Good evening. I would like to call this meeting to order. It's a Jersey City Planning Board meeting. Today's Tuesday, March 31st, 2026. It's approximately 5:38 p.m. Can we all stand for the pledge of the allegiance?
>> I aliance 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. >> Thank you. Kim Sunshine announcements.
>> Yes, acting chair. Good evening everyone. Today is Tuesday, March 31st in the year 2026. This is a special Jersey City Planning Board meeting with a scheduled 5:30 p.m. start time. And in accordance with the open public meetings act, notice of this meeting has been
given to the editor of Bergen record, LS Balito, and posted with the city clerk on March 27th of 2026. 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. Can we have roll call, please? >> Yes. Commissioner Wick, >> here. Commissioner Stamato >> here. >> Commissioner Kaplan >> present. >> Patel >> here. >> And acting chair Gangadan
>> here. >> All right. We have five commissioners present. We have a quorum. >> Thank you. Can we swear in staff, please? >> You swear or affirm the testimony you're g in this proceeding will be the truth. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. Any correspondence? >> Yes, acting chair. Um the very last item on the agenda, this is item 21 under new business, case P 2024-000099 for a preliminary and final major site
plan with C variances and conditional use address 565 Communal Avenue has um requested to adjourn. They're going to renotice and the renoticing of their hearing is to a date uncertain currently. uh we're working out what
date to carry them to. So they are adjourned to a date uncertain and they will renotice and that is item 21. And that concludes correspondence and um for the record we've marked into evidence
the sunshine announcement as B1. >> Thank you. >> So Madam Chair, for purposes of the record, I see Mr. Joseph in the back of the room. Mr. Joseph, you confirm that case 21 is going to be adjourned. You'll be renoticing that application when a date is set.
>> That is correct. >> And of course, you wave all time for the board to act. Correct. >> We do. >> Thank you, Mr. Joseph. >> Thank you. >> Thank you to our old business. I'd like to call in case P2026-000012,
which is a one-year extension. Address is 241 MLK Drive. applicant is 241 MLK Drive. The attorney is Eugene Okcono. >> Yeah, thank you. Um, this is an application for an extension. It's the
second time we asked for an extension. Uh, the first time we need it because we're in the CO area. The applicant did run into a couple of issues, financing and some it's cost of the cost of materials. So, we just asked for an extension till October 5th, 2026 in order to pull our permits and get the
project started. Cool. >> That's your testimony. >> That's your request? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Any questions from the board? >> No. >> Staff.
>> Um, planning staff has reviewed the request for the extension. Um, we only ask that the applicant agree to all of the conditions that were part of the original resolution and that they will remain in effect on the resolution.
>> Agrees and they remain in effect. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Staff recommends approval. >> Thank you. I'd like to open for the public. Is there anyone from the public? >> See no one from the public. I'd like to close the public portion. >> Thank you. >> Second. Um, I'd like to make a motion to approve
case P2026-000012 as presented to the board with staff recommendations and conditions. >> All right. Commissioner Wick >> I, >> Commissioner Stamato. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Kaplan >> I. >> Commissioner Patel. >> And acting chair Gungardan
>> I. >> All right. Motion carries. Five in favor, zero opposed. All right. Thank you so very much for giving up your night tonight and having a special meeting. We appreciate it. >> You're welcome. >> I'd like to call case P2026-0033. It's a one-year extension. Address is
659 Grove Street. Applicant is Grove Street Partners LLC. Attorney James McCann. >> Uh good evening, commissioners, staff, and council. Uh James McCann appearing on behalf of Grove Street Partners LLC.
This is also an application for a one-year extension. Um, this project is a 139 unit mixeduse building. It has uh 14,000 square ft of retail. It's a 10-story building with 99 parking
spaces. This is our third and final request for an extension. However, uh my client now has an equity um investor. They have a construction lender and they also have recently filed building permits uh for the project with
the Jersey City um construction code officials. So, they're now ready to build. The reason we're here is we need this extension so that when we go through zoning uh we have the the extension in place. So, my client's ready to go. So, I'm hoping you'll grant
the third extension to them. >> Mr. McCann, just to be clear, filed for permits. They didn't get building permits issued yet, I suspect. >> No, they didn't get them issued. Just filed. >> Madam Chair, I have no issue. I just
want clarity on the record. >> Thank you. Any questions from the board? >> No. >> No. >> No. >> I'd like to open for the public. Anyone from the public? >> I see no one from the public. I'd like to close the public portion. >> Second.
>> Public is closed. Cam. Um, planning staff has no issue with the request. Uh, it's fully within their rights and planning staff would only ask that they agree to incorporate all the conditions from the original approval in their resolution for the extension.
>> Applicant agrees. >> All right. Planning staff recommends approval. >> Thank you. I'd like to enter entertain a motion. I'd like to make a motion to approve case P206-000033 as presented to the board with all staff
recommendations and conditions. >> Second it. >> Commissioner Wick >> I. >> Commissioner Stamato >> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan >> I. >> Commissioner Patel >> I. >> And acting chair Gangadan >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor with conditions. >> Thank you.
>> You're welcome. I'd like to call KP 2026-000038. It's a one-year extension. Address is for 447 Fairmont Avenue, 784-748 Westside Avenue. Applicant is Westside
DG LLC. >> Hi, good evening. Stephen Joseph for the applicant. Um, so this is a request for extension for a the subdivision portion only of a previously approved application. So, this is a request to extend the period of time in order to record the
subdivision deed. The deed was sent in for recording. It was rejected. Um, there were corrections that were made to that, but it did not get re-recorded because it was past the the permitted time uh in the MLUL to do the recording. So, we're doing this to avoid a
potential uh title issue down the road. We're requesting an extension of time to uh January uh 21st, 2027, which is excessive. Um if the board wanted to grant a shorter amount of time, that's that's fine as well.
>> Yeah, council. My general concern is obviously that if we grant more time that the county is going to possibly kick it back. So, it's already been kicked back presumably because it's outside the 190 days to get it recorded under the resolution.
So without that they won't record it is my general understanding down at the register's office. >> Yeah. So it was the the title company sent it in for recording. I think it got rejected because they forgot it forgot to include a check but by the time they got it back it was past the time. So
they they didn't want to just re-record it because we were past the past the time. So you know if if the board wanted to grant a year that's fine. Uh 30 days should also be fine. Um so generally under the MLUL the time frame is 190 days to record the
subdivision deed. So uh I would say that we extend it the appropriate amount of time under the MLUL which is the 190 days. I assume that you guys are immediately going to take that resolution upon it being >> approved tomorrow >> and go and uh record it because it's
literally >> a filing situation. So uh >> yep that would be my recommendation madam chair. >> So we would extend it for 190 days only. >> Correct. >> Okay.
Any questions from the board? >> No. >> No. >> I like to open for the public. Is there anyone from the public? >> Seeing no one from the public. I'd like to close the public portion. >> Second. >> Thank you. Staff
>> staff recommends approval provided that the applicant agrees to the uh conditions from the prior approval P23-024. So agreed. Great. Staff recommends approval. >> Condition 19 days.
>> So the approval would be based upon 190 days. Yeah, the approval would be to grant a 190day extension from the adoption of the resolution in order to permit the filing and the recording of the subdivision deed. >> So, I'd like to make a motion to approve
case P206-000038 with the condition of a 190day extension um >> for approval. >> For approval. >> Second it. >> Cool. Commissioner Wick, >> I. >> Commissioner Stamato, >> I.
>> Commissioner Kaplan, >> hi. >> Commissioner Patel, >> hi. >> Uh, Acting Chair Gangadan, >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> Thank you. >> Oh, you're still next. I'd like to call KP 2026-0036 for an extension of subdivision
approval. Minor subdivision approval. Address is 99 Arlington Avenue. >> Applicant is Usher Levy. Thank you, Stephen Joseph, for the applicant. Um, so similar to the to the last uh application, the requesting an extension to the subdivision portion of this only
to record the deed. Um, this one, the reason is because the demo permit uh is still being put together and needs to be filed to demolish the building on site and we can't file subdivision without the building coming down. And uh same discussion we had on the last one,
190day extension should be acceptable. You have the permit to do the demo? >> No, they're they're gathering everything to file it. We have the uh the historic component approved of the building.
So, we're going to again 190day extension. Council may wind up back here only because he's got to get the demo permit in order to be able to file or record the subdivision B. But so be it. Any
comments from the board? >> No. >> No. >> I'd like to open for the public. Is there anyone from the public? >> See no one from the public. I'd like to close the public portion. >> Second it. >> Pam. >> Um I'm coming I am covering for Mr.
Ward, the supervising planner assigned to this case. And um he has recommended approval. And the uh caveat is that they agree to the conditions that were put into effect under case P2023-0.
And if those conditions are acceptable, planning staff recommends approval. >> They are acceptable. >> I'd like I'd like to entertain a motion. I'd like to make a motion to approve case P2026-000036 as presented to the board this evening
with all staff recommendations and conditions including the 190 days. >> Second it. >> All right. On a motion to approve. Commissioner Wick >> I. >> Commissioner Stamato >> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan >> I. >> Commissioner Patel >> I. >> And acting chair Gangardan
>> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor with conditions. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. I'd like to move on to new business review and discussion of certified artists Ryan Wright, Josh Kberg, Shazier, and Josh Klick. Formal action
may be may be taken. >> Okay. Um, we have three artists that have been recommended by the artist certification board to the planning board to be eligible for the artist certified housing. They meet criteria 1
2 3 4 and five. and one of them happens to be a skateboarder which gets them bonus points. Um, but planning staff sees no issues with the applications and we recommend approving them for the artist housing. >> Thank you. Any comments from the board?
>> No. >> I'd like to open for the public. Is there anyone from the public? >> See no one from the public. I'd like to close the public portion. Second. >> Thank you. Oh, >> planning staff comes approval. I'd like to entertain a motion.
>> Um, I would like to make a motion to approve the review and discussion of the certified artist this evening as presented to the board. >> Second it. >> All right. On a motion to approve, Commissioner Wick >> I. >> Commissioner Stamato, >> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan, >> I. >> Commissioner Patel,
>> I. >> And acting Chair Gangadan, >> I. >> All right. Motion carries. All in favor? >> Thank you. I'd like to move on to case uh to number 10. KP2025-0198. It's a preliminary and major final major site plan. Address is 808 Beavonia
Avenue. Applicant is Community Development LLC. Mr. McCann. >> Hi, good evening again. Um, James McCann from the law firm of Conno Foley on behalf of the applicant. I do need to just correct the agenda. The um the applicant and owner of the property is
808 Pavonia owner owner urban renewal LLC. So the agenda is not correct. Um having said that council um this is an application for a preliminary and final site plan approval. So it is a notice
case. I'd like to tender my notices to you. >> Thank you councel. Could I have the owner information again? >> I can't hear you. >> I'm sorry. Owner information again, please.
>> Um 808 Pavonia Owner Urban Renewal LLC. Madam Chair, I receive the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application before the board this evening. Had the opportunity to review it. It does appear to be in order. We are going to mark it as A1 for
purposes of the record. >> So the property that we're here to discuss tonight is lot 34.04 in block 9404. It's formally a part of lot 39 in block 10601.
And there's a second piece of property which is now known as lot 1.02 in block 10601. Both of those properties are in the journal square redevelopment plan area. And I thought because of the
nature of this project project, it's a little this application, it's a little unusual that I would just show you a couple of things from the redevelopment plan itself. So up on the screen we have a copy of the journal, the cover sheet for the redevelopment plan. And um we
could go to the next slide. Um, so what we're going to show you is this is an application to clear land and then build a loading dock for the Lowe's theater on the property that I just described to you. And the reason that we're here
tonight is because this is a requirement of the redevelopment plan for my client who is the applicant. And you could see right there that that is um that is a section from the redevelopment plan that requires it's called infrastructure
improvement section and it requires the loading dock to be constructed at site six and it provides some details for the loading dock which we can talk about in a little bit but that's in the redevelopment plan. So let's go to the next slide and so this is just to
acclimate you a little bit. What you see on the screen is map one, which is also part of the redevelopment plan. And the applicant, my client owns um site six, which is everything there that's in
color. Um it extends for almost that entire exhibit. And the applicant was here before the board several years ago in 2023 and received preliminary and final
site plan approvals to build two buildings on those property and some extensive open space also and this board approved those granted site plan approvals for those properties. Also, what was done at the time was the
applicant was required to subdivide the property and carve out a section of it so that a loading dock for the Lowe's theater could be built there. So, that that map that you see there, there's actually now three separate lots. And
the area that's circled, that's on the redevelopment plan. And that's where the redevelopment plan has always contemplated the loading dock that we're going to show you is to be located. And you can see just to the right of the circle that we drew on the
plan. That's the Lowe's theater there. I guess it kind of looks like a the back of a beetle, but that's the Lowe's theater. Um, and the loading dock is right below it. I think that's to the south or to the north. So that's the area that we're talking about tonight
and that is actually a section from the redevelopment plan that you're looking at. So let's look at the next slide. The next slide involves another piece of property which has been called the triangle parcel and it is um a a small
triangle triangular parcel of land that the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency and obviously the city council first has always intended the JC or the city to acquire for um improvements for Magnolia Plaza which is
directly across the area where the loading dock is and we'll show you that on the next slide. So, this is also a map six from the journal square redevelopment plan and you could see the triangular section in red um near the top left of the screen.
That's the triangular parcel and as of today the JC has acquired that and that's lot 102 that I described to you before. Lot 3404 is the is where the actual loading dock is going to be built. And you could see on this plan
that the triangular parcel is directly across what we call the artwalk um from the loading dock lot, let's call it. Um so that's the context of what we're doing. Um my client purchased the
property. So they purchased lot site six. they were required to enter into a redevelopment agreement with the JC and pursuant to the redevelopment agreement they're required to um to create that lot which we've done
and the next slide is the subdivision map which this board approved in 2023 and that is the circled part is the actual lot that's now of record in the city which was created to put the
loading dock in it. So, that's that's the recorded subdivision map that this board approved. So, um what we're going to now show you is because our client pursuant to the redevelopment agreement was required to
um in coordination with the JCA and the redeveloper of the Lowe's theater create this loading dock. They're required that they're required to design it in coordination, clear the land, build it, and then convey that lot that's up on
the screen to the JCA or its designate, which could be the city of Jersey City or the Lowe's Theater for nominal consideration, $10, in other words. So, that's the that's kind of the basis. Now, I'm going to turn the presentation over to the uh civil engineer for the
project, Len Cino from Langan, and he's going to actually show you the loading dock um that we're proposing tonight. Council, I thought that the slides that I just showed, we should probably make them in exhibit. So, um I brought a hard copy with me.
>> So, my only problem with marking them is they are city documents. So, um, Matt, was that the latest, most revised version of the Journal Square 2060 plan?
>> Um, so the cover page that uh, Mr. McCann showed showed an older version of the plan, but the relevant pages in question from that version of the plan are identical to the current plan. >> So, let's just leave it as
>> that's okay. the Journal Square60 redevelopment plan. >> Good enough. >> In those docs. >> All right. Turn it over to Len Cavino. >> You raise your right hand this morning. >> Certainly. >> Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding through the truth?
>> I do. >> Thank you. Spell your full name. >> Certainly. My name is Leonard Savino spelled L E O N A R D. Last name Savino. S A V as in Victor. I N O. You're welcome.
>> Yes, I am a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey, New York, and my license is current. >> And Len, just a couple of quick questions. You're the civil engineer for the project that I described before. We've been here several times on the 808 Pavonia project. Correct. >> That is correct.
