I pledge algiance to the flag of United States of America to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Good evening, Cam. Could we have a sunshine announcement, please?
>> Yes, chairman. Good evening, everyone. Today is Tuesday, May 12th in the year 2026. This is a Jersey City Planning Board meeting with a scheduled 5:30 p.m. start time. And in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, notice of this meeting has been posted with the city clerk on the city bulletin and city
website on May 8th of this year. This meeting was also posted on the Jersey City Division of City Planning web page, and all distribution materials made available to the board were published and made available to the public. >> All right. Thank you, Cam. Could we have a roll call, please?
>> Yes. Vice Chair Dr. Gonzalez, >> here. Commissioner Gangadan >> here. >> Commissioner Wick >> here. >> Commissioner uh Councilwoman Little >> here. >> Uh Commissioner Kaplan >> I here. >> Commissioner Barnaby >> here. >> Commissioner Patel >> here. >> And Chairman Langston
>> here. >> All right. We have eight commissioners present. We have a quorum. >> All right. Thank you. Could we swear in the staff, please? Mike, >> Sophia, Matt, Ben? >> Yes. Okay, Cam, do we have any correspondence? >> Yes, chairman. Um, and for the record,
uh, we've marked into evidence B1 the sunshine announcement. >> Thank you. >> All right, so we do have correspondence, and that would start on page six of your agenda under old business,
item 10, case number P2024-01 182. This is a preliminary and final major site plan and interimm use application. Uh they have requested a carry with preservation of notice to May 26th.
And accompanying that item is item 11 case P2024-0229 a review and discussion of master plan amendments within the Capenpoint redevelopment plan. They are also requesting and carry with preservation of notice to May 26th. So, chair, why
don't we bring up Mr. McMah uh McCann. He is sitting here in the audience. Uh good evening everybody. Jim McCann from law firm of Connell Foley in Jersey City on behalf of the applicant in both cases that um Cameron just referenced.
So chair, as the board is aware, and I'm sure people in the public are also aware, this matter was last heard at our last board meeting. At that time, uh the matter was carried to tonight. We were attempting to see if we could get a
special meeting. Uh unfortunately, we are unable to pull together a special meeting. There's a lot of logistical issues that go into getting a special meeting including the availability of a meeting room. So with
that, what we had told Mr. McCann at the time was if we were unable to accommodate a special meeting despite our best efforts, we would keep it on the agenda for this evening and that we would carry it to the May 26th meeting.
Uh this matter has been going on for quite some time. So it would be my recommendation that we put it at the top of the agenda on the 26th. Uh we notify the opposing council in the matter and on the 26th we try to move as much of
the application as possible on both of those cases. Mr. McCann, is that an accurate representation of what transpired at the last meeting? >> Yes. First, just let me say um the applicant appreciates the effort for trying to schedule the special meeting. We really do. Um we understand how
difficult it is sometimes. So, fine with that. Um it would be greatly appreciated if we could be at the top of the agenda on May 26th. We consent to the carry tonight and I do believe we should be able to finish the case that night. >> Mr. McCann, I know you had expedited
transcripts. Mike, did we get those? I have I have the transcripts and I also have prepared um the exhibit list that we always have. I can post that on the planning portal um by by probably the
end of this week. Um if if that's acceptable and I can have a hard copy sent to planning if that's what everybody wants. >> Chair, that's my recommendation. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. We'll we'll do. >> All right. Thank you, council. Appreciate it. All right. Thank you
everybody. Appreciate it. >> Anything else, Cam? >> Yes, chairman. Um, continuing into new business, starting with item 26, and this applies for item 26 through item 30. Um, but I'm just going to list them
off one by one. Uh, item 26, case P2025-016. A minor subdivision address is 115 Neptune Avenue. They are adjourning and will renotice for July 14th. Item 27, case P2025-000017,
minor site plan with C variances, address 115 Neptune. They are adjourning and will renotice for July 14th. Last page of the agenda, item 28, case P2025-00008, a minor site plan with C variances. Address is 117 Neptune Avenue. They are
adjourning and will renotice for July 14th. Item 29, case P2025-0241. This is a minor subdivision. Address is uh 676 Summit Avenue. They are adjourning and will renotice for July
14th. Last item on the agenda, item 30, case P2025-0242, a major site plan 676 Summit Avenue. They are adjourning and will renotice for July 14th.
