladder uh
that had originally been proposed. Apparently, um there was nothing in place and the building was not occupied at that point. But to council's point is you were brought in to look at what was proposed versus and what could work
versus what may not work. Correct. Correct, George. I would say that's fair except that I uh I had not seen the the the the ladder that had been proposed. Um subsequently it was explained to me what what the
idea was. It was a kind of a hinged uh ladder which would be a nice thing if it was approvable. But um FTO3 limits a drop ladder or a ladder per se uh to maximum 12 ft. So it doesn't sound like they presented
plans to you per se to review and say okay that makes sense or doesn't. It was more discussion. It was more a uh how to create something that would be a workable uh fire escape that could be approved by a building code official
within the last year. Yes. So to follow up on that, so the design currently that existed is um approved by code. Yes. Okay. It was approved by the uh Okay. So it it
was deferred from Jersey City to Hoboken because uh they wanted to make have a clean uh review that didn't have any potential for conflict of interest for any other reasons. Um, we had done this
type of a solution on u a 12-unit condominium in Hoboken where the ladders were excessive. Um, and we did it on uh one or two other buildings as well over the course of the last 10 years. Let's just say uh the language of the FTO3
allows for latitude and interpretation by the the local code official if it's justified. We were we tried to make something that was uh as safe as possible. Um given the constraints of the uh of the
the glazed openings back there, you really can't run a fire escape in front of glass that could that could potentially shatter. Um that was Can you just explain that 12 foot? You said it can't exceed 12 feet.
Drop ladder. the last. So I can't have a 14 foot drop ladder. Is that accurate? No. There's a lot of pre-existing non-conforming. But if you're doing a new fire escape, you need to adhere as closely as you can to the FTO3 guidelines
which requires no more than 12 ft. Exactly. In a drop ladder, right? So if they're sectional or combined uh any the last that last ladder going
from uh from the basket to grade. Okay. And in this particular case, we found a section that had brick which is toward the center where we basically proposed a 5x5 platform
and basically supported by uh 3x3 steel with with footings. um allowing uh access beneath uh so that you did not have to drop your head. Uh and so that last part of the
platform was raised enough so that somebody could walk by. It also aligned with the first floor uh spandrel there. Um the solutions that we had proposed and were reviewed by the building department
and the fire department in Hoboken in these uh the former projects that we had done always had a requirement from the platform that was then built that it have a fixed stair to grade as opposed to a ladder.
So, in effect, we we turned the project on its head and had a a fixed ladder to an outside n uh non-combustible uh platform, which was that terrace on the uh on the second floor and uh and
then a basket with a uh a ladder to the platform. Now, by then, we've relied on two ladders and a stair to grade. And that these were the parameters that had uh passed muster between the building
department and the fire department and uh in the subsequent projects because they could make an interpretation due to the conditions so that they would on the side of life safety. The stair was put in the direction of
egress to uh in a smoky condition allow people to move in the correct direction to the west. Uh secondarily uh in a worst case they could go over the uh the fence into the and and vice versa. uh if
the fire department needed to to make a short uh short circuit to get into uh fight fight the property uh fires the there is access underneath at a three-foot pathway clear to be able to
make their your way through uh uh to for the adjacent property. Can you elaborate on that 3T where are we talking? Okay. So, if we're looking at the rear elevation, uh there is one building to the right before there is a
fence that goes into backyards. So, uh assuming that that those that uh Hardy had to take a secondary egress into this back rear easement area, which is approximately 5'6 width, and it has a batten wall. It's kind of stepped um
toward the uh the school. Um, one could then uh move uh in a in a straight line uh with a three-foot. You'd have to deviate just slightly uh going by the stair uh and then uh that was that
allowed for uh the egress. We secondarily also added uh exterior lighting uh so that in the event of uh it was nighttime uh there would be a a lit exit way and that was required by
the building department as well as well. So if I'm following your testimony the staircase is necessary because that is Hey, Mr. Lewis. Uh, we're bringing up uh we're going to
bring up some Okay, but I'm looking at a drawing in question. Apologize. I'm sorry. You guys are killing us. The staircase in the asbuilt that exceeds that 12 ft in height
from the platform. Yeah. From the Okay. So, there is a terrace on the uh if we're looking at the Yeah. There there is a terrace where we had uh we have cut that out and put a basket that projects out a little bit so that there is now a
ladder that goes from that small basket right down to our 5'5 platform. Understood. Less than 12 ft. Correct. Okay. So now I'm on the platform and there's a staircase, right? Why can't that be a ladder? Because that staircase is greater than 12 ft. Uh no
it it's because as I had explained before the review on on our uh former projects where we had something where we had a ladder going down to keep that to 12 ft meant that we had
to then create a new landing which is that platform right and the platform had to have a fixed stair at that juncture That was the precedent that we had to make that a landing to make it comply with the 12 feet to it.