>> Which is the two tower project. >> Correct. >> And the subdivision plan that's up on the screen. You your office prepared that, correct? >> Yes, that is correct. >> Okay. So you're familiar with the project and the loading dock component of it. >> Yep. Very familiar. >> All right. Thank you. Certainly. So I just wanted to take a couple minutes
describe uh uh what the improvements are on the site plan which was submitted as part of the application. Also a little bit about the grading and drainage and a little about lighting. So the plan you see is the site plan submitted. CS 101 is the drawing number. Um so that area
is about 8,500 square feet. Um, and it has been designed to accommodate two WB67 trailers and three 8-yard dumpsters with enclosures. The uh enclosures are shown on sheet left in those three square areas. And there's also uh a
small ramp that we had to design on the north side sheet north. It looks like an upside down L uh just to pick up the grade of about three feet to get from the uh the loading elevation down to the door elevation for the Lowe's theater.
Um that retaining wall will have railings. Um it will extend 4 feet up from proposed grade and it will have ballards to protect it from any of the vehicular traffic. We are also uh proposing ballards uh along the artwalk uh for those of you
looking. Oh, maybe you can. On the left side uh there are ballards to prevent vehicles from driving down the artwalk um as well. Um so uh we are also proposing as part of this application approximately
20 foot uh wide art walk um only along the frontage on this application um to connect the two parts that were previously approved sheet left and sheet right from uh previous applications. Um, as Jim mentioned, the artwalk uh also includes the triangular area which is to
the bottom of the sheet um below the the artwalk area there. Um, and that is required to assist in circulation as well. And there are uh ballards that we are proposing those small uh black circles up along the building up against the building to protect the building as
well. Um, and this sheet also shows the shut circulation in the upper right hand corner for the trailer. um one of the trailers and um also in the bottom there are four square um circulation images for the trucks for um in and out pickup
and drop uh drop off well actually pickup for the dumpster uh for the trash. I wanted to move on to uh the grading and drainage and utility plan which is also part of the application package drawing CG101
briefly just to describe uh the grading in the area. Um the uh loading area is sloped gently at 2% which is typical for loading areas. Um from elevation 86 to 85 which uh is sheet north sloping down. And there is that small ramp that I
mentioned where we had to pick up about 3 ft in grade that you can get down into the existing lowest entrance at elevation 82. So from 85 down to 82. Um also what's shown there with those long dashes uh dash lines those are actually
storm pipes. Um, so we do have uh the appropriate storm water collection and conveyance into the city system which was coordinated with the Jersey City Municipal Utility Authority. Um the last plan I wanted to uh just briefly show you is the lighting plan
which is LL drawing LL101 also part of the application just to show uh that uh this is demonstrating that the loading area and the artwalk will have the appropriate lighting um which will be downward-f facing lights uh suitable for this area.
That concludes my testimony. Uh that concludes our presentation >> and council. I suspect that all of the obligations contained within the redevelopment agreement as to maintenance and all of those items.
>> So um the applicant's obligation ends after they build the loading dock >> and then they're required to convey it by deed to the JCA. And at that point, um, my the applicant
no longer has any responsibility for maintenance of the loading dock area because it will be owned by either the Lowe's theater or the city or the JC. >> Understood. >> Okay. >> I have a question on the containers. Um,
as far as recycling and garbage, you're going to have them marked out so it'll basically say recycling or garbage. So, um, our the applicant's obligation ends at providing that, but what the
Lowe's theater or the city does in terms of how they operate the loading dock is not the applicant's responsibility. Um, I guess we could, um, put in the resolution that those things should be done. I would like to see them marked,
Madam Chair, in reference to what would be recycling and what would be garbage. >> Agreed. >> Not a problem. I'm sure. >> But just so everyone's clear, the loading dock and the garbage is for >> the theater.
>> The theater, it is not for the applicants building. They have their own separate >> right >> completely. This is exclusively for the Lowe's theater. >> Right. We we will not access that property once it is built and turned
over to the city. >> Any questions? Any other questions from the board? >> Madam Chair, um just a couple questions. You referenced kind of the triangle that's required for the truck to maneuver? Um are you prop are there any improvements as part of this application in that area where the truck's
maneuvering? >> Uh there are. I'll let let answer that question. >> Yes. So that area um will be cleared. Uh there's a couple of utilities in the way. There's a fire hydrant that will be relocated. Um, and that area will be actually repaved to match the artwalk.
So, that whole area will feel like a pedestrian circulation area as well. And so, you know, that area is owned by the Jersey City Redevelopment Air uh Agency. They signed a they signed a consent
for us to submit this application because that area is um important for the trucks to access the loading dock and that was the purpose that was the reason why the redevelopment agency acquired it in fact. >> But part of your client's obligation is to do those improvements.
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Any other questions from the board? >> Yes, Madam Chair. Uh you mentioned constructing a ramp for grade um along the artwalk. Is that correct? >> No, it's not along the artwalk. Um let me go back out. Yeah, thank you.
>> Sure. >> Uh I'll go back to the site plan. So it's kind of hard to see, but um the shaded area that looks like an upside down L on the right hand side is the addition to the Lowe's theater. And then about center way down there, uh there's a little square with some black dots
around. That's the lowest area. >> Can you identify it with the cursor? Yeah, I was trying to do the Oh, I can do it with the cursor. You're right. Yes. I'm sorry. >> There you go. >> Yeah. Sorry. >> Yes. So, this area right here is where the trucks will be unloaded. And then this ramp down ramp down uh
approximately 3 ft from 85 to 82. And then this landing area allows them to get in and out of this doorway. This little uh other line here was the wall I referred to just to create the great separation. >> Got you. And I presume that's ADA compliant. Um it's intended for loading.
Um so this is not an accessible route. >> Got it. >> Yeah. >> Also, so the board knows this site plan is the result of a concept plan that is part of the redevelopment agreement that my client signed that the concept plan
was worked out with the JCA and the redeveloper of the Lowe's theater. So what you what what we're asking you to approve is effectively something that these other parties have all looked at. >> Just uh responding to the transportation
memo um they noted something about parking regulations that may be required to accommodate the trucks to prevent conflicting parking. Is that something that's been discussed? So, I think that um if you also besides the transportation memo, um Matt Dilva's
staff memo um our approval that you're going to give us tonight, should you give it to us, is solely to construct the improvements. There still needs to be coordination between the operator of the Lowe's
Theater, the planning staff, and the transportation division. And I think that's what those comments are getting at for the most part and and we agree to those comments because our obligation ends at constructing. So
that's it. And the resolution that you'll adopt will say that the loading dock can't be used until I guess Matt Dilva and transportation are satisfied that the parties have coordinated operations. >> I I understand that. I guess are we
concluding what is to be constructed? Is that what our we're being asked to approve as part of the site plan? >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes, that that is correct. >> So, do we anticipate those comments could be resolved without changing anything of substance to the proposed plan before us? >> I I think the answer to that is yes.
>> Okay. >> So, is there a question if there's going to be vehicular parking and traffic going to the loading dock? >> So, the way it's designed, there shouldn't be. There's right the the trucks will go in and out of the loading
dock, but they're not going to park on or we're not designing it for anybody to park on Magnolia Avenue or the the artwalk. Councelor, I believe the I believe the comments were related to comments were related to ensuring that ensuring that no vehicles park, blocking no vehicles park, blocking access to the access to the loading dock by having the loading dock by having the streets streets appropriately regulated um and appropriately regulated um and ensuring
ensuring um that you'd restrict general traffic um that you'd restrict general traffic from entering the artwalk, whether it's from entering the artwalk, whether it's removable ballards or something like removable ballards or something like that at the end of Magnolia to prevent that at the end of Magnolia to prevent that from being used by general traffic. that from being used by general traffic. >> That's how I read it as well. Councelor, >> That's how I read it as well. I just
I think that's a city and possibly a JC >> obligation. I don't know how the applicant that's turning it over is going to actually control it. Commission, >> we can absolutely put it in that, you
know, you'd comply to whatever extent possible with the comment, but I think the problem with the comment is just >> the applicant's going to turn this over via deed to the JC. >> Magnolia is a city street as I understand it. So
>> I see >> uh >> uh Commissioner Kaplan in um discussions um between the applicant and both staff in our division and staff in your division um it was deemed that due to the
blows project itself um being under the JC jurisdiction and therefore outside of the jurisdiction of this board um and the configuration of the Arwark area coinciding with the Lowe's opening being insconced under
that scope that um that they're um it was not appropriate to take on the scope of some of those final programming, signage, striping, etc. of the ArtWalk and Magnolia Plaza
area as part of this application. That being said, the applicant does have this responsibility to construct these improvements and convey them um in a timely manner and it is a pre and um
and this approval is a requirement for the construction of those improvements. Um there are discussions occurring between various divisions and JC and um Harris Blitzer Sports and Entertainment who is the operator of the Lowe's theater um
regarding how this dock will be operated. Um, it was my staff opinion that the best way to sort of protect the board's obligations and the board's liability here was to put guard rails on the scope of the site plan approval that
the end condition is not um sort of this clear clear to operate the loading dock as soon as the scope of this application is concerned, but to have the applicant be able to construct those improvements pursuant to the plan requirements and to their
redevelopment agreement. Convey that infrastructure to JC and then coordinate with JCA, Harris, Blitzer Sports and Entertainment and city staff on the final configuration of the whole site and how it will safely operate.
>> That makes a lot of sense. Thank you for that explanation. >> Thanks for that. >> So then the cost of any further improvements will be borne by JC or Lowe's Theater or the city as appropriate. >> Correct. Um the and that was also discussed with JC and um 808 Pavonia is
taking on you know some allied improvements in the what we're calling the triangle property. Um but there are I mean and just to I guess illustrate so there's going to be an interimm condition for the artwalk that the JC is responsible for delivering
um in order for the Lowe's theater to open but then the ultimate final configuration of the artwalk which is going to be contingent on the construction of um the greater 808 Pavonia project phases one and two is ultimately
incumbent on the developer of that project but there will an interimm condition where the Lowe's is open, but that project is not complete yet. Um I I I know there's a site plan on record with regards to the larger 808 Pavonia
project that proposes final treatments for the ArtWalk. that site plan may have to be revisited to um make sure it is compatible with the Lowe's loading conditions, but
um that that is beyond the scope of this particular application. Well, and I just think that the concern, as I understand it, Commissioner, is to make sure that we don't have conflicting vehicular traffic with that loading zone
in the artwork. I think that whatever divisions in charge of the city streets, there's probably a way to prevent any vehicular traffic uh
past a certain point on Magnolia. Obviously, no parking down there and things of that nature. Right. >> Correct, counselor. And as I understand it, the the no vehicular traffic on the artwork is a condition that will be subsequent to the opening of the loading dock. So it would be a future problem for a future outside of the scope of
this application which >> right >> correct then I resolves my concern and I appreciate the information from everyone. >> Thank you commissioner. >> Any other board comments? >> No. >> No. >> That concludes your your testimony? >> Yes.
>> Okay. I'll like to open for the public. Is there anyone for the public? >> I see no one from the public. I'd like to close the public portion. >> Seconded. >> Public is closed. staff. >> Um um much of uh what I had to say was
addressed in response to um Commissioner Kaplan's questions, but um just want to point out that staff published a memo on 3:30 2026. And within that memo, there are a list of five recommended staff conditions. uh most importantly
um that this approval will only grant the applicant permission to construct the proposed improvements and convey the site to the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency. Upon completion of improvements, but prior to conveyance, the applicant shall not be permitted to operate the loading dock. Um there's just there's
phasing. This is a complex situation with multiple projects with multiple stakeholders. Some of which um are being moved forward by private developers under planning board jurisdiction. some are being moved forward by public actors not under planning board jurisdiction.
Um and so to protect um safe operation of the loading dock with regards to that phasing um this condition was proposed to um put limits on the applicant's rights with regards to operation of the loading
dock. um so they can fulfill their obligation to the city, to the Lowe's, to JC without potentially creating a a dangerous traffic situation. >> Okay. Thank you. I'd like to entertain a motion. >> I'd like to make a motion to approve
case P205-0198 um as presented to the board with staff recommendations and conditions. >> Second that. >> Um Commissioner Wick, >> I. Commissioner Stamato >> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan >> I. >> Commissioner Patel >> I.
>> And acting chair Gangadan >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor. >> Thank you. And I also thank each and every one of you for coming for a special meeting tonight so we could get this done. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. I'd like to call KP2025-0150 which is a minor site plan. Address is 202 Planefield Avenue. Attorney Mr. Wine. >> Yes. Good evening, madame acting chair. Um, commissioners Benjamin Wine of Prime Tubvel and Misselli on behalf of the
applicant here this evening, Paramjet and J Deep and Achin Singh. Uh, this is not a notice case. It is a minor site plan and we were placed on this special meeting agenda. So, first and foremost, I want to take the opportunity to thank the board for meeting uh this evening for a special meeting. You will see me
uh several more times throughout the night. Um, the application before you is for the property located at 202 Planefield Avenue. And for the record, that's block 14602, lot 30 in your R1 zone. We are here seeking minor site plan approval in order to construct a
new three-story residential building that will consist of four residential dwelling units with two parking spaces. And we do have site improvements proposed as well, which you'll hear about in detail from our project architect, including to storm water management, landscaping, lighting, etc.
We are fully conforming uh with your R1 requirements. We have no variances uh for you this evening and uh and I do have one witness that I intend to call this evening of our patellar project architect unless you have any questions of me.
>> Perfect. Thank you. >> This is quite the contraption. All right. >> Do you swear or the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding will be the truth? >> Uh, yes I do. >> Avar Patel. A A V A R T P A T E L.
>> Thank you. >> Yes, it is. Thanks. Thank you. >> Thank you. So, if you can please identify what's on the screen here this evening, confirm that these are the plans that were submitted more than 10 days in advance of the meeting and uh walk the board through your presentation. Uh yes, these are the
plans which are submitted and uh are on the portal at the moment. Um, okay. The, uh, the site is, uh, located at 202 Planefield Avenue. Uh, 40 foot wide, 100t deep, uh, 4,000 ft². Uh, we are
proposing a three-story uh, uh, structure which will ina, which will have a four residential unit. Uh, we are proposing covered parking um of the first floor. I'm going to quickly go to the site
plan. Um actually this is the the existing condition. There's an um twotory uh frame dwelling which would be demolished. Um you can see the the proposed development uh on the screen. This is the proposed
site plan. Um the building will um on the right side we are we are um sorry um so as part of the overall site improvement we are proposing uh the new sidewalk um uh a street tree um the
current site doesn't have any u street tree and the the sidewalk is also in a very dilapidated condition so that's an improvement and uh um The overall building would be about uh um 36 foot uh long and uh I mean wide and and you know
we'll have a confirming 30-oot setback in the rear. Um the storm water system is proposed which would be uh underground. >> Uh the storm water management system is proposed underground system. Uh it would it would be located on under the the
backyard open area. Um we can see the first floor plan on the screen. Uh the building is on the property line on the right side given that the adjacent structure is more than 4 ft away. Um that's the main entry to the building.
Um and then we have a twocar parking garage on the left side. Um we are also proposing for um bicycle parking within the garage. Um the unit on the first floor is uh um
three-bedroom, two bath. Um pretty standard layout. U entry to the unit, kitchen, living, um dining and then uh three bedrooms are located on the left side. Uh there's a hall bath and then then um the master bath would be
accessible which is uh which is required because we have more than four units in the building. Um there is a small sprinkler room proposed uh off of the garage and then garbage areas al uh garbage uh and recycle room is located off of uh the residential lobby.