That concludes correspondence. Chair. >> Okay. Thank you, Cam. Um I do have correspondence uh personally. So I tried to write this down a million times today, but uh it didn't happen. So I'm just going to speak from
whatever this is. Um, so I've been on this board since August of 2013 and I've been chair of this board since July of 2014, I believe. Um,
my work life has gotten pretty hectic in uh the recent couple years. So, I've been missing meetings. um this year coming up is shaping up to be worse. So I don't like to miss
meetings. Um so with that, I feel it's in the city's best interest because I'm not putting the time in that this position deserves. Um I am going to step down as chairman tonight.
And uh if I could just uh you know give me two minutes. Um it it's it's been interesting. Um so there's there's been things that we voted on
here that personally I couldn't stand. I hated them. But um the law is the law, right? So, our personal feelings are outside this door. Um, my best advice to
the board going forward, follow the law. Bottom line, follow the law. Um, one of my proudest achievements is that this man has never lost a uh lawsuit because of us.
So, follow follow the law, everybody, and um keep the politics out of it. This board strictly decides things on the law. Um, do we want 20 20% affordable housing across the board?
Of course. Give us the law. Okay. So, I encourage this administration to give us the tools that we need. Give this board the tools it needs to make this city a better place. Um, I've been through, this is my second
mayor now. I've been through four planning directors, um, five board attorneys, one vice chair. So, um, you know, I I've made lifelong friends here, everybody.
And, um, I appreciate everybody up on this day is all right. So, thank you. And uh best of luck best of luck to everybody, >> Mr. Chair. So, um sorry to hear that, >> right?
>> Um not only are we really good friends, uh you know, but he's he this guy is a this man is a very very good man. I've known him for a very long time. He knows my family, my mom and dad. I'm gonna try not to get emotional, but this is a this is a big deal, not only for us here, uh,
but also for the city of Jersey City. It really is. Um, this guy really had, um, I mean, I'm telling you a lot of stuff here, but he really um, cares about the city and the way I have and I'm going to
tell you my story in a little while. Indulge me, please. um because I think he deserves it. Um is that I I have uh been through several uh chair chair people and uh he he knows not only his stuff um he's dedicated and committed
and and that is tr kind of true to to his character that he's stepping down because he knows he can't do it as much and as good as he always did. Although I don't know um he's never failed us in any way. Um we've been very close. I've been his vice chair since we started.
And when this all began, he asked he him and I had a meeting and we, you know, he was very um he was very respectful and um really was wanting to know my opinion and all this. So, uh love him and uh it's it's it's sad for the city, but you
know, it's time for for a change. And with that, I have I have an announcement. Um, and you know, I've been I'm his it's hard to follow your lead and I hope I don't want to get emotional again, but uh I have I'm his senior, not in age. He's a lot older
than I am, but uh >> not a lot for the record, Mike. >> But uh in terms of um the seniority here, I I got appointed in July. In fact, I had to call this morning uh and talk to staff who you have the best
planning staff on literally planet earth uh here in Jersey City. I've known them for years. So, I got appointed by Mayor Healey July 2012. Um so, two years or a year and a half before you. And um I called one year.
>> One year. Okay. He's I'm still your senior. Uh, I called Mayor Healey this morning actually and uh told him I thought it was befitting of me as a as a vice chair and being here for so long that I he should know that I was going to be stepping down. Um, and uh he said
the first thing he said to me was you're still on that thing. That's what he said. Uh yeah, but I wanted him to know because he's the one that appointed me and then to to be uh truthful and uh Mayor Fulip uh kept appointing and uh
and I kept accepting uh gratefully and thankfully because I think it's a beautiful thing. I have made so many friends. I can go on and on. I'm not but uh I I've made so many friends. The these people have been amazing. And this this decision my personally is not is
not political at all. Has nothing to do with that. 14 years on this board is a long time and it's not I mean it's people are like oh it's thankless and no it's not. I got have gotten to meet so many people uh attorneys that are
friends of mine, developers who are friends of mine, the public who become friendly, and we've, you know, we've we've we've we have something really amazing going on here, not because of me and not because of Chris, but because this is what the city is about.