Right. Okay. All right. But it also allowed for clearance underneath. We could have made it lower. The ladder could have been a little bit from the from the second floor to this. We could have gone down a little lower, but that would have impeded the
movement. Now, the reason the staircase is necessary is because without the staircase, that platform doesn't qualify exactly for the 12 ft from the floor above. Exactly. Now, understood. Playing uh playing devil's advocate,
if we were to do a fire escape, we would have had to have had posts all the way down supporting the baskets and everything else because we can't we couldn't hang it off the building. It's all glass. Okay. Then the the death null on that
one is that a blast of glass would would make it unsafe to to go by that going down a stair. So this really logically was the uh the safest thing we could come up with that was as close to the FTO3 uh as we could
make it. So just for purposes of the record, the building is constructed and you get a phone call or an email. I have a secondary mean of egress issue.
I hear that you are an expert in this field. Can you take a look at this? Is that fair? Yes, that's fair. And you then look at do you go to the site?
Yes. And you see this rear wall. You see the glass. Obviously with your expertise, you understand immediately what the issue is. Is that fair? Yes. And you understand? Yeah. We can't have
hanging ladders. I know why. Uh, and then you're retained to attempt to address this with the fire and building department in Hoboken. Is that fair? Yes, that's correct.
Okay. Do you then interface with the fire official and the building department in Hoboken with various sets of drawings or ideas? Yes, we we prepare a drawing uh with
input from contractors. So there's some feedback on the practicality of uh of the the actual detail. Um and we submit to the building department. Um we sit
down with them. uh we submit an application along with it explaining the uh need for a variation. We are granted a variation uh and we have signed a document that uh
that shows our our application plus the the actual variation that was approved by them. council, is that in the packet? Um, the variation document. I I'm not sure if that's in the packet that's on
one of the printouts I have today. Mr. Lewis, I hope you're scrolling to find that because you know it's in the packet. And you shouldn't be sharing the screen either. We have this and we have my other application which is yours.
So, we're bringing this up. I believe this is in one of the many submissions on the portal, but I I don't recall specifically. If it is, you may. This is the application that I Is this what's on the screen?
Yes. Okay, council. Yes. This is the application. The variation was then subsequently submitted. There should be something. So I All right. What
councel? I suspect that you might want to say something. I just want to ask this is going to be marked as an exhibit. I didn't want to interrupt but Okay. And I apologize because I was taking notes and trying to listen. Um and I do
have some questions actually on this whole train of thought when I get the chance to cross exam. I'm not going to object to it. I just want to make sure that it's that it's marked as an exhibit. So, who's controlling the screen, Mr. Lewis?
Are you able to zoom out or do you have a cropped image? Ah, good. I know it's shocking, but I'm old enough to still work in paper. So, I'm marking
the paper copy as A4. If the witness could identify this for the record, this is an application for a variation for the the fire escape uh assembly that
uh I designed uh that describes the justification uh for uh the variation from the FTO3 guideline. Now sir, this down the bottom
looks like it was signed by a building subcode official with a date of March 15, 2024. Do you see that? That's correct. Above it, it looks like somebody wrote
in beautiful penmanship, applicant statement. Please state the requirements of the sub code from which a variation is sought. Rear yard fire escape conformance with FTO-3.