Um the unit one will get access to the backyard. There is a um a small patio with a with the access directly from the living area. Um going to go to the second floor. Um this level we have two units and uh
uh they are um they are duplex. Uh unit two which is uh towards the back access off of the staircase. Um living, kitchen, dining and then two bedrooms are located at this level. Uh and then
um the staircase will um sorry this is a standalone unit. This is a two-bedroom, two bath unit. And then unit three which is towards the front of the building um has um living dining kitchen and a small office area uh at the second floor and then the staircase will go to the second
I mean third level which will have uh uh the the three bedrooms uh at that going to the third floor plan. Uh staircase comes up and we have bedroom number one, two, um three here. And then
the unit towards the front is a uh again a standalone unit. Uh that would be a three-bedroom, two bath uh totaling about 1,800 ft², 1,830 to be exact. Um going to the roof plan.
Uh the roof deck is uh uh the is is uh split up in two. Unit three and unit four will get uh access to the roof. Um there are green roof there's a a green roof proposed. Uh uh of course the required 10-ft setback on the front will
be uh all green roof and then the uh rear of the building would be additional 475 ft uh of a green roof. Um the uh rooftop uh HVAC uh equipment
would be screened uh uh as required. Uh that's about it. I'm going to quickly walk you through the front elevation. Um we are proposing the the front facade is predominantly uh brick material uh
and uh uh the the the patio door with a uh with a side lights uh accentuating the the element in the middle which would be covered in a in a hardy type siding with a board and a bat the the gapal portion of the the roof. And uh
the railings are um the balconies are are more like a Juliet type balconies. You know, the door opens and and uh there's a little area, but um um it's not a a full uh depth balcony um
towards the front. It's a just a Juliet. Um going to quickly go to the rear elevation. Pretty standard treatment. Uh um overall um just few windows off of the bedrooms and then the remaining facade
is um vinyl type siding at the ground level or the first level would be covered with uh with a stucco. Um this is the uh right side of the building which is uh uh on the property line and uh that would be covered with a
um stucco material. It's a two-rated masonry wall which would be covered with this deco. Um and uh the other side has uh the windows coming off of the bedrooms and uh uh treatment would be similar. The upper
two stories will have a vinyl sighting and then uh at the first floor would be um stucco finish. Um the site would be upgraded uh for a new sewer and water line. Uh the building would be uh fully sprinkled.
Um that's about it. >> Thank you. And Albert, just to confirm for the record, um we do comply with all of the bulk requirements for the R1 zone. Is that correct? >> Uh yes, we do. >> And all of our proposed lighting will comply with the city standards. Is that correct? >> Absolutely. >> Okay, madame acting chair, I have
nothing further for Mr. Patel. And that will conclude my presentation. Thank you. Any comments from the board? >> Yeah, I do. Um, the balcony, I'd like to see it no more than 3 in high as far as off the base, off the floor. >> The railing.
>> The railing, excuse me. >> Uh, yes. Uh, it would be fully court compliant as well as OSHA compliant where, you know, nothing can roll off the balconies. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Ed would kill me if I didn't. >> I was going to say
they can get into question of an inch. Uh, you're right. >> What we've been told recently, >> what kind of wall is surrounding the roof deck like on the on the roof deck? Is there >> you have a parapit wall? Yeah, that's
the parapit wall uh is 42 in above the um uh any occupied roof. >> Got it. Okay. Thank you. >> All the way around the entire building. >> Uh yes, it is. >> Any other board comments? >> No. Okay. I'd like to open for the
public. Is there anyone from the public? >> I see no one from the public. I'd like to close the public portion. >> Second. >> Public is closed. Um staff. >> Yeah. Staff uh reviewed the proposal and did find that it adhered to the
standards, guidelines, and objectives of the neighborhood housing or R1 zone of the LDO as written. Uh there are no variances associated with this application. Um staff recommends uh or staff found that the application advances the purpose of the R1 zone of
providing compatible infill and staff recommends approval uh provided that the applicant agree to the conditions from the staff memo dated January 12th, 2026. >> Yes, we do. >> Great. Staff recommends approval. Great.
>> I'd like to make a motion to approve case P2025-0150 as presented to the board with all staff recommendations and conditions. >> Second it. >> Commissioner Wick >> I. >> Commissioner Stabato >> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan >> I. >> Commissioner Patel. >> I.
>> Acting chair Gongadan >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor. >> Thank you everybody. >> Thank you everyone. See you shortly. >> 10 minutes. Yes, >> we'll be back. >> We'll be back in 10 minutes. >> I'd like to call the meeting back to
order. At this time I would like to call in case 2025-000073 address. It's for a preliminary and final major site plan with C variances. Address is 569 Palisade Avenue. The attorney is Mr. Harrington.
>> Yes. Uh good evening madam chairwoman and uh commissioners. For the record Charles Harrington Okonnell Foley. On behalf of the applicant I do have notices that I'll give the council to mark and review. Madam Chairman, receive the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application at 569
Palisade Avenue. It does appear to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for purpose of the record. >> Thank you. So, yeah, the application before you tonight is uh it's rather straightforward. the the property is on Palisad Avenue and located in the RC2
zone. That's the residential commercial district. Uh the property is 6,500 square ft. Uh it's a five-story building. Uh 11 residential units and 10 parking spaces. You'll see during the presentation that uh we are seeking two
uh nominal variances. Uh, one is with with regard to the rear yard setback and you'll see how the the rear of the property notches um on on one corner and that's it's only a little section and that's where we're seeking relief. And then with regard to uh there's a a
variance for parking spaces where they don't um they don't fit the uh the normal size. They're they're about two or three inches short. Um so it's really it's a compact space technically. Um, but we are um seeking relief or approval
for those those spaces. Uh, so I do have uh a few witnesses tonight. I'm going to I'm going to uh start off with our civil engineer uh Michael Risk to get you affiliated with the um the or familiar with the uh site and then I have our architect and and um Mr. Bellamy to
address the requested variances. Michael Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding be the truth? >> I do. >> Michael Risk. R I Z K.
>> Good evening, Mr. Risk. Is your license current and in good standing? >> It is. >> Thank you. You may proceed. >> All right. Uh I'll turn to page uh sheet. sheet C301, which is part of the site
plan set that was submitted and is on the portal. So, the uh subject property is located at 569 Palisade Avenue. It's identified as block 2304 lot 25 and has approximately 6,500
square feet. Currently on site there's a three-story 6unit building with a detached one-story garage in the rear of the property. It's being demolished and a fivetory 10-unit building is being proposed
along the frontage. We're proposing all new sidewalk and uh one tree pit as required. >> Mr. Harrington, it's 10 or 11 units. >> Mr. Harrington, >> uh that it's it's 11. My my mistake. Y
>> that's my mistake. We're proposing all new sidewalk and uh one tree pit along the frontage of the property um with some uh landscaped areas uh in the in the rear of the property. For utilities, we're providing all new utilities uh which will tie into the
existing infrastructure in Palisade Avenue. New water, new sewer, um new electric and gas. Uh the project does propose an underground detention basin um which is compliant with the Jersey City storm water ordinance and the DP's
rules for a major development. That's uh pretty much it. It's pretty straightforward. So >> any questions? >> No. >> Okay. Then I'm going to move right into Mr. Vandermark uh architectural
testimony. >> Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth? >> I do. >> Absolutely. That is Anthony C. Vandermark Jr. last name Vandermark V as in Victor. A N D E R M A R K.
>> Mr. Van America. Is your license current and in good standing? >> It is. >> You may proceed. >> Thank you very much. >> Mr. Vandermark, before you start, uh you my understanding is you have a slide deck you're going to be use as part of your presentation. >> I do have a slide deck, Mr. Harrington. Uh it includes uh one rendering that the
board does not have. Uh it's actually at the end of the package and some colored graphics. Um but of all the uh existing drawings, uh nothing here has been altered. And how many sheets? >> It's uh 18 sheets. >> Okay. We'd ask that that be marked as
A2. So Mark, is there a date? >> Yes. >> Uh the actual zoning set is dated uh 129 2026. >> Thank you.
So once again, good evening everyone and we're here tonight to present uh a very close to an as of right application uh very close >> a very close to an as of right application at 569 Palisade Avenue. We're proposing a five-story building
that is 55 uh ft in height from average grade. We're proposing 11 residential units. The property is approximately midblock on Palisad Zav with South Street to the south of the property and Congress Street to the north of the property.
Graphic number two here of the pre-existing conditions. The structure has since been raised. Uh however, it is bookended by uh uh an existing approximately 100-year-old uh four-story building to the south and a newly constructed four-story building
uh to the north. Uh so this proposal will fit right in between these pre-existing structures in scale. Um foreground on graphic number three again existing building to the south four stories and it measures approximately 42 feet from grade and the book matched
building uh to the north is 45 ft in total height. The previous uh uh uh site um that has since been raised was 100% impervious. And what we're doing this evening here is we're bringing uh this building uh
further uh into the green related improvements here that the city is looking for in all new construction uh right here in graphic number four. As you can see uh there was parking uh with an asphalt uh parking surface in the rear yard. This is all going to be
improved. Um there's going to be uh new retaining walls and perimeter fencing around the site. Just some general parameters uh of the project. Uh we are proposing 11 units. We are proposing 10 parking spaces. Uh
included in those uh 11, excuse me, 10 parking spaces is uh one ADA space, five standard spaces, and four compact spaces. And this is one of the variances that we have triggered. Typically, when you think of a uh compact parking space,
you're always uh looking at the width. However, in this case, the parking spaces that we're proposing tonight are 9 ft wide. The depth of these parking spaces are 17'8 and 18 ft is the general requirement for that. So, there's a 4 in difference. So, therefore, we're requesting a variance for those four
compact parking spaces. We are also requesting a rear yard setback variance. Mr. Bellamy here, our planner, will speak to the setpack variances, but I will describe the location. This is triggered by a pre-existing condition in the site that we have a small notch in the northwest corner of the property.
We are also proposing an 880 ft commercial retail space with 16 bicycle parking spaces as part of this application survey you had in front of you. Again, the the garage structure and the three-story structure in this graphic have since been uh removed.
In this graphic top right hand corner as you can see there is a 10- foot vertical and a 10- foot horizontal notch uh in the back end of the property. This pre-existing condition um coupled with you know holding our building line straight across from north to south is
triggering a small setback variance in the rear yard. new footprint of the building. Um again, uh in yellow, center of the building is at five stories, 55 feet in total height. 10 feet off the front property line, we have a fourstory section. Uh this is
compliant with the RC2, residential commercial 2 uh zone district requirements. To the rear, we have a 16'6 portion or one-story portion that is providing uh some roof decks uh for the tenants at the second level. And
then also uh a location where we have stairs going down to uh two rear yards that are feeding the back three units. As part of this application, all new uh sidewalks, all new curbing. We have a 10-ft wide curb cut accessed off of
Palisade Avenue. We're proposing one street tree and there's one pre-existing street tree right at the right side property line. Therefore, uh we are providing uh a uh a payment in lie of that tree because we that's a pre-existing tree uh that would meet the
requirements of separation if we provided a new one here at the front sidewalk. Front sidewalk depth is 14 ft 2 in. Um and again uh all new improvements at the front of the building, uh sidewalk and curb line. Working your way inward of the building,
uh we have a small cellar that's proposed for utilities. Um again, a storm water detention system uh for various volumes uh equivalent that'll hold a 100red-year storm event. Working to the right graphic uh working
internally uh lobby will be on the right hand side or the north side of the property followed by the curb cut centrally located and then we have an 880 ft retail space fronting Palisade Avenue. 10 parking spaces. Again, these four parking spaces top right hand
corner are 9 ft in width, which is of standard car width. The reason why we're asking for the variance is the 4 in off of the 18 ft dimension. The drive is 22 ft, which the minimum that's accepted by the city of Jersey City. So, we thought it would be best to hold the the actual
uh uh drive as opposed to uh you know expanding the cars to 18 ft in width. We have two rear yard spaces uh equivalent at 445 square ft left and right. Uh again, we will have a perimeter retaining wall at the base and
a fence that lines uh a privacy fence that lines the outside of the property in the rear yard. Bicycle parking spaces are here top leftand corner and again the ADA parking spaces is here right across from the elevator system. We have a unique plan here where we have
11 units. They're all actually uh quite large in size uh and they vary for from uh 1,176 and they go all the way up to over 1,700 in square ft. Each one of these is duplexes. As part of this application,
we have nine threebedrooms. Three of those actually have dens and then we have uh two uh four bedroomedroom duplex units. These units are crossover units. So what you see here is we have two floors. Um we have six units in total
here. The pink on the lower floor on the second floor which is in the back lefthand corner. We'll then cross over the common hallway and then have a frontage at the third floor. So each one of these units will have views of the back and each one of these units will have views of the front depending on
which level you're on. So we have uh you know two on the left, two in the center and two on the right. No centralized hallway. uh on the third floor, the lower level, the second floor, uh needs to be ADA compliant. So, we have an elevator system going to that level, ADA
compliant bathrooms, and the option of this third bedroom here that would be ADA compliant. So, again, six units here. Uh we have outdoor space coming off the back three of the second floor at 142 ft each, followed by 380 ft of
extensive green roof. Moving up to the third floor, again, uh upper portions uh of the lower units with a 87, 100 square foot, and 87 square foot uh extended canal levered uh outdoor space off of the back of the units.
Making you up to fourth and fifth floor, same concept. However, the fifth floor has a 10-ft setback that is in the requirement for the RC2 zone. Again, pink goes the pink. The pink unit and the blue unit uh at the back of the fourth floor are actually quite large.
Um they are at 1,748 and 1,632 in square footage followed by uh three of the smaller units. Uh you can call them smaller at 1380, 1437, and 1367.
So, five units on the upper two floors, outdoor space in the front, canal levered uh balconies on the back for outdoor space facing the west. Upper portion uh of the roof, all these units actually have uh their own individual private decks. Uh going from
uh top lefthand corner, 275 square ft, same in the middle, 348 to the right, 290 bottom right hand corner, and 275. We have extensive green roof that uh lines the perimeter of the overall
rooftop here at 638 and 595 square ft. We have substantial amount of uh extensive roof deck uh extensive green roof area in this project. Totals 1,613 uh square feet of green roof area which
is great. It's 25% of the overall site area. This goes uh in line with the green principles the city is requiring for new construction coupled with the storm water detention system. We think we have a really great project here. The exterior elevation at five stories in total but the fifth floor uh is
actually set back 10 10 ft as I had described in the floor plans. We predominantly have this uh terracotta or orange color brick uh as the base or field. Um the inner ring at floors two and three we have a off-white uh ACM uh
aluminum composite material. At the base of the building uh we have three vertical piers. As you can see we have the 569 uh signage uh on top of them. This is a gray cast stone and then the recessed uh uh top floor uh is a uh
light gray ACM or aluminum composite material. The overall building height is 55 uh uh feet in total height. Uh the first uh floor to second floor measures in 12 ft of height. Floors 2, three, and four are at 10 ft 8 in. And then top floor is at
11 ft in total, totaling 55 ft, which is right in line with the uh being compliant uh with the RC2 zone. The overall bulkheads are 10 ft in height. We have that measured from the top of the roof uh to the top of the bulkhead. again uh compliant non-variance.