It's time because the new, you know, administration has come in and quite frankly, um, we need to let other people come up. We do. We need fresh ideas. is we need new um new kind of thoughts, new energy, which we still have. I'm a
physician in Manhattan and here in Jersey City. So, I'm getting busier and busier, and I think my patients deserve more of my time. Uh and again, I do this uh not for any political reasons or any and it it's it's funny. It's not because u Chris is leaving, although I don't
know how it would be here without you. >> Um but that's not that had nothing to do with it. It's just that we had a conversation and we kind of figured it was about that time uh to let other people uh and I'm sorry that I didn't get to to get to know the new people coming in. I know I know a couple of you
very well um already, but I think you're going to carry the torch very very well. And the people that we have currently this this group here has been here. Hi. You too. I didn't just I just met you. Um has uh is going to do really uh
amazing stuff for you guys. Um, one more thing I have to say is the planning staff here. Um, from I mean I I'm not going to even name them because I don't want to forget one person. They've been here forever and they are committed to
the city. Um, and they love the city and it wouldn't run without them at all. Uh, and so I I just wanted to put that on the record because um, the city is the city because of them. Um, and and I and
least last but not least is uh is uh Santo. Uh we've I've been through I don't know how many councils we've been through, right? Uh five >> six. >> Six. Um this man, yeah, this man knows his
stuff, cares about the city, cares about you guys, and then defends us very well. And he's a friend as well. uh now. So, it's it's hard, but it's time. And uh with that,
I say adios. Thank you guys. >> Thank you. >> Wow. >> So, if I may, I'm not stepping down first of all. Um but I just wanted to say for the record, for the record, um to thank both of you gentlemen for your service. You know, I
am new here, but the culture of the planning board, the openness and the institution that you guys have set from the leadership is is you're leaving a long legacy. Um, the institution of the planning board is better for your both
and so is the city of Jersey City. So, for the record, thank you for all of your service and you will be missed and please come back and visit. >> I don't know if you want us to come back and visit. >> You'll have three minutes. We're armed with a lot of knowledge now.
>> So, if I may as well, um Chris and Doc, thank you guys both for your leadership qualities that shaped this board the way it is today. Um we could have not done it without both of you. So, thank you. Um you have made us very very effective
and efficient here and this board will definitely miss both of you. We've learned a lot along the way and we became family as well. >> Santa will remain with us. So, >> absolutely. >> Thank you. We'll miss you both. >> Appreciate it.
>> Okay, council nominations. >> Yes, former chair. We need to reorganize the board. So, >> that quick. That was quick. >> That's what happens. You resign and become a former. I get it. >> Uh >> they sense some bitterness. So,
we do need to entertain nominations for chair. Uh, as everybody is aware, under the municipal land use law, only class 4 members are eligible to serve in the role of chair and vice chair. Uh, so we
can entertain those nominations at this point. >> Council, I'd uh like to make a nomination, please. I'd like to nominate Commissioner Gangan. Um, I don't think there's anybody more fitting you for this job. I think you're
going to do great and um, the people of Jersey City are lucky to have you. >> Second. >> Thank you. >> Any other nominations? >> Chair, you can close the nominations for chair for Commissioner Gang.
>> Okay, nominations are closed. Do we need a roll call? We do need a roll nominations. All right. So, >> not to close. >> Okay. >> Hearing no other nominations. Nominations are closed. We do need a roll call on the nomination of Commissioner Gangan for chair.
>> Um, I have a nomination for vice chair. Do we do this one first? >> One at a time. >> Perfect. >> Uh, vice chair Dr. Gonzalez. >> I gladly. >> Commissioner Gangadan, >> you can vote for yourself.
Good move. >> Uh, Commissioner Wick, >> I happily say I. >> Commissioner Little, >> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan, >> a very strong I. >> Commissioner Barnaby,
>> I looking forward to it. >> Commissioner Patel, >> I. >> And Chairman Lon, >> um, I said what I said earlier and, uh, happily vote I. And I'm glad to see that you carry on the tradition of not voting for yourself.
Appreciate that. So, uh, it's an I. Congratulations, Vidia. >> Motion carries. >> It uh 741 to session now. >> No, we're switching seats right there. >> You're down. >> All right. Did you?