Did I read that correctly? Yes. Existing conditions PN glass curtain wall npn do not allow for installation of brackets for a basket. Period. Did I read that correctly? Yes. Did you write that?
Yes. And that was the requirement of the sub code from which the variation is sought. Yes. Next question. On the application, how would compliance with said provision result in practical difficulties?
Explain the nature and extent of these difficulties. Did I read that correctly? Yes. A drop ladder would not be allowable from second floor since it would be 25 ft long. Period. Did I read that correctly? Yes. Please state an alternative to the
sub code requirement that will still protect the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants. Full colon. Did I read that correctly? Yes. A platform with post supports allowing adequate headroom for egress. Fixed stair to grade from platform and fixed
ladder to second L. Did I read that correctly? Yes. Is that your signature, sir? Yes. Do you have any reason to believe that you did not sign this on March 11th, 2024? I do not. Did you sign this on March in 2024?
And you submitted this to who, sir? Uh to the U. Hoboken building department, uh the construction official, Mario Patuno, uh the building subcode official,
Dominic Luna Nova, and the fire subcode official uh James Hernandez. And do you have any reason to believe that those are not their signatures on the bottom of this page? I do not. Th those are their signatures.
And do you have any reason to believe that those three individuals did not sign off on this on 315204? Uh they they did. And what does that mean?
That means they approved the design that was submitted which is the which was what was con subsequently sub constructed uh which which would not have gone forward without such approval because this they did issue a building
permit. And what is the next step in the process after they sign off on the application for a variation? They uh submit a u an approved variation
uh a form that states that the variation is approved and they uh it is signed uh by them as well. I had submitted it to one of these gentlemen three months ago um that's in this room and I you know I can certainly make sure that I
get another one from Maria Patruno because they have that in their file. Yeah, I think it's important because it says under the determination says the application is to be reviewed within 20 business days. So I suspect that happened. But then it says after
reviewing the facts, we parenthesis deny or parenthesis grant. And there's no check box in either deny or grant. So like the historic preservation, they came to a 42. It wasn't approved, but it wasn't denied. It was sort of
again like this whole application in a Yeah, I apologize for not having a copy of that, but it definitely exists and and on so so again, I don't recall if this specific document is in one of the many submissions that that we made, but what is in in the submissions that
we made is the the final building approval from from them approving of of the fire escape. Can you show that to us? Um, it's it's on the portal. We could have Jeff pull it up, but we have I
could pass this around, too. This is We're gonna mark it. Council you like paper cuz I love paper. So, A4 is the application. So, so or a variation
A5. So this is the the probably should have handed it to me first council. Apologize. Sorry. It's interesting reading. So that that is on the portal. Printed it off from the portal this morning.
Take this back. Council, can I read it? No. No. has evidence. I touched it on it. Mr. Lewis, do you have the uh looks like the permit sticker?
That's This I believe was on the portal. Mr. Lewis, it was on the portal. He would have to download it um from the portal. It's not one of the He has to download it from the portal. You keep looking at me, council. I'd have it on a flash drive, but this, you
know, I'm just I actually don't have internet here. You never do. This isn't a new room, Mr. Lewis. Okay. You guys should see me in a deposition.
Just the way you just the way you can just imagine flying a wall beating up somebody. Oh, it's so much fun. used to be a judge. Judges. No, he's not a judge.
He fight So council a question while they're uh hunting um on condition 15 it says upon approval of the certificate by the certificate of appropriates I guess by the HPC or an approval granted by the
Jersey City Planning Board deviations from the granted approval as must be approved by the HPC except in cases of emergency affecting public safety, health, and welfare. Does uh this fall
under that umbrella? So, we're getting through all of that testimony and we're going to make decisions as to when certain things would have needed to
be brought and approved. But uh I think the applicant has stipulated that they didn't necessarily follow that idea. The only thing I'm trying to
say is is when I filter this in my limited brain, will I use the measure of an emergency affecting public safety, health, and welfare? Is that a fair enough? Um
Yeah, like a tool to determine whether or not this fell under a an appropriate approach, at least under this particular item. So, we're going to help you answer that question. I love you. Thank you.