The rear elevation top right hand corner is a two-colored uh cement board scheme with the canal lever balconies. Uh we have a charcoal gray at the lower portion as you can see shaded in gray. The upper portion is a uh cement board in a lighter gray. The railing systems
will be a painted vertical ballastrade. And again at the back of the building uh again we will have uh cement board panels uh at the one-story section sides of the building we have cement board horizontal siding uh in a charcoal
gray color both sides. Um looking at this just from an impact as you can see the street wall now will be completed. At the moment there's a missing tooth. Uh the fourth story is at 44 ft in total height. And as you can see, it just lines up with the corner
line in the foreground and in the background of the existing buildings that remain there. So again, we think we have a nice addition to the neighborhood providing the retail uh and the residential component that are right in line with the RC2 zone
from a uh from a shadow standpoint. Well, we're providing um an as of right volume of the building. Uh and again um you know east to west uh we're going to cast very little shadow uh only to the end of the day on the properties to the
rear. Other than that um we are in full uh compliancy as far as shadow goes. In closing um I think we have a you know a very very good application here for palis aid and um we ask uh for the board
for to approve. Thank you. Just um chairwoman um as for the transportation memo, there was a bicycle parking um request to uh protect the bicycle from damage by cars by providing a physical barrier separating automobile parking and bike parking. Is that
>> Yeah, we can provide some interior ballasts uh in the garage for protection of those bicycles. Correct. No problem. >> Awesome. And um is there a reason there are not wheel stops on the compact bases? >> Well, that might very well be a graphic
error and we will provide them as part of this approval should we get it. >> Okay, I believe that's all my comments. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I just then uh I can move if there are no further questions, I'll move on to
Mr. me to address those. >> Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding will be the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Samuel Bellamy, last name B L A M Y. >> Mr. Bellamy, is your license current and in good standing?
>> Yes, current and in good standing. >> You may proceed. >> Thank you. Um, so this project's located in the RC2 residential commercial 2 district. As you heard, we are requesting a variance for the rear yard setback as well as approval for compact spaces within the
garage. Um, this project's largely in line with what the RC2 district calls for. It's a permitted mixeduse building at a permitted density with 11 units and the bulk of the building itself is largely um in conformance with the bulk standards. The uh rear yard setback
variance that we're seeking is related to the irregular notch in the rear of the property. That notch is 10 feet wide by 10 feet deep. Um the bulk of the building itself is u majority of the rear yard setback is in conformance. Um
the requirements 15% of the lot depth. So that's 16.5 ft on the ground floor and then 30% of the lot depth for the upper floors which equates to 33 feet on the 110 ft deep lot. So we are proposing
a minimum of 6'6 in and that's where the building um where the rear of the building abuts the uh notch of the property in the corner. Um, but the rest of the rear wall is in line with the the setback standard >> is in line with the uh with the setback
requirements for the for the rear yard. That notch is also um there's a a budding one-story structure that has a one um a zero foot side and rear yard setback abudding this property. So there isn't a a yard space in the back. It's actually a non-conforming condition
abuing this property. Um overall we are prop proposing a um conforming coverage both both in respect to the building and lot coverage and I think the uh the bulk of the building itself does provide for adequate light air and open space with
adjacent properties. With respect to the compact spaces as you heard um we are proposing spaces that are 9 ft wide and 17t 8 in uh deep. So they're 4 in short of the standard on one side of the
building. Um so that does require planning board approval. I think overall they do meet the intent of the standard and with in addition to uh providing for a wider width for compact spaces at 9 ft where 8t 8 and 1/2 ft permitted. Um we
do have a conforming drive aisle width here at 22 feet. So I think there is adequate space for circulation into and out of the spaces within the garage. Um both of these variance requests I think can be uh approved um in line with
the C2 uh C2 criteria where the benefits would outweigh the detriments. Um this project does promote the purposes of the municipal land use law. Again, it's a permitted use and I think appropriate development of the property consistent with purpose A and it does provide for adequate setbacks um allowing for
adequate light, air and open space consistent with purpose C. Uh, with respect to the negative criteria, I do not see a substantial detriment to the general welfare. Again, I think this is directly in line with what the RC2 district is is calling for. Uh, I likewise don't see a substantial
impairment to the zone planner zoning ordinance. Um, this is consistent with the purpose of the RC2 district, which is to recognize and promote the existence and importance of historic mixeduse neighborhood business districts throughout the city. So, this is a
mixeduse uh building that will um complete the streetscape here along Pal State Avenue. And with that, I think this project um does meet both the positive and negative criteria. Um that would conclude my direct testimony, but I'd be happy to answer any questions the board might have.
>> I'll refer to the board. Any board comments? >> No. >> Thank you. >> At this time, I would like to open for the public. >> Is there anyone from the public? See no one from the public. I'd like to close the public portion.
>> Mr. Harrington, >> second it. >> That wraps you up there. >> That wraps us up. Yes. >> I will refer to staff. >> Okay. Um, so this application was reviewed and uh issued a memo in
November of 2025 by uh Miss Juru. Um are all conditions in the planner staff me uh memo acceptable by the applicant's attorney? >> Uh yes they are. >> Okay. Um planning staff is satisfied with the testimony uh provided by the
professional planner. Um we agree they uh are not um inflicting any detriment to the public's health, general welfare, well-being and um it's not going to impact our master plan, the zone plan.
Um, and for that reason, planning staff recommends approval with conditions. >> I'd like to entertain a motion. >> I'd like to make a motion to approve case P2025-000073 as presented to the board with all staff recommendations and conditions.
>> Second it. >> All right. On a motion to approve, Commissioner Wick >> I. >> Commissioner Stamato >> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan >> I. >> Commissioner Patel. >> Hi. >> And acting chair Gungardan. I >> All right. Motion carries. All in favor with conditions. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. So, all right. On the agenda for the next three, 13, 14, 15, which is KP2024-011, KP2024-112, and KP2024-113. They're the same property.
>> Yes. >> How do we proceed, attorney? Mr. Joseph, in reviewing the plans, it looks like we're subdividing and building two mirror image buildings 45 ft in height. Is that fair and accurate? >> That is accurate. We'd like to present
everything together if it's okay with the board for to save time. Um, >> I think it's the appropriate way to proceed, Madam Chair. >> Thank you. So, at this time, we'll call all three cases and I'll repeat it again. Case P204-011 which is the minor minor subdivision
with C variancees. Address is 86-92 Ocean Avenue. Next case number is P2024-0112 which is the minor site plan. Address is 90 Ocean Avenue. And the next case is
P2024-0113 which is a minor site plan. The address is 86 Ocean Avenue. All right. Good evening Stephen Joseph for the applicant. This is a notice application. Madam Chairman, we receive the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with
respect to the application at 86-92 Ocean Avenue. For the record, this notice is for the minor subdivision and the ancillary C variances. It's for case P204-011. It does appear to be in order. We are going to mark it as A1 for the record.
And uh we we did consolidate the site plan with that notice. Um all right. So thank you council. Uh this is a minor subdivision. We're taking a piece of property that's irregular. We're cutting it in half. That's going to result in two new
properties. 150 by 70 and 150 by 94.09. Um this results in two C variances for the depth of the lot. Um, what we're proposing to do is build a new fourstory, 45 ft, 14 unit building on
each one of these lots. Those buildings do not have any variances associated with them. We have uh Russ Bondar here this evening who's going to walk us through the subdivision and through the site plan. >> Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding will be the truth?
>> Yes, I do. >> My name is Russell. Last name is Bodner BD N. I reside at 52 Long Hill Road in Long Valley, New Jersey. And my license is in good standing. Okay. Um, as we can see here, our actual
project located on Sea View and Ocean. We have a corner lot. We are doing the uh subdivision. The um the lots themselves will be 50 ft. Um, both are going to be 50 ft wide. The only problem is, as you can see here on the on the site plan itself, on the on the actual
subdivision plan, the there's a lot of jags and uh angles on this on the um on the lot itself. So, the lot on 86 Ocean is going to be 50 ft by 70 on the short, but it's actually 50 ft by 80 80
something on the um um >> because of the angle of the >> angle. So, it's about 81.90. The next lot itself, which is going to be 90 ocean, is again 50 ft wide, but it actually goes down to 128 ft at at the
at the long spot and 94 at the shorter spot. And those lots are uh the the 86 Ocean is 3,797 ft and the uh 90 Ocean lot is um 5,572.5
ft. >> That's uh 34.01 1 and 36.01 respectively. And and Russ, if you don't mind just identifying the uh after part of the subdivision on the right hand side. >> Yeah, the after one is on the subdivision on the on the right hand side. You can see our the red line here
indicates our new lot lines and again the new lot lines on the 90 ocean as well. So we feel that the you know the although we're not compliant on the the 100 foot depth we are compliant overall with the the concept of what what Jersey
city would like to us do. >> Any questions on the subdivision portion >> lot area council >> I'm sorry >> the lot area. Oh, >> the overall lot area is 14,942 feet. >> Subdivided. >> And when it's subdivided, each one is
the the 86 ocean is 3,797 ft and the other the other one is 5,000 and the 90 ocean is 5,572 >> and those exceed the minimum requirement. >> Correct. Correct. >> The only variance is for the lot depth, not for the width, not for the lot area.
>> Yeah. The lot area is required to be 2500 square f feet. So, they're still going to be in excess of the lot area, but they will be deficient in depth because of the shape of the property. >> That's correct. >> Correct. >> And we do have a planner here this
evening as as well. >> All right. You want to move on to the site plan, Russ? >> Yeah. Want to go on to the architectural work? Yeah. Okay. There we go. >> All right. Uh let's start off with uh 86 Ocean. It's the corner property. Um, as
you can see here, um, we have we have 14 units in both buildings. The 90 and the, um, the 90 unit the 90 Ocean and the 86 both have 14 units. Each one of them has uh, eight twobedrooms and six onebedrooms. On the uh, 86 ocean, we
have our our two bedrooms range from 788 ft to 980 ft. and our onebedrooms r are 687 square feet. On the first floor we have a commercial space that is 10 um th52
ft and that's actually the corner space here and then you actually have another 600 ft that was required in the zone because we're in the uh ocean a south south redevelopment zone that we're required to have an extra 600 square feet in the basement for the commercial
space in the basement. We also do have um uh some extra uh storage area for the residents uh some of our utilities and as well as eight bike parking spaces located in that uh basement level. In the back section of the Ocean Avenue in
the rear section, we have two apartments on this floor, a onebedroom and a two-bedroom apartment. And um when we go up to our our typical floors above, we end up with uh four units of floor, two twobedrooms, and two onebedrooms per
floor. We actually don't have a roof deck on this job. We just have um um green roofing up there and just access to the uh for the maintenance and for the uh the condensers. Our green roof is very extensive on this project. It's
1740 square feet total in green roofing. So that's a significant amount. Um, as you can see there, um, our elevations consist of I'll go down a little further. Um, our elevations consist of, um, in the front, I'll actually show the rendering in a moment, but it's
actually, uh, mostly, uh, brick on the, uh, two facades. The, uh, Ocean Avenue facade and the, um, facade on C view are all brick. There are some uh cement board type panels on the upper location, the fourth floor, and some metal panels located in between some of the brick
spaces underneath the windows. The windows have themselves actually in a grill that actually houses our HVAC system. That's a called a PTAC system, which is our uh entire our system for the building. Our actual entire building is actually electric. There is no um gas
required unless the commercial space is going to require um any kind of gas meters. If we go to the next page down, you'll see that we this is the C view side. You can still see on the corner, we have some windows um located for the commercial space on the on the left hand
side. And on the right hand side, you see the apartment windows on on that set side as well as all the apartment windows above. And that again is all brick and cement board paneling. If we go down again to the the the rear of the elevations and the sides a little
bit, they're all going to be vinyl sided um in terms of this uh location. And we're going with this like light gray vinyl siding that we're putting in. So, we're going be doing that for our our exterior look of the building. Um if I
flip back out here, um one second. Documents. uh Ocean Avenue. You can see here our rendering on the corner, which you guys do not have. I want a little one that will actually pop up.
>> So, we'll enter this as uh as A2. It's a a rendering of 86 Ocean Avenue. >> Yeah. As you can see, we we as you'll get one. >> Thank you. >> Yes. Hi. How you doing? Uh again, this
is um a uh a brick um facade on the on the corner. It's going to be a red brick with some uh black accents in terms of metal panel um cornice and uh detail above the first floor level that's required by the uh location and some and our windows are going to be black and um
and our metal our our panels on the upper section of the building will be like a gray cement board style panel on the uh third floor the fourth floor of the building. So, uh, that is our actual ocean, our 86 Ocean Avenue, the corner building. If we
want to flip back to our other building, >> any questions on 86 Ocean Avenue before we move on to the to 92. >> 92. Just one question I think maybe common to both about the bicycle parking or if that's for a different applicant, I can defer. >> You can still you can ask me. Yes. Um
yeah, if you could just go over the bicycle parking and kind of show how they would be accessed and if it's compliant with the requirement um that indoor bicycle parking is located in a convenient and accessible location to a public sidewalk with no more than four vertical steps. >> Yeah, we
we do have more than four vertical steps going up up to the uh to the to the uh from the bicycle parking up. Oh, and I don't actually show what I normally do here, but I will add it to the plan. Uh, usually I have this um ax. It's like um
a a ramp system that flips down on the side of the the staircase and you roll the the uh actual I've done this before on other projects. I roll the the um this the uh bicycle up on that on that access um in terms of that little flip down
ramp that I've been doing. So I will actually add that to the plans. I did forget to put them on these plans. >> Gotcha. And is there sufficient maneuverability around, you know, the traditional stairwell to kind of go around that corner? >> Yeah, because we're like we're like about 4 feet there. So, you should be able to easily swing that stair that up
and around uh on that on that staircase there >> and inside. >> Um Okay. And I'm sorry, are we on 86 or >> this is this is this is still 86 here? >> 86. Okay. So, one question uh from the transportation memo specific to I believe 86. Is that actually I may be
mistaken on which one this is. Um, can you show the bicycle on the storage in the Yes, >> the bicycle's down here in the bottom in the corner here. >> How would the bicycle storage in the top left and bottom left against the outer wall be accessed in that bike storage room? >> Yeah, I mean, we can probably maybe rearrange something a little bit more
for you. Um, and and and make it so it's more accessible. Um, I can do that as a revision. Uh, because right now it's a little tight there as you can see. So, yeah, the four along the back wall is easy and the other two are quite easy. So maybe we need to just extend that a little to make that work a little
better. >> Okay, thank you. >> Okay, not a problem. >> Um Okay, then that's for the engineer. Thank you. >> Okay, thank you. >> Okay, >> garbage and recycling. You have a room for this or >> Yeah, there's garbage and recycling on
the upper level. Um, let me as you can see here, there's there's a garbage recycling room in this location right there. >> Okay. >> So, that's actually where we come in, we go actually out here and we're actually putting our garbage along C view avenue instead of uh ocean on this on this property.
>> All right. >> So, it's this will be for city collection. >> Yeah, city collection. And it's like I said, it's 14 units. So if there are some more questions on 86, we'll move on to 90. >> Okay,
>> no more questions. >> There we go. >> Thank you. >> Flip out. That's the first. As you can see here, this is the the 90 ocean floor plans on the first floor. Again, we have 14 units again on the on this project as well.
And the four and there's again 82 bedrooms. Six two uh six with um six onebedrooms. And the two bedrooms are on this on 90 are 864 and 1150 are square footage on the on the eight two
bedrooms. And the two uh the onebedrooms are 638 and 642 was our square footages on those. And our commercial space again is uh 10 1028 ft with an additional 600 ft in the in
the in the in the basement area. And again like you can see here again we have the bike spots along this back wall here and some against against this other back on these walls here as well. And we have um some so we have a little better parking layout for this. Again, we're going to need that little ramp thing
again going up from a half a stair up and then up to here to the landing that brings us out to our main level out to our out to our um to to our to our e exit to the to the main part of the building.
And we also have our garbage located on on our main floor that will come out and around and we're going to bring it out the other way to uh Ocean Avenue on on the left hand side for collection for our garbage and recycle area.
Uh again, we also have the two units located in the rear of the building on this on this on this area. And the only difference between this building and the other building really is on the second floor we actually have uh the building set and on the first level I'm allowed to have a little bit more distance out.