>> You don't. You do sit next to Santa though. Fine. Come on, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, >> you like that, Madam Chair, don't you? >> I love it. I think it sounds great. >> Thank you.
>> So, Madam Chair, as your first order of business, you can entertain nominations for your vice chair. >> Taking that home with me tonight. >> So, I want I I just want to say thank you. um Chris for nominating me as the
chair. Um I look forward to continue that leadership role that you set for all our commissioners here and for this board to be um smooth, effective and efficient as well. So thank you each one
of you. Um at this time I would like to nominate Elizabeth Wick as the um vice chair. Second. >> Any other nominations? Madame Chair, seeing no other nominations, we'll close the
nominations. And Mr. Ward, if we can have a roll call on the nomination of Commissioner Wick, vice chair, >> vice chair, Dr. Gonzalez. >> Liz, you are amazing.
>> Thank you just joined and you've shown a lot of amazing attributes that um hopefully um you know don't emulate me because I wasn't that good but uh you do your thing and you're going to be fantastic. I will be around if you need
anything. Uh I vote I gladly. >> Former Chair Langston >> again. Um yeah, absolutely Liz. Um congratulations. You deserve this. you've uh stepped right up and uh we
appreciate your work. So, absolutely lucky to have you. >> Commissioner Wick, >> I will follow suit even though I'm deeply honored and I've appreciated all the guidance thus far, but I'm going to abstain from this vote.
>> Commissioner Little, >> I and congratulations to you both. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Commissioner Kaplan, >> strong I. Commissioner Barnaby >> I. >> Commissioner Patel. >> Hi. >> And uh Madame Chair Gangadan.
>> I am so looking forward to working with you, Liz. You both you and I chair one of the special meetings. And after I went home that evening, I said I couldn't ask for a better um vice chair than you. So >> congratulations. I
>> motion carries 741 abstension. Um I just like a moment. This is a bittersweet moment for me. Um, these two uh were always the chair and vice chair since I started here. Um, my my son just turned 10 this last weekend and he wasn't even
born when I started this job. Um, and uh this is uh this is quite a moment for me. So, uh I am emotional over this and I'm >> Thanks, Matt. >> Very sorry to see you guys go. Um it's been a great time serving this board at ULO. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Matt. Thank you, Matt. >> Yeah, >> absolutely. >> I got to tell you, I'm going to look forward to not talking so much. >> Oh my god. >> Get all my stuff out of your way.
All right, video. >> Thank you. Good evening everyone and welcome to the Jersey City Planning Board meeting. >> Having our um former chair and vice chair still makes me a little nervous >> because they have a wealth of knowledge
here and I will not be shy in calling Chris or calling Doc on any questions that I may have. Absolutely. So please take my calls when I do call you vote. >> Agree. >> We live in a city that we dearly love
and so there is no reason for us to be shy in um asking any questions. So moving on to old business. I would like to call in case 2026-000041 which is a one-year extension for site plan approval. Applicant is Vasan
Properties LLC. address is 167 Academy Street. Jennifer, >> good evening. Uh Veronica Shme from the law firm of Connell Foley in place of uh Jennifer Badansky this evening uh on behalf of the applicant Vasant
Properties uh for the property 167 Academy Street. Uh just really briefly, I do want to say uh to chair the chairman and the vice chair um congratulations. I've not long appeared before you guys, but it's been a privilege and a pleasure. I wish you both nothing but the best. Incoming
chair, vice chair, congratulations. Um, with that, I will get right into it. Um, we are here for a one-year extension request um for the approval that we obtained under P21- uh 026.
Um, we have obtained a total of three years of extensions. The first one was uh two one-year periods requested and approved. The second one was just the one one-year period. um which brought us to extending our approvals to August
10th of 2026. We are now requesting an additional one-year extension which would take us under um a different section of the MLUL. It would be 40 col55D-52E um for projects that include uh not less than 100 residential units. The basis
for our request this evening is that um the applicant is monitoring the proposed Journal Square amendments um which obviously have not uh passed yet. So the applicant does want to see where those shake out before um starting and completing the project in case that does
change things. Um so that is all I have but obviously I'm open to any questions that the board may have. >> Any questions from the board? >> No. >> No. No. >> Is that your presentation? >> Yes. Thank you.