Okay. up on the screen. City of Hoboken 87 bright permit number 20193141 plus B approval for building fire escape checked off final 2-3-25 with the initials
of an inspector. I read that correctly, sir. Yes. Council, I'm marking this as A5. Council, any objection to me marking this as A5? None whatsoever. My client has been waving her copy of it.
All right. I believe I saw this on the portal as well. Uh sir, what are we looking at? Uh this indicates uh the building department approval for construction uh
of this this fire escape. So A4 was the application for variation seeking to be permitted to construct the fire escape that you testified to was actually constructed at the site at your
design and direction. Is that fair? That's fair. And that was in March of 2024 and it was signed off by the officials. Is your testimony that yes, those officials granted the variation. Commissioner
properly pointed out that it was not checked deny or granted. You say there is another step in the process where after the application for the variation is granted. There's a variation actually
issued. That's a document that you don't have here this evening. But one better than that document as you've stated is here's the approval of that fire escape. Is that fair? That's fair. And the variation was sought in March of
2024 and the actual fire escape was constructed and then approved in February of 2025. Is that fair? Yes, that's fair. And do you know whose initials those are
on A5? DL would be Dominic Luna Nova who is the building subcultic for Hobogen. who is one of the gentlemen that signed the actual application for the variation. So that is A5
council. I still want that piece in between sir. Do you have any other testimony or information that you'd like to present to the board? No, I do not. So, there were some photographs that I think council, you're
going to want to have the witness go through and explain. Sure. So, uh, Jeff, if you could pull those up at this time. So, this was submitted to the portal. This is on portal. Um, we're just going to pull up
some photos of the uh, fire escape. Um, we're going to show this from a few different angles. There's some some measurements on on here as well. Well, Jeff, maybe the next one I think is a little bit better. Yeah, there you go. Um, so George,
is there one without dimensions on it? Yeah. Uh, let's start at the beginning. Pull that one up, please. I think it was the the last Is that the whole screen, Jeff? It looks pretty good. All right. So,
so this is the four posts. So, those are threeinch diameter posts uh with uh Sir, let's qualify the photograph. Did you take this photograph? I did not. Are you familiar with the site? Yes. Are you familiar with the fire escape? Yes.
Does this accurately depict the fire escape as constructed? Yes, it does. When was the last time you were at the site? Uh about February, March. And when you were there in February, was this what the fire escape looked like? Yes.
Okay. Uh and this was obviously the result of your design and the approvals A4 and A5. Yes. Okay. Uh we're going to mark this one is A6.
I'm going to identify it as photograph. How should we identify it, sir? Direction perhaps? Uh direction uh west facing west. B. Uh, yeah. Elevation toward the west.
Okay. Uh, so again, our objective was to um have a minimal impact on the on the design. Um but what you what you don't see behind that brick spandrel that horizontal band which is about looks to
be about 18 in is that uh left side of the photograph right right side. Yeah. Uh is that there's a glass wall uh and frame behind that. So that's really just a uh what would you call it? A cav, you know,
a spandrel. U it's not structural. uh and so uh trying to tie brackets into that would have been uh not doable. Uh and that was the decision that we uh came to. Solution being a four poster uh
with separate uh column points uh 3-in by 3 in steel uh as close to the building as possible but allowing for the uh proper footings. a 42 inch deep. So when you say we came to the decision,
who's we uh collaborated with the uh with the contractor uh to make sure that we had our best uh solutions and is it your understanding the only authority you needed to present this to was Hoboken?
Yes. Did you have any u Did you work out these plans beforehand with Hoboken at all with fire in Hoboken? I I worked them I worked them out uh and
presented signed and sealed drawings to the building department four copies which is their typical requirement for review. Uh they reviewed it and uh we had a meeting. Okay. uh and the fire department as well as the fire sub code official uh
participated in the um approval of this particular design. So that was going on between A4 in March of 2024 review process construct and then sign
off in February of 2025. So 11 month span interacting with the city officials regarding that's fair. Here's the project. Here's what I'm doing. And them saying yes, this is Yes. Acceptable. Perfect. Okay.