So on the second floor you actually have a terrace area that is uh only being accessed from those two apartments in the rear. Um we're required to have 70 ft max on our upper levels from uh Ocean Avenue to our rear wall. That's why this
70 foot line is on a skewed angle to match the skewed angle on Ocean Avenue. So again, we have four units per floor on the upper levels and each of these upper levels will have two twobedrooms and two onebedrooms. Again, we don't
have on this job um any kind of roof access other than maintenance and and that's it in terms of the condensers. And we do have an extensive green roofing which is about 1,200 square feet of green roofing. So um that's pretty
much uh the uh gist of this um of the uh of the building itself. Again, if you want, we can take a look at the back as again is the same concept we're doing on the other building. It's brick on the on the front facade with some uh metal panels uh located in between the windows
and on the upper level and some metal panels uh above the windows at the commercial space and uh and the rear is going to be vinyl sided. So there's only really two main elevations here because you have a front and rear and our front our rear will
have the vinyl sided look. Again, we're staying consistent with the other building with a a gray light gray um siding for the rear. Um if we can flip back out and we can go to >> the same one. Just use the
>> Well, it's the same one. Oh, yeah. I'll use the same one here. >> So, we don't have to enter something else. >> Okay. Course is giving me a error. I'll just download later. It will not come up now. For some reason, this computer's acting up tonight.
>> Three times. >> There's a W public Wi-Fi you could connect to and then accept the terms if you need the internet. >> Yeah, it's it's the same render ring that we showed earlier as A2. >> Yeah, I'll go skip and see if it'll come. Yeah, there it goes. I don't know why it's act asking that tonight for some reason.
Come on. This won't go. It'll go or no go. Nope. Here. Let me just try it. >> I have your downloads. >> One second. Computer.
No. Yeah. Let's go to I was going to go to 86 and do it. >> Beautiful bamboo. >> That's bamboo. >> Here you go. Now it works. I think the other one. Sorry about that, guys. Um >> that's the same rendering from before. That's still A2.
>> Yeah, it's still A2. And you can see that the um the left hand side is the 90 ocean has a little bit different has a cornice on the top of the building. We've kind of broke it up a little different. So each building although they have a similar brick will have a different look. So they don't exactly
look like the same exact building going down the street even though it have some of the same um characteristics and and and same similar coloring. So that's >> and again we have the four street trees
that were required on o on ocean. >> So that concludes architectural testimony. Um we'll bring up Carol and do our planning testimony. >> Have any questions regarding >> one question for the engineer or site plan but you tell me if it should go now or later. >> You should go now. Yeah. We don't have a
civil engineer this evening. Uh but engineering was contracted through Russ's office. >> So pretty straightforward. Just on the corner here, um you can see it in the rendering, but it just shown on the civil plans. Um can you clarify whether ADA compliant curb ramps will be installed on the corner facing both crosswalks?
>> Yes, they will be because it's required and it's actually on the details for the the site plan drawing details. >> Awesome. And then one one last question. Um it's noted that the division of transportation did not receive a traffic impact study or a waiver. I don't know the process, but if you could just
comment on that. Um, I'm not sure. I mean, the application was deemed complete. I thought we had submitted a traffic impact study, but if that's something they'd like, we can certainly provide provide one to them. >> I don't know, staff.
>> It it was part of their comments. Um, typically we would permit the the waiver because they don't have any automobiles on on site. >> Yeah, this one's been sitting for a while, so I don't recall if a waiver was granted. director. Thank you.
>> I don't think so. >> Thank you. >> All right, Carolyn. >> Sure. >> Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding will be the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Good evening, everyone. Uh my license is
still in current and good standing this evening. >> Okay, you may proceed. Thank you. It's good to see you all again. Um, so we're here this evening because we need the uh C variances for the lot depths for the two properties. Um, as was testified and and I think the board saw
um when we this the existing piece of property is very has um an unusual rear yard sort of condition where it has a lot of the stepbacks related to the existing building next door. Um and so uh when we do the subdivision, we end up
with um lot depths which do not meet the standard in the ordinance. So the the way that the redevelopment plan reads is that you have to have 2500 square feet, 25 ft wide, 100 ft deep. Um so it is a
little very prescriptive. Um and um you know we're looking at this we we see this as a C1 hardship criteria uh where reason of exceptional uh shape of the specific piece of property u results in the strict application of the regulation
would result in a peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties. Um so obviously there's existing buildings on the adjacent properties to acquire property in order to create a 100 foot lop depth would result in um sort of the
the destruction and the elimination of an existing property that is occupied. Um so we are looking to request that um relief. Um, as was testified, 86 Ocean is going to be a 50 by 70 foot lot with
3,797 square feet. Uh, the 90 Ocean property would be 50 by 94. Um, and that that 94 is to sort of the shortest the shorter end to the rear the longer portion is actually deeper. Um, but that lot itself
has 5,572 ft. Um, so obviously both of these lots exceed the minimum requirements for lot width. They uh more than meet the minimum requirements for lot area. So it's really just that lot depth that we
are um left with that that is non-conforming. Um so you know as was again testified you know you these buildings and lots that are created are developable. we've created buildings that meet this uh uh the requirements of the ordinance of the
zone um and are not requesting variances. So I do believe that uh it can be granted that you know these are developable lots. Um and then again to to require that we have conforming lots particularly on the corner you've got uh
it's a corner lot you end up with two lot depths with the way that the Jersey City land ordinance reads. So that would be a minimum of 10,000 square feet. So I mean it obviously was never intended um that that lot have two 100 foot lot depths. That's just not what the intent
was. Um so again I I think that both of these lots um are appropriately sized. Um the granting these variances will advance the purposes of the municipal land use law. Um you know it's going to allow for the effective subdivision of the property for future development. Um
so thus it's consistent with uh purpose A for uh guiding the appropriate use and development of the site. Um it is uh consistent with purpose um E to create two lots that uh exceed minimum lot area um and promote the establish that allows
for the appropriate uh allows for the establishment of an appropriate population density and concentration. Um so again I think again these um the subdivision provides and creates two um very well general uh wellsized
lots that meet the intent of the redevelopment. Um I don't see any substantial detriment to the public good or general welfare. Again, the lots are um oversized uh in terms of lot area um and will create um adequate space for
the development uh that has been proposed. Uh there will also not be a substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the zone plan or the zoning ordinance. The subdivision is substantially compliant with the uh requirements of the redevelopment plan. And obviously the proposed development
on those properties is again conforming in terms of the redevelopment plan. So I think overall that uh the proposed variances can be granted that they meet both the positive and the negative criteria. Um and so that's uh my direct
testimony unless anyone has questions. >> No, I don't have >> no >> no just just one question not necessarily for the the planner but just um are you guys willing to comply with the forestry memo comments? >> Of course. >> Thanks. Thank you chairwoman.
>> Thank you. All your >> That concludes our direct testimony. >> Okay. At this time, I would like to open for the public. Is there anyone from the public? >> I see no one from the public. I'd like to close the public portion. >> Seconded.
>> Thank you, Cam. Um, planning staff would ask that the applicant's attorney agree to all the conditions in the staff memo dating. >> There were several staff memos because it's multiple applications. >> Yes. So this would be um actually I I combined all cases into
one memo dated September 15th of 2025. >> Perfect. Along with the forestry uh comments as well. >> Correct. Yes. And in that list of conditions for approval. There's also the requirement that you agree to the transportation comments as well which
>> um Commissioner Kaplan noted uh the bike parking issue u which we'll have fixed for the signature plans. Russ. So, planning staff agrees with the professional planner testimony regarding the variance for the subdivision. Um,
planning staff um finds that the application is uh satisfying the positive and negative criteria. It's meeting the goals and objectives and the vision of the redevelopment plan for this lot. Um, it's going to be a
welcomed improvement to this corner and this area of the neighborhood. Um it's been vacant for a while and um planning staff uh recommends approval. >> Thank you. At this time I would like to entertain a motion for case B2024-0111.
>> That's the subdivision for purpose of the record. >> I'd like to make a motion to approve case P2024-0111 as presented to the board with staff recommendations and conditions. Second it >> on a motion to approve. Uh Commissioner Wick
>> I. >> Commissioner Stamato >> definitely. I >> Commissioner Kaplan >> I. >> Commissioner Patel. >> Hi. >> And acting chair Gangadan. >> Um so I think the variances as well justified based upon the um lot size and
the depth. Um there's no detriment to the public. So uh my vote is I. >> Motion carries. All in favor with conditions. >> Thank you. At this time, I would like to entertain a motion for case B2024-0112, which is the minor site plan for 90
Ocean Avenue. >> I'd like to make a motion to approve case P2024-0112 as presented to the board with all staff recommendations and conditions. >> Second it. >> On a motion to approve, Commissioner Wick >> I. >> Commissioner Stamato, >> I.
>> Commissioner Kaplan, >> I. >> Commissioner Patel, >> I. and acting chair Gangardan. >> Yeah, I think this is a great addition to the neighborhood. So my vote is I >> motion uh carries. All in favor with conditions >> and I would like to make a motion to
approve case P204-013 as presented to the board also with all staff recommendations and conditions. >> Second it. >> All right. On a motion to approve. Commissioner Wick >> I. Commissioner Stammato. >> I, >> Commissioner Kaplan, >> I. >> Commissioner Patel, >> I. >> And acting Chair Congadan,
>> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor with conditions. >> Thank you. >> At this time, I would like to call in KP2025-0166, which is a minor site plan with C variance. Address is 186 Terrence Avenue.
Good evening again, madame acting chair, commissioners Benjamin Weine of Prime Tub to Bell and Melli on behalf of the applicant here this evening. Um the property before you this evening is as mentioned 186 Terrace Avenue and for the record that is block 20003 lot 29 also
within the city's R1 zone. We are here this evening seeking minor site plan approval uh for the proposal of a new three-story 5-unit building with off- streetet parking and other site improvements as well which you'll hear about in detail. And with this application I do have one variance. It
is a bulk variance or also known as a C variance and that is for building height where 35 ft is permitted and 38.33 ft is proposed. So there is a variance of 3.33 feet. Um, just as a very brief intro, if everyone is familiar most likely with
the western slope area of the city, um, the properties are significantly, you know, and and well named sloped. Uh, the way that your ordinance measures height is you have to take that height beginning at the middle of the curb. And when you do that, we don't actually
start our building until approximately 6 feet taller than the curb height. So, while our building itself is a conforming 32 feet in height, being that it has to start approximately 6 feet 6'1 higher um than where you would ordinarily start a building, uh we do
have that 3.33 ft height variance. So, we tried to accommodate that a little bit by building a shorter than 35 ft building, but um but again, unfortunately, it it has to start where it has to start. And so, that's really the relief that we're here seeking from you this evening. We hope you uh will
agree when we go through our presentation that this is a significant improvement to the neighborhood as well. And I do have two witnesses with me this evening. Um once again, I do have Avar Patel who will speak to the project architecture and the site plan. And then I have our professional planner Mallerie
Clark uh who will speak to that one variance that I just went through. So I will also add this is a notice case. So I do have the affidavit package that I will uh hand over to Mr. Lampy momentarily. and I will add that this was initially noticed for last week's meeting and
adjourned here to this evening. >> Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're bound to give will be the truth? >> Uh, yes I do. >> Thank you. Madam Chairman, receive the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application at 186
Terrace A here in the city. Does appear to be an order. We are going to mark it as A1 for purpose of the record. This witness has been previously sworn and accepted as an expert in the field of architecture. So I believe that his credentials have not changed in the 30
minutes since he last testified. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Should we confirm for the record? Okay, >> you may proceed. >> Thank you. So, Avart, if you can go ahead and walk the board through uh our site plan application. >> Sure. Um the site is uh located 187 186
Terrace Avenue. Uh the lot is 50 by uh 5,000 square or sorry 48 and a half by 100. So 4850 square ft. Um uh it is located on a western slope. So from uh front of the property to the
back uh the site does go up about uh uh 18 ft or so. Um as you can see on the on the contour map uh you know at the the curb is at 78.8 and then the back of the property is at almost 103. Um
there is an existing uh 1 and a half story frame dwelling which uh we are proposing to demolish and uh uh a three-story uh five unit uh building with a with a covered parking uh at the first floor. >> Covered parking what?
>> Uh covered parking uh underneath the building. Um we are improving the site in terms of uh new sidewalk. Uh we are proposing a new uh street tree and uh uh uh will
have new water and sewer um connection for for the proposed structure. I'm going to quickly go to the site plan. As you can see uh we are proposing the building uh with a um with a 3T6 setback from both side. Um you know we
are required 3 foot two on one side and two foot on the other but we are providing u uh almost 3'6 setback so we can have um proper separation from adjacent structures uh as well as uh
placement for the windows. Um there is a uh there is an existing curb cut um and we are we are maintaining that curb cut. Uh so the uh the new driveway access would be 10t wide uh
confirming to um zoning standards and uh um let me go to the so the garage is uh uh situated underneath the building. Uh it is
um fully underground uh from all three sides except the front. Um let me quickly go to the side view. I think that kind of conveys the the topography of the site. So from the from the sidewalk um to the back of the building, you can see that that site kind of
climbs up almost two full stories. Um and as you can see that this the the b uh the cellar which is you know fully below ground on three sides ex except the front where the garage access is. So at this level we are proposing uh
threec car uh parking garage um garbage and recycling rooms um bicycle storage and then other uh building um uh services sprinkler uh electric meter room and and gas meter room. Uh there is
a um exterior staircase going to a portico uh as well as an interior staircase uh going up from uh from the garage level. um to the to the first floor. Um this is the first floor layout. As
you can see this the exterior stair comes up to a a portico and then the entry to the um to the central shaft. Uh and again the staircase from the garage will will come up. Uh so this is a more like an intermediate landing. Um and
this was adjusted based on um planning feedback we receive. uh since adjacent structures have uh exterior staircases with uh with porticos. Um so at this uh first floor u the two units here unit one and unit two they're
both three-bedroom two bath about uh 1130 ft. Um we'll have access to those units from here. Um fairly straightforward layout. the kitchen and living areas towards the front and then uh uh two smaller bedrooms middle of the
building and then master bedroom with with um a bathroom and walk-in closet towards the back. Uh both of these units will get access to the uh the backyard patio which is a kind of sunken patio uh
due to the grade and then there is a uh staircase going to the the the sideyard and they eventually lead to the backyard. Um the upper floors um this the the second
and third floor have uh three units in total. Um as you can see the unit on the right side uh unit number three which is threebedroom two bath that is um you know that level the that unit is fully on this level with uh similar layout
like downstairs. And then unit number four on the left which is about uh um 1160 ft at this level. It's a it's a duplex that is an interior staircase which will lead to um the the third floor and uh um just going to quickly
come to that side. So as you can see the staircase coming up and then the additional two bedrooms um uh at this level. So that's a four bedroomedroom four bath and uh the total area for this unit is about uh 1,900 square ft². Um
and then the uh the rest of the third floor would be unit number five which will um consist the the the entire front of the building and then uh it's more like an L-shaped unit uh and and it will run towards the back. Um again, this is a three-bedroom, three bath with a with
an office space and then that is also about uh 1,900 1,80 to be uh square foot to be exact. Um going to the roof plan. Um unit four and unit five will have uh rooftop access.