>> At this time, I would like to open for public. Is there anyone from the public? >> Uh, I see no one from the public. I'd like to close the public portion. >> Second. >> Kim. Kim is not here. >> Uh, staff recommends approval provided
that the applicant agree to the conditions from the original approval in P21026. >> Yes, absolutely. >> Great. Staff recommends approval. Then >> I'd like to entertain a motion. >> I'd like to make a motion to approve case P2026-000041 as presented to the board with all staff
recommendations and conditions. >> Second. >> Second. >> Mike, if we can have the record reflect Mr. Patel had to leave the meeting. >> Do you want to call a vote? >> Roll call, please. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Uh, Vice Chair
Wick, >> I >> uh exchair Langston. Is that what we're going with? You want a different title? >> Hi. This >> is getting better and better. >> Unprecedented. >> I like that. >> Uh, former vice chair Gonzalez.
>> Hi. >> Uh, Commissioner Council person Little >> I. >> Uh, Commissioner Kaplan. >> I, >> Commissioner Barnaby, >> I. >> And, uh, Chair Gongadan, >> I. Motion carries. All in favor? >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> At this time, I would like to call in case 2026-000051 is a one-year extension for site plan approval. Address applicant is 35 Fairview Avenue LLC. Address is 35 Fairview Avenue.
>> Good evening, Madame Chair, uh, commissioners. Benjamin Wine of Prime Tub and Misselli on behalf of the applicant 35 Fairview A LLC. Just before starting, I just want to extend I mean incredible wishes to uh I'm former I guess former chair and vice chair um
Langston and and Dr. Gonzalez. I mean just on a very personal note, but I was admitted to practice law in 2018 and this was one of the first boards that I appeared before simply because I was covering for someone and I had no idea what I was doing um as a baby lawyer. and uh and really over the years you you
both and the entire board but the both of you have have challenged me and turned me into a better lawyer and I appreciate that and really thank you for all that you've done and I I hope to be in touch um over time. And >> Madame Chair, I'm looking forward to it. It's it's always been a pleasure and and uh looking forward to an amazing rain in
front of us. So, with that, the extension request before you this evening is for our first one-year extension for the subject property located at block 16703, lot 9. And uh this application was approved back on May 21st of 2024, which takes
the approval through next week of May 21st of 2026. My client um has tried but was unable to unfortunately obtain the financing necessary in order to construct the project that he got approved. he's been marketing the project and has had some bites at uh at
the at the at the property. Um but pretty much at this point any buyer has said to him, look, you have an approval that's expiring and we'd like an we'd like an extension in order to be able to properly vest our approval. So that's really the nature of the request. And with that, we would ask that you approve the one-year extension that would take
us through May 21st of 2027. >> Thank you. Any board comments? No. >> No. I would like now 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. Ben, it's you. >> Uh staff recommends approval. Uh provided that the applicant agree to the conditions from the original approval P2023-0044. >> Yes, we do. >> Staff recommends approval.
Okay. >> I'd like to make a motion to approve case P206-000051 as presented to the board with all staff recommendations and conditions. >> Second. >> All right. Uh, Vice Chair Wick >> I.
>> Commissioner Langston. >> Thank you. I >> uh Commissioner Gonzalez >> I. >> Uh, Commissioner Council person Little >> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan >> I. Commissioner Commissioner Barnaby >> I. >> And Chair Gangadan >> I.
>> Motion carries. All in favor. Thank you all. >> See you shortly. >> I'd like to move on to new business review and discussion of certified artists. Mark Andrew. Formal action may take may be taken.
>> Matt, you presenting? >> Sure. Uh so uh we've received an approval from the certified artist board um and they granted approval for Mark Andrew uh as a
certified artist here in Jersey City. Uh staff recommends approval. >> 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. >> Second. Any board comments? No. Roll call,
please. Motion. >> No. Um, I would like to make a motion to approve um the approval of certified artist Mark Andrew. >> Second, >> Vice Chair W. >> I.