Okay. Next photograph. Council. Yeah. That one. This, you know, shows how the door is an inswinging door. The prior presentation by uh Mr. Cornell. Let's identify the photo. A7.
Which way is this photo facing? You were looking east. And to the left shows an inswinging door. Um, wow. So that inswinging door
is the door that we were discussing on the ground floor as built and the potential conflict between that staircase and the door. really. It wouldn't have hit the door. If it's if it were to swing open, it
wouldn't have hit the door because we do the door is about is a three-foot, I believe. Um, but the door wouldn't hit the staircase. It would not have hit the staircase, but it could conceivably have impeded somebody moving uh toward uh us when
we're looking at the photograph if it were to swing out. But it does swing in. Okay. Can it swing out or it can only swing in? Do you know? I am I don't know, but I I assume it would only swing in.
Okay. And anything else about this photograph that's significant to you or to us? Well, I I think we went to great lengths to make sure that uh a person could walk underneath and have a three-foot
clearance be able being able to work their way uh through that area, which we are all uh recognizing does not belong to uh the bu the property. It's an easement. It's a continuous easement.
Okay. Council, do we have a copy of that easement by any chance? It was on the portal, but I am sure we are going to to get to that as well. Do we have you have any questions about this, Mr. Joseph? I I do want to show the photos with the
dimensions as well. If we're ready to move on to the next one. Okay. I also believe that the school was apprised of uh the design and they did not uh they did not have any objection to it.
As you're there on the right, you can see how the wall steps so it gets wider to the right. All right. So, this is going to be marked as A8. Can you identify this photograph? Uh, this uh photograph is looking toward the east. Uh on the right is clearly
shown a batten uh wall uh which is uh on the school property as is the rear yard. Uh it shows that there is 36 inch clear from the building to the edge of the stair. uh and the the stair width of 24
in. Uh something I think we had one post or one edge there that had a if you looked at it this orthogonally that is straightforward. Uh we see a slightly
narrower uh I think that's a 34 inch. But uh if if you if you did you mark this photograph sir? No, I did not. The measurements were taken by the uh the owner of the property, the applicant.
Is that individual going to testify to these measurements? No. Okay, take this photograph off the screen. I'm unmarking A8. Sir, there was a photograph that apparently somebody had placed
dimensions on. When you designed this fire escape, you prepared a drawing. Did it show the dimension between the face of the wall and the staircase?
Yes. Did it show the dimensions within the space underneath the uh landing? Yes. Did it show the dimension between all four of the posts?
Yes. Did it show I believe you testified 42 in footings deep? Yes. 42 in deep for those four posts that hold the landing. Right. Right. Did it show that footing diagram and the
dimension of those footings? Yes. Council, do you have those documents? I I don't have those documents. No. Okay. Hope building department has them. But you had prepared them, sir. Yes. So, you would have copies of them. I
would have a PDF of him. Uh I could right basically get in in your file as well. Yes. Okay. I would like to see a copy of that council. my expert. Can
Thank Let me ask it this way. Do you object to the dimensions in that photograph, that photograph with the red dimensional
markings um that board council has unmarked as exhibit AA? Yes, I do. Yes, I do object because as I understand, we will not be hearing from the person who actually drew those marks on. One of them I saw was 24 in. And I have a lot of questions about that. And I understand that this is it's not this
witness's creation. So, I do understand also that apparently there may be documents existing that people might be able to find copies of that might have dimensions that were drawn by this witness that he could testify to. Right. Um, so, you know, I I'm I'm not going to preclude the introduction of those at at
a later time. I would I do have some questions for this witness and actually you know right now I think there's something that's very important to straighten out again not to trip him up just to straighten out the record. We're going to get there but yes and so I'm saying I'll ask him about his testimony. I'll ask him if I can reserve I'll ask him next time.
Well so here's where I'm going. Right. I want to see the drawing that resulted in the staircase. Yes. Me too. Thank you. Uh, I'll put it to the board this way. I assume the board wants to see that. Absolutely. Yes.