Uh and then we are setting the uh the amenity deck, you know, back from the front of the building uh about 10 and 1/2 ft. And then uh remaining area towards the back of the building about 19 ft by by 40 ft wide would be also um
dedicated as a green roof. Uh so uh we are providing almost like uh 1100 almost 1,200 square foot of green roof as part of the storm water management which was an improvement to the site. Um
overall um front of the building uh we are trying to blend the building with the with some of the adjacent structures and uh you you know keeping the the red brick which uh um three or four adjacent structures have a similar tone brick. Uh
so we're carrying that material and then uh the balconies uh uh these are you know proper balconies where person can stand out. Uh again glass rail going all the way down to the floor. Um so there's no issue anything falling off of the
edge. Um and uh uh these balcony uh elements would be uh with a with a gray uh hardy uh type siding uh in the middle of the building where the entrance and then the uh the central lobbies are uh we are continuing uh carrying uh like a
wood tone horizontal uh siding material. Um this is the rear elevation. As you can see only two stories are are visible. the um the first floor is is below grade the the way the the site topography is
towards the back of the building. Um going to the right side elevation. Um again the the top uh uh two floors would have um um light gray uh vinyl siding uh
with the um light uh gray stuckco finish towards the the seller part part of the seller which is exposed and uh uh the first floor um and similar treatment on the other side. Um
there is a storm water management system proposed which would be uh it is the back of the building uh underground uh as well as the green roof. So that's a um that's a significant improvement compared to what the the site is right now. >> And ofart that's also going to just
sorry to interrupt but that's going to help as well with some of the sloping topography. Is that correct? >> That that is correct. Yes. Um I think I'll answer any questions. So, >> just a couple of follow-ups. I want to make sure because I know this often comes up at zoning that that is truly a
seller level and not a basement and has no habitable space. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. And then consistent with some of the other houses on the block that I know you referenced and I think Miss Clark will testify to, but some of the other houses have this similar arrangement where you have that exposed
cellar right at the front and three stories above. Is that correct? >> Uh, that is correct. Yes. >> Okay. And so we it's fair to say we align with the the motif on the block as well. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. And uh and then lastly, just I know it often comes up with R1 projects where ADUs are proposed. Would it be
your experience and your position that putting an ADU on on such a drastically sloping property is is more than a challenge and why we didn't include it? >> Uh yes, that is correct. and and especially um given the the the the slope you know uh the this the property
behind it you know the building is elevated and uh given the the excessive slopes uh um you know there was a significant cut and fill required uh and that's the reason we >> cut and fill of the site um uh and thus
we did not um uh propose any ADUs here >> okay and then lastly as I just indicated in my opening but if you can confirm as the architect eitect the actual building height itself is compliant with the 35 ft. It's just where we have to start measuring creating the the need for the relief. Is that correct?
>> Correct. So as you can see on the side elevation uh you know we are indicating the line of median grade which is uh the average grade on you know four corner of the building. So um the actual height from the the median grade to the top of
the roof is about 27 ft. Um but uh uh based on the the definition of the height you the height is measured at the center point of the lot at the curb line. Uh thus uh you know there is a increase uh beyond 35 ft the the building height.
>> Okay. Thank you. I have nothing further for Mr. Patel. >> Any board comments? >> Madame Chairwoman. Um too quick. Can you provide some testimony about the operations of the parking spaces if you could show this? >> Sure.
>> Thank you. >> Um, so we have not uh designated the parking to a specific unit yet. Uh, I think that would will come uh at a later date. Um but uh in you know instances like this
um the the parking towards the back is is basically side by side and then you know the parking spot number three is a is a tandem right. Um so um based on whether this gets a becomes a rental or
condo uh we'll have to work out you know parking and and uh pulling out the cars and you know all that coordination will will um will be done at that point. And aart, I think to get at, and correct me if I'm wrong, Commissioner, I think where Commissioner Kaplan is going is
this would not be a free-for-all parking, right? They would be assigned spaces to the units that are, you know, that that >> get a space. Correct. >> That that is correct. >> Okay. Y >> thank you. And there would be some sort of coordination between parking spot
>> three and the others which it blocks. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? Thank you. So, my next and final witness is Mallerie Clark, our professional planner, who will speak to you about the one variance we're seeking. Do >> you want me to keep this on?
>> Yes. >> And I'm going to ask uh well, let's get Miss Clark's warnings. >> Good evening, commissioners. Mallerie Clark of Dresnar Robin. Do >> you affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding? >> Yes, I do.
>> Mallerie Clark. M A L L O R Y C L A R K. Miss Clerk, you're a licensed current and in good standing. >> Yes, it is. >> You may proceed. >> Thank you. So, uh, Miss Clark, before you proceed, what I would just ask that we do is, uh, I believe you're about to show an exhibit, and this was not
previously submitted, so I think, uh, we should have this marked as exhibit A2. And if you can just describe for the board what the exhibit is. >> Yes. So, this is a an exhibit detailing, um, the height variance in the neighborhood context. It's a five-page PDF
and it will show some aerial imagery as well as uh site photos >> dated today's date. >> That's correct. >> And I will make sure to put this on the portal after >> A2. Thank you. >> Thank you. So, Mallerie, you heard the uh the testimony as to the project and
the relief that we're seeking. So if you can please provide the board with your testimony to support the relief. >> Yes. So as the board is aware, we are seeking relief for a sea height variance in feet. Um whereas the R1 zone allows for a building height of 35 ft and our
building height as proposed is 38'4 in. So 38.33 ft is proposed. A difference of 3.33 feet from the ordinance. Um as was covered in prior testimony, the ordinance measures that height metric from the curb line. And because we have
such substantial uh topographic change from the rear to the front of the property, it results in our building height um being a little higher from a zoning interpretation, although we are proposing a compliant structure height um from a slab and construction perspective of under 35 ft.
Um so just to start off, the architect just took us through this kind of side elevation, but I think it really tells the appropriate story um of the change in topography. So, at the rear of our property, we have an elevation of approximately 103.65 at the highest point. Um, and our elevation at the
front property line is 81, a little bit lower at the curb line at 78 ft. And that results in that uh 38.4 measurement to the roof line of our proposed building. As was also just covered, um, for clarity, the lower story, which is the
garage portion, does meet the city's definition of a seller. it will not continue or it will not contain any habitable space. And you can see here it's really just a small portion of the front that's actually visible on that lower level. And then because of that grade change um happening so
substantially towards the rear as the high point, there's only actually like a two appearance of a two-story building at the rear. And then just for everyone's benefit um which I will go through on the high side here, we have um Liberty A to the rear of us. so that
those buildings will look over our building um towards the west of the city and then the other side of our street continues to slope down substantially. Um and so we kind of get a view a little bit over the other properties on the other side of the street which you'll
see in just a moment. Uh this is a photo here of the existing site on the right. Um you can get a sense of even just the topographic change in the front of the property from that retaining wall that you see um flanking the driveway. And that again
it's really that change from the curb line elevation to um a couple feet into the site where the the building actually starts that's uh necessitating this height relief. And then just to go over a little bit of um neighborhood character and and
speaking to kind of that our need for this variance is not um unique just to our property but is really a condition of the corridor as a whole and the um unique nature of of the western slope. These are the properties across the street. So these are um from the front of our property facing west. You can see
some recent construction has happened in several places and they kind of have the inverse relationship of what you know we're proposing on our lot due to the continued slope where this structure appears as three stories from the street frontage but is four full stories on the rear. So it's just kind of that
continuation of of the slope. And then on the bottom right here, these are the properties directly next to us. So if you're looking at our property, you can see them to the left here. Um, and these are identical configuration to what we're proposing before you tonight, which is that kind
of seller level garage with three residential floors above. And moving through, um, I thought some of the aerial imagery was also helpful just to see some of the topography. So, as I just explained, these are the properties that are to our rear. They have high ground compared to us from the
rear. So, they will look over our property. And I think here, if we pay attention over to the Thorn Street, you can really get a sense of that grade change and how um severe that is. I think this might be the most substantial uh grade change on the western slope for this particular
block. And lastly, the same condition where you can start to see that these buildings on the opposite side of the street from us drop an additional story. Um so again, just the inverse of what we're proposing here. Um so with that um as stated we do
require the the relief for um the additional 3.33 ft. Um I do believe in this situation that we do actually meet a C1 uh hardship criteria. The MLUL does acknowledge exceptional topography as uh a condition meeting a
hardship for development in that um we would really require very substantial excavation of the site in order to uh meet the the zoning interpretation of height here. I think that that would be more detrimental to the neighbors and would actually create a condition as you
just saw atypical on the block. So, I think what we're proposing is very consistent in terms of overall site configuration and how the building's built into the slope that exists. Um, and I don't think we're offending the zone plan in any manner uh with that need for the additional 3.33 ft. I will
also add those buildings that are to the right of or the left of us, sorry, that have the same configuration with the garage level and three residential floors above are actually slightly taller than what we're proposing. So they measure about 39 to 40 feet from
the curb line and they all have peaked roofs. So those peaked roofs actually add a little bit of additional height on the structures. So I don't think again that we there's any offense to um general welfare or the intent of the zone plan with the granting of the variance.
I do think we are advancing several purposes of municipal land use law in general welfare under purpose A as well as um maintaining appropriate setbacks for light air and open space uh to adjacent properties. I also think that
we're advancing purpose I by constructing a new building that's um providing a desirable visual environment. we are consistent with overall site configuration and aesthetics of recent construction in the neighborhood. Um, and I think we're
advancing goals of the master plan through the redevelopment of the site as proposed. Uh, goal one is to provide unique, attractive, and highquality residential areas that will serve existing residents and attract new residents with a wide range of housing types. So, I think we are advancing um
the goals and I think you know this is really just a condition like I said where I do believe we meet the C1 criteria and it's really a product of the fact that zoning codes aren't written to contemplate properties that have a 23 foot grade change from rear to front. Um so we're just kind of caught up in the realities of what we're
building into. Um and so I think that 3.33 ft is really um dimminimous at that point uh in that we're not out of scale. were compliant with setbacks and providing um very adequate light air and open space to the adjacent properties. So with that, I'm happy to answer any
questions. >> Thank you, Mallerie. That was very thorough. I have nothing further for Miss Clark. >> Thank you. Is there any board comments? >> Thank you. That wraps up your >> That would conclude my application. >> Okay. Is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this
application? >> I see no one from the public. I'd like to close the public portion. Cam >> planning staff would ask that the attorney, Mr. Wine, agree to the conditions in the staff memo dated March
26th of this year. Are those conditions acceptable? >> Um, I must admit I don't believe I saw that memo. So, if I could take a quick peek. >> Okay. >> I can also read them into the record if that's all right. >> Standard conditions.
>> They are the standard conditions. Okay. Okay. Now I can confirm that we can comply. >> The conditions on the staff memo dated March 26th of this year, which were up on the portal, are accepted by the applicant's attorney. Um, with that,
planning staff would agree with the professional planner testimony regarding the variances. We uh do not think it will have a detriment to the public's general health, welfare, well-being, or any detriment to the master plan, zone plan, or our LDO. Um, planning staff
would just like to thank the applicant and their team for incorporating architectural elements that uh pay homage to the uh culture and fabric of the adjacent property owners. Um,
and with that, planning staff recommends approval. >> I'd like to entertain a motion. >> I'd like to make a motion to approve case P2025-0166 as presented to the board with all staff recommendations and conditions. >> Second it. >> All right. On a motion to approve,
Commissioner Wick, >> I. >> Commissioner Stamato, >> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan, >> I. >> Commissioner Patel, >> I. >> And acting chair Gangadan. Yeah, I think the variance is requested is justifiable. So my vote is I. >> Motion carries. All in favor with conditions. >> Thank you everybody.
>> Okay. We'll take a five minutes break and we'll be back. So this time I will call two cases together because we'll be presenting um both at the same time. Case B2025-0226 183 Bay View Avenue and KP2025258
which is 183-193 Bay View Avenue which is a minor sub subdivision with C variance. >> Okay. Uh thank you. For the record, Charles Harrington of Connell Foley on behalf of the applicant. Uh we did
provide uh notices for both cases uh separately and I have provided them to council. >> So Madam Chair, I've had the opportunity to review both of the notices. Uh we're going to mark both of them as
A1 under their separate docket numbers. So the first one is the uh it's listed as K17 P20250226. That is the site plan application. So we're going to mark that notice A1 for
purpose of that record. And then the second notice is with relation to case 18 case P2025-0258. We're going to mark that one as A1 for purposes of the record. I've had the opportunity to review them. They do appear to be in order.
>> Thank you, Council. >> Okay. Thank you. So, just before I begin, I I just as an administrative matter when when voting on this uh and council can, you know, advise you as as well, but I think a vote should be made on the subdivision first because that
creates the lots for the site plan. I only note that because uh the subdivision is listed as number 18 on the agenda and the site plan is is listed as number 17 and that's probably a result of us filing the subdivision uh application after the site plan
application was filed. So council, I would agree with that. And council, as I understand the application, the building exists. It's, for lack of a better term, a retrofitting of what used to be a dormatory into multifamily housing. And
the subdivision is actually to create uh it looked to me like the existing structure that is the dormatory actually straddles the property line. So, it looked to me like we were trying to adjust that
property line so that we could have the structure completely on the lot. Is that fair? >> That's correct. Yeah. The it's um the existing priory. This is part of the Sacred Heart campus right on uh on on
Bay View and it's um this is the first phase if you will of the redevelopment of of the Sacred Heart campus. And then the existing priary building has part of the building is on one of the lots. So it encroaches over there. So all we're doing is is we are
moving the boundary line to bring that that structure within the development lot. Uh there are variances in connection with the minor subdivision that are triggered because of the way this the redevelopment plan reads. uh the existing lots are the the the
permitted lot area and the the existing setbacks relate to the existing buildings. So that's going to change when the building changes uh when the lot line changes, but nothing nothing else has changes with regard to the building. So we're um and my clients
have been working with u Mr. Jordan and Dan Reeden uh on this project. So that's that's where we got got ourselves to today. So other than that, it's very straightforward. Uh uh for the record, I have our surveyor here tonight. I also
have Mr. Bellamy here tonight. But my my uh plan is to present uh Mr. Wman, our architect. He'll walk you through the the subdivision plan and then and then uh take you through the project. Uh we do have principal point statements that are on file and available, you know, to
to uh the board. And uh any event they have any questions for Mr. Bellamy when we're concluded he can certainly come up and and speak to that. And with that said, if it's okay, I'll move forward with Mr. Ruckman. >> Fair enough.
>> Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding? Is the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Full name? >> William Wcinman. Last name spelled we cn mn. >> Mr. Wckman, is your license current and in good standing?
>> Yes, it is. Thank you. You may proceed. >> Great. Thank you very much. Um, so as Chuck mentioned, I'll I'll just quickly um walk you through the the subdivision survey. It's it's very straightforward. Um, this green line here is uh the
existing property line between um lot two and lot one on the corner. Um, you can see here it runs right through the about 10 feet in from the the face of the building. Um, lot two is uh
10,000 square feet and lot one is just over 13,000 square feet. Um, we're proposing um moving the lot line 20 feet to the west, which would result in a 12,000 uh square foot uh lot
uh 12,000 square feet for lot two and uh just over 11,000 square feet for lot one. Um it again, it's it's pretty simple. That's um I'm happy to answer any any questions on this.
I I don't think it could be any more simple than that to be honest with you, Madam Chair. I don't I don't know if any of the board members have any questions, but it's pretty clear. I >> I guess the only question for me is is this building attached to the church or are they separated?