>> Uh, Commissioner Langston. >> I, >> Commissioner Gonzalez. >> I, >> Commissioner Council person Little. >> I, >> Commissioner Kaplan, >> I. >> Commissioner Barnaby, >> I. >> And Chair Gongadan, >> I. Motion carries. All in favor? >> Thank you. I'd like to call KP2026-00001
review and discussion of amendments to the Jackson Hill redevelopment plan regarding the expansion of the trans transit proximity bonus study of an amendment authorized by city by city council resolution 25679.
Formal action may be taken. The petitioner is Terry Development LLC. Good evening. Veronica from the law firm of Connell Foley. On behalf of the applicant, um, Terry Developments LLC, I am covering for another colleague this evening, Miss Rebecca Marello. Um, so we
do have a uh our application is a request for an amendment to the Jackson Hill redevelopment plan. I do have one uh witness for you this evening, Mr. Alex Dohy, for supportive planning testimony. Um, I'll keep my overview comments very brief. The applicant is the owner of property at uh 539 MLK
Drive, which is located within the bounds of this plan area. Specifically, we're in the neighborhood mixeduse district. Um we're about a 2,900 square ft lot. Um our request here is narrowly tailored to the transit proximity bonus with it within the plan. Um, presently
the plan permits a maximum building height of four stories and 45 feet for developments on lots that are less than 3,999 square ft, which this property would qualify as. The plan does go on to permit a transit proximity bonus, which
allows a project's height to be six stories and 65 ft on lots that are less than 8,999 square ft. Again, which this property would qualify as. Those properties though have to be located within 1,000 ft of a light rail station. Um the light
rail station in question for this property would be the MLK Drive right around the corner. Um but we are 1,750 ft away from MLK Drive. Um so our request uh this evening is to just tailor that portion of the bonus
provision to increase from 1,000 ft to 1,750 ft. Um, as we have mentioned in the uh in the agenda, we do have a city council resolution number 25-679 authorizing this board to examine and
prepare this plan amendment. That resolution is dated November 12th, 2025. Um, the applicant's team also met with the Jackson Hill Main Street Special Improvement District on February 18th of this year. Um, this property and the plan are also within Councilman
Gilmore's ward. Um, so his office was notified of this amendment request and I have been advised that his office is supportive of this request. Um, with that I will pass it over to uh Mr. Dohy for the planning testimony. >> Enjoy your testimony tonight. Tonight the whole truth of truth.
>> I do the state >> Alexander Dowy. D U G H E R T Y. >> Mr. Dowy, is your license current? >> Yes. >> And in good standing? >> Yes, it is. >> You're qualified. >> Thank you. Um for this evening I did prepare uh a visual map for illustration purposes on
you know the request for the amendment from 1,00 to 17 uh50 so we can kind of you know generally see what that radius would look like. Um if it pleases the board I can pass it out just a one sheet exhibit. >> Sir is this the same map that was
included with the >> yes application to the amendment for the amendment? >> Yes. So, uh, it's already been submitted, but you can circulate it if anybody needs a paper copy of it if >> they would like. >> Hard copy. Anybody?
>> You brought it. I'll take one. >> Okay. >> It's going to get wasted anyway, right? >> You printed them. >> Yeah. >> And in color. >> Saving anything. >> Oh, thank you. as well. >> So, as council opened up with um it's uh
it's just a request for consideration amendment to that um radius as depicted in the exhibit. The green is your um current radius if you will of 1,000 ft as the legend kind of indicates here. um
the larger uh black circle there with the checkered line that's that's indicative of the location of the the light rail um kind of rading out towards that that center piece. Um the purple um is the um 1750 um that we're requesting the board to consider move favorably
plea bond and essentially we uh as council indicated this is the uh Jackson Hill redevelopment um plan. We are located within that zone one and the subject property as as indicated is is
uh 2900 ft and the way the plan is written now um 30 uh properties that measure under 3,999 ft um um can have a maximum of four stories and 45 ft. However, if you're
within the,000 ft there's a slight uh bonus if you will. these are a little bit of a smaller lot in nature. So the ideas have a little bit of a bonus. That's my intent in in reviewing the plan. Um so we're asking to kind of expand that out. Um and you know I think when we talk about the intent of this
redevelopment plan, the intent of you know sound planning principles, um when we talk about transit locations, it's generally customary that we have a quarter mile to half mile radius. you know, we can kind of look in those parameters for, you know, transit
oriented uh hyperfocused kind of development patterns. We say that within reason. If there's a river, a mountain, you know, a highway, you know, there's some some physical limitations to access that, if you will. That's not the case here. Um, it's just a matter of an additional block and a half, if you