So, I don't want to lose the 45 minutes I have left. Oh, is that is that all we have left? That's all we have left. Oh my god. Okay. Uh but that being said,
I want this and I want this at this juncture. Right? So in answer to the commissioner's question, there is a agreement
that's on the portal that I believe is a recorded easement. You want to mark that council? Do you object to that? Um, if you're referring to I am the the document that reduces the
existing easement to writing. Yep. Um, I have no objection to its authenticity and to marking it. Okay. I appreciate that. Very kind of shocking. Not making a big deal of something for once. Uh,
all right. So, we're going to mark Mr. Lewis. Are you pulling it up? I was looking for it. It's in this 54 inch slide deck. You got
it? charging everybody tonight. All three of them. We're adjourning right now. We're going to I'm just [Music] [Music]
Since we've stricken A8 from the record, we're now going to mark this document as A8. Council for purposes of the record. Do you want to identify number of pages? It looks like it's
with the cover page. Yeah. 12 12 total pages. It's a recorded uh easement executed between uh the owner of 87 Pre Street and the Jersey City Public Schools, the owner of the adjacent property.
Dated February 7th, 2020. Yes. Recorded on February 13, 2020 in book 9472, page 530, Hudson County Register. That's what I was looking up for. Yep. Yep. Okay. want to mark any of the letters maybe is
A9 or 10 council. Those you want to object to, right? Um I don't know what letters you referred to. Yes, you do. No, I don't actually. I really don't. I'm sorry. I've got a letter I'd like to mark. We're marking letters
and I've got a bunch of emails I'm going to mark and introduce, but I don't I don't know what we're talking about here and I'm not prepared to mark them. If we have to, I would prefer to do it with my witnesses. So, so at at this juncture, we're going to
go into discussing the the easement. That's what we want to do with the remainder of the time. So, given council has several witnesses and exhibits about this would you prefer not to do it now? I'm not going to tell you how to move your
case. I I I don't I don't see that we finish the discussion and the back and forth and the entering of all the exhibits about the easement. All right. At this point, I don't disagree. I appreciate it if you
guys could spare the board's time with either fighting or not fighting over and set up what's part of the record, right? As to what's the record? Yes, I think we can work that out. I think that the two of you can work that out.
The board's in pursuit of the truth. Are you right? And and the more we fight, fine. Everybody's got rights. But, you know, I think I think from the board's perspective, you know, we're probably going to allow
more than we're not going to allow and we can accept that things are as they're purported to be. Uh I don't think anybody's out here correct making up. Yes. That's why in I this is
I tell people I'm a trial lawyer and that I have panels of judges all the time, but what I don't have is the frigin weeksl long fights over an obvious document trying to get it in. Um so and I just the penny just dropped. I think you're talking about the letters
back and forth to the school relatively recently. Right. And I've got some of those myself. So, right. So you guys will work that out. We'll we'll work that out and perhaps with the remainder of the time we have we do have some brief planning testimony that might
be something we can get through. I have an immediate quick question for this witness. I apologize for bringing up again. I think it's a problem with the dates. That fire escape was up as of November 2023 and possibly before
then. And I think that Mr. WS while testified that that document his application that was I think signed 31124 and dated 31524 was before the construction. It was not. And I wanted
to give him a chance to clarify that. I'm not playing gotcha. I just want to make sure everybody knows what the timeline was. I'm sure there were documents that were exchanged before the stair was constructed and I'm sure he did that appropriately and that those drawings that we're talking about we'll
see when they were dated. But that document up there did not predate the staircase. It postdated it by at least five months and probably more like six, seven, eight, nine months whenever it actually was constructed. And it may be that you don't know when they actually built the stair. But I just wanted to
clarify that. I don't want to play gotcha. I just want to iron that out. It's been a long time. everybody's memory can play little tricks on them. So I think when he reviews his file and he gets his drawings, we'll we'll get clarity on that. Clarity on that. Very possible.
Yeah. Also, you stated on the record you came on about you said about a year ago to the or about there. Yeah. Something like that. I I understood when he said six or seven months that he came in six or seven months before the end of the construction. That was what I understood
and then I heard you say no six I I I think it was that staircase has been up for almost two years by now. So you must have been hired well before then. So So George will review his his records and with the other documents he's submitting prepare an accurate timeline.