>> Uh they uh this building is attached to the church. Yes. >> So the the property line would be at the line demarcating the two buildings where they're adjacent to each other. >> Yeah. There's no change to to to that that lot line where we're it currently
runs along the boundary between the two buildings and uh this will stay uh in its existing location. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> No. >> No. >> Okay. I guess we will move on to case
2025-0226 which is the preliminary and final major site plan. Okay, great. Um, so as as Chuck mentioned, uh, this this project is the the first phase of, uh, several plan developments for the
property. Um, work at this time is, uh, isolated to, uh, the proposed lot 2, uh, which, uh, is the the the priaryy building. Um, no work is proposed on any of the the adjacent properties at this time. This is purely just an interior uh
renovation and adaptive reuse of the uh former priaryy building into um into a a multif family building. So here's the uh uh proposed and existing uh sideby-side site plan. Um I'll just walk you through the existing
site plan quickly. Um we are proposing uh standard uh sidewalk improvements which includes new sidewalk, new street trees, a new curb. Um we are proposing new landscaping um on the front lawn between the uh the building and the and
the property line. Um also includes uh refurbishment of the existing historic fence. Um the there are currently uh there's currently a sidewalk on the uh eastern side of of the property which uh provides access to the center of this
courtyard. Uh this will be uh replaced as well um and will provide uh barrierfree access uh to the building. Um the basement is several feet below grade. The first floor is uh several feet uh above grade. And uh we're making
that that connection here um off of this courtyard. Um the the main entrance to the building here uh will remain uh the stairs will remain uh they'll be repaired uh as needed and we will be replacing uh this
the sidewalk um on this this side of the building as well. Um also proposing uh reducing the the concrete and uh providing more green space. um as well as uh rehabbing uh this uh
walkway here and uh some existing staircases um that provide access to the building. Um we are moving the main the the entrance the configuration of the the entry stairs remaining but you but we are proposing the new main entrance
to the building uh be located in this this area here uh which I'll uh go into greater detail on the um floor plans. So, um, starting with the the basement level, um, currently currently the building
has, um, a large meeting room and utility spaces on the on the in the basement level as well as storage. Um, the first floor houses uh, a large meeting room, a kitchen, and several offices. and the upper floors are the um
the residential uh dormatory floors. Um so we are proposing four units per floor um which works well with the with the building footprint. Um and then the the basement will have um have two
units. So, um in addition to those two units, uh which are located on the um uh northeast um and northwest corner, uh we're proposing a new um entrance lobby here
um off of uh both of those courtyards um as well as uh utility space and bike storage uh in this section of the plan. And then the existing vertical circulation for the building uh will remain. So um this staircase here will
go up to the the upper levels. Um and this corridor will provide access to these two basement apartments. So um as I mentioned the upper floors each have four units per floor. We have two
units on the west side uh unit or sorry on the east side uh one large um two-bedroom unit on the west side and then one uh uh apartment above the the entry lobby. These two apartments will have their own
private access. Um so this existing staircase and door will remain and then the main entry here as I mentioned will remain. Um, and we're also keeping some of the um historic features of of the interior of the building um at staff's
recommendation and incorporating that into uh this apartment here. Um moving on to the second floor. Again, we have four units, two on the west, two on the east, uh with the central uh staircase here. Um, one really cool
feature of this building, floor plans don't really do it justice, but there's a chapel, a double height chapel, um, in this area here, which we are are keeping, um, and, uh, repairing and turning it into, uh, an amenity space
for the building. the third floor plan. Third floor plans uh similar though it does have a smaller uh foot pl foot footprint. Um and uh the two west units have uh we're creating balconies on these flat roofs here. And uh this section here is just the the
upper upper area of the chapel which will be the new uh resident lounge amenity space. We're not proposing any additions to the building and we're not proposing any roof decks. Uh but we are using the
center portion the flat flat roof for um uh HVAC utilities uh which is indicated here and we have a detail of our equipment screen um as well. The uh exterior work on the building is uh fairly limited. Uh the stone is in
really good shape and the existing slate roof is also in in really good shape. So um those will be maintained, repointed and cleaned as required. Um we're keeping the ex all the of the existing window openings, but we'll be replacing with the window replacing the windows
with a more historically appropriate um uh casement window uh which you can see here. Um no new openings on on on this facade. Um uh pretty straightforward as far as the exterior work is concerned.
Uh I will highlight the uh um cornerstone of the building which will be also be repaired as uh as part of the project. Uh same thing for all of the other elevations. Um, with respect to the the exterior work um, with the on the the
west elevation here, we are also going to be replacing the entry door with a historically appropriate uh, replacement as well as um, replacing the the utility service doors here with a more appropriate entry entry door.
Um, another interesting feature is the the the amenity space that I referenced previously has these great um Gothic style windows. Um, when the the church um when the property was sold, the church came through and
removed um much of the stained glass, any of the significant religiously significant glass. Um, so we are replacing those the panes that were removed and then also um maintaining and repairing uh what stained glass does in
fact remain on the upper portion of the windows. >> I'm sorry. >> No, no. all the uh uh ornamental stone work will remain uh and be be repointed. Uh
same uh same story for the the south elevation uh with respect to the exterior work. Um and then again same same with the east east elevation um replacing the the windows and the doors
uh as needed. So, we just have some uh exterior material selections and and uh uh window selections here. Um pretty standard. And then I'll just end with our uh site
site light lighting plan. But again, pretty straightforward. >> So, that concludes my testimony. Thank you. All exterior lighting fixtures will be I guess uh periodic appropriate is that
>> a mix of uh of uh old and new. We are going to be there are some existing light fixtures which will be um uh repaired and reused and then we have some reproductions that will be made to to match. Uh these will be over the
entry doors. Um, and then we have some more general sight lighting for the balconies on the upper level and then to provide some additional general illumination here along the egress path. >> Any board comments? >> Can you tell me what type of windows
you're going to be putting in or replacing the old windows with? um in terms of um style, function, >> style and um you know what make I'm just curious. >> Um we haven't settled on a on a manufacturer yet. Um we're still trying to figure out it's been very difficult
to get pricing and kind of pin down >> um an exact specification, but um we're going to be using a casement window to match what was there >> uh historically. >> Um see here >> this there are a couple of um existing
windows that still remain, >> right? So, um it we'll be using this as a reference for um for what we're we're proposing. >> Andy, any comments? >> This is awesome. >> Thank you.
>> I like that window on the bottom. >> Thank you. >> It is cool. The old steel windows are are really cool. >> So yeah, that completes our presentation. As I stated earlier, we the the variances are very straightforward and we do we did submit
a principal point statement in support of them. Mr. Bellamy is here in the event any members have questions. >> Madam Chair, I don't know if the board requires such testimony. I mean, >> no, never. And my opinion, this is exactly uh what adaptive reuse is is all
about. I you know, we've seen a couple, but this really no enlarging of the building and just interior outfitting, maintaining the building itself, repairing and bringing the building to
its glory and uh you know, utilizing the structure. So, uh, if we need testimony, obviously Mr. Bellamy can provide it, but >> very up to the board. >> Agreed. Um, Sento, I don't think we I'll
just ask the board if they do. I mean, I'm okay at this point. We're good. >> I'm all good. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> That's it. >> That concludes your presentation. >> It does. >> Okay. At this time, I would like to open for the public. Is there anyone from the public?
>> See no one from the public. I can I would like to close the public portion. >> Second it, >> Ben. >> So, we're going to you're going to comments on both. >> Yes. >> And then we will vote individually. >> Correct.
>> Um so, as this property is individually eligible for inclusion on the state and national his uh national registers, uh I did work with uh Mr. Dan Reeden, the historic preservation officer. As Mr. Harrington alluded to, uh Mr. Reeden
indicated that he is satisfied that the proposed work is generally consistent with the Secretary of the Interior standards and guidelines for rehabilitation and takes particular note of the developer's desire to preserve uh interior character defining spaces and
features in addition to preserving the character-defining exterior of the building and the site. Then uh specifically on the subdivision uh there is a variance because the uh redevelopment plan specifies that while
all existing lots are conforming uh lots cannot be reduced in size. So there is a C variance to um reduce the the size of the lot with the school on it. Um staff supports that variance and recommends
approval of the subdivision provided that the applicant agree to the conditions on the staff memo dated 325 2026. >> We would. Yes. >> Great. So staff recommends approval on the subdivision. And then on the site plan, staff finds that the application
adheres to the standards of the redevelopment plan and fulfills the plan's goal of rehabilitating a vacant structure. Uh staff also recommends approval on that again provided that the applicant agree to the conditions from the staff memo from the other staff memo
dated 3252026. >> Yes, we would. >> Okay, great. Staff recommends approval on the uh site plan as well. Then >> at this time I would like to entertain a motion on the subdivision. I'd like to make a motion on case P2025-0258
as presented to the board with all staff recommendations and conditions. >> Second it. >> Commissioner Wick >> I. >> Commissioner Stapado >> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan >> great project I. >> Commissioner Patel >> I. >> And acting chair Gonadan >> I.
>> Motion carries. All in favor with conditions. So, I entertain a motion on the preliminary and final major site plan. >> I'd like to make a motion to approve KP2025-0226 as presented to the board also with um staff recommendations and all
conditions. >> Second it. >> Commissioner Wick >> I. >> Commissioner Stamato >> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan >> I. >> Commissioner Patel. >> Hi. >> And acting chair Ganga. >> Yeah, I love the repurpose of this building. It's great great addition as
well. Um my vote is I. >> Motion carries. All in favor with conditions. >> Thank you. >> I'd like to call KP2024-0223 minor site plan with C variances 3 Orchard Street. >> Stephen Joseph.
>> Hello. Good evening. I'll move over. Uh Stephen Joseph for the applicant. This is a notice case. Double answer. This is A1. >> Madam Chairman, receive the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application at 3-5 Orchard Street here in the city. Had the
opportunity to review it. It does appear to be in order. going to mark it as A1 for purpose of the record. >> Thank you. Um All right. So, this is a minor site plan with variances for front yard landscaping and front yard coverage. Um simple project. It's a
existing three-story four-unit building. We're expanding this building in the rear and we're beautifying the building through a facade renovation. Um we have Jeff Lewis here this evening. We also have Caroline around somewhere. Um, but we're going to present Jeff's testimony and if the board wants to hear from the
planner, we could bring up the planner. Jeff, let's get you sworn in. Hi. >> Do you swear or the testimony you're about to give in this proceed? >> Yes. >> And state. >> Jeffrey Lewis. JF R Y L E W I S.
>> Mr. Lewis, your license current and in good standing. >> Yes, it is. >> Okay, you may proceed. >> Great. Thank you. Okay. So, I'm starting on my site plan sheet. And on the first sheet, um what we have here is kind of an oddly shaped oversized lot located in
the R1 zone. Uh this lot is 46 ft wide and 75 ft deep. So, it's a total of 3,450 square ft. Uh there's an existing three-story 4-unit residential building on the site and as was mentioned, we are going to renovate that building as well
as put an addition on the rear of the building. We are asking for one variance and it's for our front yard landscaping. And when we get to the site plan, I'll walk through why we're asking for that and why we think it's appropriate. So, looking to the site plan, we are
proposing new concrete curbs, new concrete sidewalks, and one new street tree. Uh, our existing building has a 4ft front yard setback and 0 foot uh sideyard setbacks. And let's just jump into that front yard because that's where the variance is. Uh, the current
existing site has 100% of the um of that front yard as concrete. We are breaking that concrete up entirely, adding 42 square ft of landscaping which is on the right side of the building. And then on the left side of the building, what we have is a ramp and a
staircase up up to the front entry of the building. Uh and that's because uh right now our existing first floor is about a foot above grade. And as a 4-unit building, this building should be ADA accessible. Currently, it's not. By adding the staircase and the ramp at the
front, we're making this building uh ADA accessible. Um, moving to the back of the building, uh, the new addition, you can see here on the drawings, it is built on the right side property line. On the left side, we
have a three-foot setback. We're using that setback as a walkway that will connect from the backyard out to the front through the building. And on the floor plan, I'll show that a little uh more clearly. Uh the rest of the rear yard, we have a
PA patio area as well as a lawn area, all enclosed with a six- foot tall uh wood fence. Uh there's also a fence going down the center of the property, which is dividing uh this backyard into two, one for each of the ground floor units. So each unit will have its own
individual backyard. Okay, so moving on to the plans themselves. Here we're looking at our seller plan. It's an existing seller space. We're not adding any new seller. Uh in this space we will have our meters or sprinkler room as this is a fully
sprinklered building and then area for our trash and recycling storage. Here we're looking at the first floor. We're going to go on the right side here. So we have a new central entry to the building. It leads to the main staircase as well as entrances to
apartment number one and apartment number two. Uh each of these apartments are two-bedroom, two- bath apartments. They're kind of mirroring each other. Uh one is 971 ft. The other is 980. They have very similar layouts with a living, dining, kitchen area in the
front. Two bedrooms and two bathrooms towards the back. Uh there's a laundry closet, utility closet. Uh, and the master bedroom has sliding doors out to that backyard. And it's the same for the apartment on the left side.
Uh, and then lastly, you can see on the left here, there is a small 3-foot space that is uh separate from the apartments, and that would be used as a walkth through to get from the front yard to the backyard. Here we're looking at the second floor. Uh, on the upper levels, we have uh two
duplex apartments. Uh so each of them again have similar layouts. Uh on the ground on this floor which is the second floor we have the main living dining kitchen space one bedroom one bathroom as well as the staircase up to the third
floor. Then here looking at the third floor each apartment has a central corridor with uh three total bedrooms, two total bathrooms as well as a nice size laundry room. Uh, and that stair also would continue up to the third floor, excuse
me, up to the roof where each of these apartments has their own private roof deck. Um, the one to the left is 711 ft. To the right is 628 ft. They're each set back 10 ft from the front of the building, and that space is used for
green roof trays. Uh, we also have raised planter boxes along both of the property lines, as well as down the middle of the property. uh separating the two roof decks. Uh at the stair bulkhead, we also have utility rooms. And behind the stair
bulkhead, we have our air conditioning condensers, uh which are enclosed by a um 42-in high screen. Here we're looking at the existing and proposed front elevation. Proposed is on the right. So, our main building material at the
ground floor is a new um Aspen white uh smooth brick. Um we also have brick window surrounds on the ground floor. Um the railing for the ramp and the stair is a glass railing with a metal um rail.
Uh above the brick um we have a black canopy. The canopy actually only extends out about six inches or so. So, it's really not much. It's more just separating between the ground floor and the upper floors above. Above this, the main finish is an arctic white uh hardy
plank siding. At the top of the building, we have a 5-ft tall black cornice also wrapped in a hardy panel siding. We have black framed windows and trim. Um a black metal double entry door, which is mostly glass. And then
again, that section to the left where we have the three-foot walkthrough uh is treated a little differently. Uh the second and third floors above that are just finished with a smooth white stucco finish. And this was really to kind of uh give the impression of
of a um a balanced building here. A little bit of symmetry that we don't actually have but gave the appearance of. Here we're looking at the rear elevation. Uh the main finish is just a white vinyl siding and we're proposing the same black framed uh and trimmed
windows and doors as we were proposing at the front of the building. This is the left side. Uh again, we're right on the property line um with the existing building. The new building is set back 3 ft and so we have a few windows there and we're proposing uh
vinyl siding as the finish here. And then lastly, this is the right side of the building. We're directly on the property line and we're posing just a smooth stucco finish on that uh property line wall. And then here we just have a little bit of a closeup um of the front of the
entry. And with that uh I can conclude my presentation unless there's anything you want me to address. >> No, I think uh I think what the board heard from Jeff specifically about the variance is that it's an existing building. There's existing 100% coverage in the front and uh this is improving
the situation but we're limited by the ADA access and the and the existing building. Um we do have a planner this evening if the board would like to hear from the planner on that on that variance. >> Any questions for Mr. Lewis? >> Just one question. Um I don't know that
it's shown on the architectural plans, but can you just clarify the the sidewalk width that remains outside of the ADA ramp for the public right away? Um, you're right. That is definitely not shown, but I'm sure we have it measured
out. >> I have to get back to you on the number. It's It looks like I would guess around 12 to 13 feet. >> Okay. That's >> It's pretty wide. >> Pretty wide. Yes. Great. And it's a very low traffic area for pedestrians as well. >> Great. Thank you.