That's that is fair because to the fact that the Haboken um letter submitted the work to be done was in March of 24. Right. So that's way over a year ago. It was clearly that March of 24 was
clearly postdating the erection of the existing stair. What documents predated it? I'd have to go back on the portal and see if they have stuff that's predated. I just don't know in my head. But that document was definitely long after the stair was
built. And I don't want the witness to have been led into an understandable human mistake by by his memory and you know by the exhibits and the discussion with with the board. Yeah. But what's problemsome about that is is that the document as is noted here and it's on the record was March of 24
and it and it neither has a check for denial or approval. Yeah. And it definitely that's why I think council and chairwoman wants that second step letter too. Right. So hello Lisa. Thank you. We're going to get whatever documentation there is and it's going to
be what it is and you know nobody's we're going to hear it and we'll figure out some things post date. It's not going to come as a shock to anybody. That's why we're here in the first place, right? We've obviously
done things that were not necessarily in the right order, but I think to your point is it it belabors the frustration of, you know, you've said that maybe two or three times today, council,
and here we are with this gentleman who just came up and spoke eloquently and uh and trying to get clarity. We've got more befulement. So agreed. I have one more question. Go ahead.
When this when you first came on the job, I believe I asked you this, but just for clarity because I'm getting a little confused. Was there any other type of a fire escape or anything like that? That was there anything before you got involved? I did not see anything. No.
Okay. All right. Uh, you know, I I did the plans and the work was done after the plans were approved. At your recollection. Okay. Do you know was the building occupied at that point? Mr. Cornell doesn't know. Do you know? I I'm not sure. I don't I know they were
they were still doing construction inside. Okay. It was not occupied before. All right, Cameron. [Music] I'm told it's September 30th. Yeah. Yep. Got to pay rent tomorrow.
I'm told told there's only four regular meetings left this year. That is correct. When can we carry this application to? My suggestion would be November 25th or
December 9th, whatever the board feels would be more suitable. Now, those are regular meetings. Those are regular meetings. Yes. Two days prior to Thanksgiving. Yes. So, is your concern that we may not have
a quorum two days before Thanksgiving? That's a legitimate concern. Any chance of another special? Not for me. We're going to go to no uh December 9th.
So mark your calendars and you guys are going to figure it out. You're going to come up with all the other documents and close the universe. At least for me.
Okay. Uh I I don't know what what to say. I I and I depend on Mr. Joseph. I mean, mine are, you know, mine are ready. Um and I'll mark mine as my as my my
witnesses go along. I wasn't expecting this. Okay. December 9th, 5:30. It is a regular meeting. Thank you everybody. Thank you.
Thank you. Ask you guys, what's your agenda going to be like on the 9th? Any chance you can kind of clear things out the way you did for us? Well, this would be under old business, so Mhm. Um
Right. I think there's a resolution. There's a resolution. All right. We just want to We're going to find this out right now. Can I move on with my resolution? Yes, please move on with your resolution. At this time, I have one resolution.
Resolution. City of Jersey City Planning Board. Case P2025-0159. Applicant is 279 Communa Realy LLC. Address is 279 Communa Avenue, New Jersey City, New Jersey. Block 20303,
lot 21 decided on September 9, 2025. Memorize on September 30th, 2025. Application for extension of existing approval. Can I get a second? Second. Roll call. Commissioner Stamato.
I. Commissioner Patel. Hi. Commissioner Lipsky. I. Commissioner Dr. Desai I and acting chair Gangadan I All right motion carries all in favor to memorialize resolution motion to adjourn or do we need executive
want to talk to Santo maybe amongst us I don't know if executive or not so we're going to have a meeting after this we're going to have we're going to have executive board would you like sure why not we got something to discuss right we can do it in that room right there we're going to
do that I think the cameras have to I'm going to make a motion to approve Santa board would like to have executive session. Okay. Like second, Madam Chair, at this time the board will go into
executive session. Can I have a second? Second. We'll return back in 10 minutes.