>> Any other questions? >> No. >> Okay. Do we want to hear from the planner or we're >> I'm good. >> Okay. >> We're good. >> Okay. That concludes your presentation. >> That does conclude our direct testimony. Thank you.
>> Okay. Um at this time, I would like to open for the public if there's anyone from the public. >> See no one from the public. I'd like to close the public portion. >> Second it. >> Okay, Ken. >> Um well, firstly, um planning staff has
reviewed and read the professional um planners report, the principal point statement that was uploaded in on September 25th of this year uh of 2025 and planning staff agrees with the uh statement made in that principal point
statement. We believe that the variant sought does not have any detriment to the zone plan, the master plan, or the public's general health, welfare, or well-being. Um, having that said, staff would ask that the applicant agree to the conditions in the planning memo dated November 20th of 2025.
>> Yeah, the applicant agrees. I also want to say we worked uh heavily with Cameron on the design of this building, and I think it came out really nice. Um, with that, planning staff would recommend approval. Thank you. I'd like to entertain a motion.
>> I'd like to make a motion to approve case P2024-0223 as presented to the board this evening with all staff recommendations and conditions. >> I'll second that. >> All right. On a motion to approve. Commissioner Wick >> I. >> Commissioner Stamato
>> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan >> I. >> Commissioner Patel. >> Hi. >> And acting chair Gongadan. >> Yeah. I must say it's beautifully designed. Thank you, Cam, for working with the um attorney and the partners. >> Um I >> motion carries. All in favor with
conditions. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> I'd like to call case B2024-01 0212. It's a preliminary and final major site plan. The address is 792 Communipal
Avenue. Mr. Wine. >> Yes. Good evening, madame acting chair, commissioners. For the record, Benjamin Wine of Prime Vel and Misselli on behalf of the applicant. Um, the property in question as you as you indicated is 792 Communai Avenue. That's block 18301,
lot 67, and we are located in the NC1 zone. That's the neighborhood commercial one zone. We're here this evening seeking preliminary and final major site plan approval in order to construct a new fivestory building mixeduse building that will consist of 38 residential
units above groundf flooror commercial space. Uh the applica the application um is free and clear of any variances. We are fully conforming with your NC1 zoning. And I want to take a quick opportunity to uh to thank Matt and I know Markian from affordable housing is not here tonight but to thank them. This
has been a you'll notice the uh the the P number on this application. It's been kicking around for a while. Went through several planners um before ultimately landing with Matt. And what we have here is a project that uh that we believe is is an excellent addition to the area and
also contains 10% affordable housing um which is kind of unique. We do trigger the inclusionary zoning ordinance which is not something I know this board typically deals with, but uh and I'm sure Mr. D Silva will go through it with you when it comes to his opportunity to speak. But because this property was
previously zoned for something other than residential, I believe automotive back in the day, I could be right. So because it's now a residentially zoned property, um there is a a portion of your ordinance that then requires 10% affordable housing. So, it's a unique
opportunity to be able to obviously zoning recognized that this is a site that is conducive to residential or mixeduse development and uh but in so doing there's an opportunity to provide affordable housing that most conforming residential projects simply don't don't
trigger. So, it's a unique opportunity and I thank Matt greatly for uh for working with us uh over the and planning staff over over a year at this point. Um, I also want to say that uh we will present plans to you this evening that are on your portal. We do have one exhibit from our architect who will
speak momentarily. Um, as recently as yesterday, we received our affordable housing division approval uh for the specific units that will be affordable or dedicated as affordable uh and they meet the size requirements, the bedroom distribution. So, we will have one
exhibit to just show a revised floor plan that was specifically requested by affordable housing yesterday. Um, but beyond that, I have one witness I intend to call this evening. This is a notice case, so I will get that to Mr. Lampy. Um, I only intend to call my architect,
which you could probably guess is Patel. Um, so with that, I will get my notice over to Mr. Lampy and bring up Mr. Patel. >> Thank you. Miss Patel, you're still under oath and your license still current? >> Yes. Madam Chairman, receive the affidavit of
publication proof of mailing with respect to the application at 792 Communipo Avenue here in the city. This matter had previously been set down for last week's meeting. It was carried to this meeting with preservation of that notice. It appears to be in order. We're
going to mark it as A1 for purpose of the record. >> Thank you. So, Mr. Patel, just to confirm, your license is in good standing >> and with that, I would submit Mr. Patel as an expert. Uh, Avar, if you could please walk the board through the existing and proposed site conditions.
>> Yes, absolutely. Um, so the site used to be some sort of automotive use. Uh, you can see the uh the existing picture. Uh, the building has actually come down and it's a vacant site now. Um, of course, we started the project almost year and a
half ago. So, the existing picture uh was like this when we started, but you know, now it's awaken site has been demoed. Um, going to quickly go to the um the survey which is uh you know three
lots which we are merging into one. Uh and the the frontage uh along the community pave is 74 ft. Um 100 ft deep lot towards the back the um the lot does taper to 719
ft. Um this is the proposed site plan showing the uh the footprint of the building. Um on the left side we are uh building close to the u close to the property line and then on the right side we have
a conforming setback which would which is required for for exiting from the from the backyard to the for public right away. Uh we are improving the um the frontage with the new sidewalk and
uh we're proposing three uh street trees. Um, as you can see on the existing condition picture, the the current sidewalk is in a very bad shape. Um, uh, the pavement is is pretty pretty much broken and and
you know, uneven. So, uh, it's a it's a pretty significant improvement compared to what there. Um, there is a storm water system proposed in the in the backyard uh underneath the the patio and then the uh grass areas.
I'm going to quickly go to the building floor plans. This is the seller level plan which uh has all the building utilities as well as the uh the two storage areas for uh for the commercial spaces. Um bike
parking we are proposing at this level. This level is serviced by uh by an elevator and one staircase. Um I'm going to go to the first floor plan. Um there are two commercial spaces proposed along Commun Avenue which could
uh um which which could turn into uh three commercial spaces but uh uh based on uh the the market and what we've seen um in this this area we we felt like two um two spaces would be enough but we may get subdivided into three um when the
building is ready and start marketing. uh we are complying with a 40% requirement for the commercial space on the first floor. Um the the net areas uh for commercial space is about 1,100 square ft uh and then about,5
commercial too. Um and then the the storage areas are addition into to this uh square footage here. Um the building lobby is uh uh uh located towards the the left side of the building when facing the building uh
from the community pile. Um one of the staircases exiting directly to the outside which is required per code and the elevator is is uh centrally located. Um, at this level, I mean, this uh uh floor, we have two commercial spaces, as
I just went through. Uh, a three-bedroom unit um and uh a one-bedroom unit with a with a small uh club room, which would be uh building amenity. Both uh uh residential unit will have access to the
the backyard uh with a with a paved patio, and then the remaining would be just the grass patch. And I'm just going to stop you real quick. I think the next three sheets, I just want to clarify for the record, were modified slightly yesterday by the Division of Affordable Housing. So, just
to be safe, should we mark these as A2, which are amended floor plans? What's the date on them? >> Uh, it's dated uh March 30th. >> Okay. So, yesterday your mark is A2 sheets. I think it's A8. A8 through A10, I
believe. >> Uh, it's A1. >> I'm sorry. Uh, then A8, A9, A10. Okay, so it's four sheets. And I do believe for the record, these
have already been posted on the portal, I believe. Okay. >> All right. Go right ahead. Okay. Um the the general unit mix is uh um you know one bedrooms, two bedroom I mean studio, onebedroom, two-bedroom and uh
two threebedroom units. Uh the smallest being about 360 ft² studio and uh largest being um,040 uh which would be a three-bedroom unit. Um,
>> I believe that's the affordable unit. Is that correct? >> That is correct. Yes. Uh, >> the,040 says a two-bedroom, two bath. >> I believe it should be threebedroom. And that's the one that's on the ground floor. Is that right? >> Uh, that is correct.
>> All right. So, it just wasn't updated on the matrix. >> Uh, I think that's a typo. That's unit 1B, which is threebedroom, two bath, and that area is uh 140, which meets the affordable housing three-bedroom requirement. Which units are the affordable? >> So, you want to answer that?
>> Yeah, sure. Um, so unit 1B, which is a three-bedroom, two bath. Um, then on the second floor, we have uh unit 2D, which would be um a studio. Then third and fourth floor, unit um 3D
and 4D would be uh onebedroom, one bath. I think it's 3C and 4C. >> Sorry. Yes. Uh the the 3C and 4C uh would be the one-bedroom affordable and I think that's on the separate form though, right, Ben? With the
>> So, Mr. Lampy, >> uh a form we filled out with the affordable and that's been taken. >> So, Mr. Lampy, if you want to record that for the record, that would be units 1B, 2D, 3C, and 4 C. >> There's four affordable. >> Correct.
>> Mix of income. Correct. Yes. >> So the 4C is one bedroom, one bath. >> Yes. Yes. So 3 3 C and 4 C would meet the two one-bedroom unit. Uh uh one
B which was uh um three-bedroom, two bath, which is a three-bedroom unit. And then uh 2D is a studio, affordable studio. And of course council all the same
finishes and absolutely um the floor plans uh the second floor um again it's a it's a it's a mixed two-bedroom studio. Um there's a three-bedroom as well at this level. Um but it's a it's a mix of uh different
unit types and that kind of repeats throughout the uh second to fifth floor. Um going to quickly go through the third and fourth floor which is uh identical. Um again the mix of
>> how's the garbage handled? Uh the garbage uh area is located in the um in the cellar level and uh um usually I mean the the building is serviced uh via the elevator. So um the
building super will either collect it at floor level or the tenants will take it down to the um to the centralized government >> collection or private collection. Um, most likely it's going to be a private collection. Yes.
>> So, that'll be both garbage and recycling. >> That is correct. >> Okay. >> Uh, council, I think it's pretty straightforward. Are there any other things that we need? >> I was just going to ask if you would like to go to the just identify the roof plan as well as the elevations. Um so
the roof plan uh again we are proposing a significant uh green roof. Uh um the roof I mean the amenity deck is uh centrally located. Uh the equipment HVAC equipment is towards the the um towards the back of the building that is also
screened and then uh we are providing about uh 2750 square ft of green roof. >> And my only question on the roof is that amenity that common amenity will be available to the affordable units as well. Is that correct? >> That is correct. And and the roof is uh um accessed through the elevator as
well. Um so it would be fully accessible. >> Great. Okay. So we can go to the elevations. >> Um in general the the facade consists of uh twocolor brick. Um and the infill areas would be um would
be either ACM or Hardy uh panel type material um black casement windows uh towards the the top level. And then the rest would be just a double hung. Um and then the storefront would be uh at the the commercial spaces as well as
the building entry. Uh we are providing two signage areas for uh the commercial spaces. Uh and uh if this gets divided into three uh commercial spaces, then there may be an additional door in the middle with a with a signage panel, but that would be fully compliant as well.
Okay. Um rear elevation pretty uh pretty straightforward. Um the treat uh the the two long side and and the rear would be uh vinyl siding uh
light grade material and then the the base of the building would be um stuckco finish again a light uh beige gray uh stucco. Um you can see the similar treatment on the the side elevation as well.
Um this side is on the property line but there is a um a window well or recessed uh that's where we are providing the windows. The rest of the walls are blank walls to our related. Um I guess that's pretty much it. I can
answer any questions. >> Balcony railings. um >> getting them down to that quarter inch. >> Absolutely. >> Fully compliant. >> And for the record, that would conclude my presentation. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Board comments. >> Um just want two quick questions. Um
confirming you're going to I think there's an existing curb cut at that site that you'd be removing that and all those rights. >> That is correct. >> Awesome. And the last thing just to note, I think it's a typo, but on some of the earlier plans, I think you me you label Westside Avenue as commun
uh some of the A2 A3 some of those sheets, but I think it's just a typo. >> Okay. >> The building teleports from Commamun. >> It's commun. It's just a typo, but um great project. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Any other questions? >> I don't think so. No, I think we got it. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Thank you. >> At this time, I would like to open for the public. Is there anyone from the public? >> I don't see anyone from the public. I'd like to close the public portion. >> Second it.
>> And this is Matt. >> Um yeah, this is an as of right project. It conforms fully with the NC1 standards. So, the inclusionary zoning ordinance applies here because um this site was reszoned from the commercial
automotive zone to the NC1 zone as part of um the phase 2 master plan implementation zoning change that went before this board several years ago. Um so you know since the inclusionary zoning ordinance was enacted
um zoning changes that create at least um five new units worth or 5,000 square feet worth of new residential development opportunity um carry an inclusionary requirement for
projects with 30 or more units. Um, and so because from zoning from this automotive commercial to this neighborhood commercial mixeduse corridor type zoning, um, as our master plan envisioned, um, created new residential opportunity,
it created this inclusionary zoning requirement that this application is in full compliance with. Um, appreciate um, Mr. wine for working with our division of affordable housing on short notice to ensure that the units met minimum unit sizes and are fully
compliant with um chapters 188 and 189 of the municipal code. Um staff just asks that um the applicant agree to the conditions um recommended conditions from the memo dated March
23rd, 2026. >> Yes, we do. >> Um with that, staff recommends approval. Id like to entertain a motion. >> Um I would like to make a motion to approve case P2024-0212 as presented to the board tonight with all staff recommendations and conditions.
>> Second it. >> Acting vice chair Wick >> I. >> Commissioner Stamato >> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan >> I. >> Commissioner Patel. >> Hi. >> And acting chair Gangadan. >> Yeah. beautifully designed um property
like the affordable housing which is very much needed in the area. My vote is I. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> Thank you everybody and have a great evening. You >> too. >> Thank you. You too. >> Thank you everyone. >> Yeah right >> early. >> At this time I would like to I have
eight resolutions. Applicant is 183 Bay View SPE LLC for minor subdivision approval with C deviation 183 and 193 Bay View Avenue. That case number is P2025-0258. Applicant is 183 SVE JC LLC for
preliminary and final major site plan approval. 183 Bay View Avenue, block 24001, lots 2. Case number is B2025-0226. Applicant is 352 Marin LLC for extension.
Final site plan with C variances 352 Lewis Munoz Boulevard. The case number is P2025-0199. applicant is 569 Palisade Avenue for preliminary and final major site plan
approval with C variances 569 Palisade Avenue that case number is P2025-0073 applicant team Walker Inc. for preliminary and final major site plan
approval. Address is 373-379 Communipa Avenue. Case number P 024-0206. Applicant is Mikov Acquisition LLC for preliminary and final major site plan approval. 626-630
Communipa Avenue 105 Harrison Avenue, Jersey City. Case number is P 025-0130. Applicant is 808 Pavonia Owner Urban Renewal LLC for preliminary and final major site plan approval,
formerly known as block 1061, portion of block 10601, lot 418 Pavonia Avenue and 272 Magnolia Avenue. Case number is P 025-0198. Planning board for the city of Jersey
City in a matter of MCR route 440 LLC route 440 and the Conrail track south of Interstate 78 New Jersey Turnpike Extension decided on March 24, 2026.
that case number with application for preliminary and major site plan approval with C variances. >> Can I get a second? >> Uh second >> roll call. >> Second on a motion to approve the resolutions. Commissioner Wick >> I. >> Commissioner Stamato
>> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan >> I. >> Commissioner Patel. Hi. >> And acting chair Gangadan. >> I. Motion carries. All in favor to memorialize resolutions. >> Motion to adjurnn. So moved. >> Thank you.