will, a radius going out. Um, with that, we believe we'd still meet many of the intents of the uh Jackson Hill redevelopment plan. There's 16 and and that would otherwise for the redone plan expressly uh calls out to um one is to
reestablish Jackson Hill corridor as a vibrant neighborhood commercial district providing a wide variety of retail amenities um to the surrounding area. That that goal and that vision does not change. The creation of additional employment, housing, education, uh recreational, commercial, retail
opportunities for residents of Jersey City which are best placed along this corridor due to its central location within the city. Again, that objective would not change. Provide for increased variety of opportunity of housing types, sizes, and price points that meet the needs of New uh city's uh diverse
population. I think we really kind of help support that and the undertone of that uh point particular. Um reduce automobile dependency by encouraging a highdensity development in close proximity to mass transit and neighborhood services with low automobile parking ratios and with
bicycle parking requirements. Um, point five, the encourage unique local quality of retail sales and services that promote community character um and distinctiveness. Point seven, the removal or rehabilitation of vacated or deteriorated and obsolete structures. I
think again we're really going to hit that point home um with this uh request for amendment. Uh point n to make sustainable and smart growth a theme of future development and redevelopment that guides land use and transportation decisions. Uh point 15 is to coordinate
redevelopment activities to provide a uniform and consistent attack on blighted, dilapidated, and obsolete structures within the area. Again, I think we're really going to hit that point. Uh 16, leverage new transit facilities such as light rails to accommodate housing and employment needs. Again, I think we're going to
really support that. And with addition to that, taking a look at the master plan and the consistency within um the 2021 master plan. Um review that as outlined in the memo as well. I think we certainly hit many of the points in the master plan. Um this is really um
already a redevelopment plan, a redevelopment zone. The intent here is to target those bided properties to uh help initiate that that turnover that you know the the city uh envisions here and extending that extra 750 ft I think really helps to um double down if you
will on that transit oriented concept and again there's really no physical obstructions from that 17 uh50 radius to this transit and it's in good uh sound planning principles within that quarter to half mile radius. So um we're kind of in the middle. It's about a 1/3 radius.
So we just the board to consider and look upon that favorably. This pretty much still supports the visions and goals of the redevelopment plan. Um and it just will capture a couple more properties that can help incentivize th those uh positive investments. So with that I'll conclude.
>> Thank you. >> No >> is I guess just a question. Is there a reason why we're limiting it to up to seven 1,750 as the new limit as opposed to larger or otherwise? I mean to to the point if the board wants us to go larger
or the the planning department would like to expand it larger. This property falls within that 1750. It's still kind of in the middle of that half mile and quarter mile. This is about a 1/3. If you go out a half mile, you're going to incorporate a large portion, but as far as still being centrally located here and the intent to kind of target that
that that light rail, um I think one/3 is appropriate. Um I think you know it could be further if if if so be but you know I think what we're asking for and particularly for this property given it's smaller size and it's not really kind of hitting the key marks that would
otherwise incentivize it to kind of really help turn over as some of those outer rings of the neighborhood that 175 would would be ideal starting point. It could be bigger, but that's the city's call.
>> Any other comments? >> So, I Are we going to hear from you, Matt, or >> Yeah, I >> because I just comment >> obviously so everybody is aware. The task of this board at this junction is to determine if the proposed amendment
is consistent with the master plan. That's really the charge. just came from the council uh for us to look at and determine if it is consistent. And ultimately the council will determine whether or not uh based on our
recommendation or finding to amend the redevelopment plan, but uh I'm pretty sure if I'm not mistaken that was put forth in the resolution of the council. If it pleases the board, I can read in
expressly and cite page numbers where we can advance the uh overall master plan. But by advancing the redevelopment plan, I think by default naturally you you advance the master plan logically speaking. But I can certainly read some lines into the record.
>> I have no objection to that. I thought you put that forth in your direct testimony, but if you want to supplement that, I have no issue with that. and then Matt, we can allow for your comments if you feel appropriate. >> So, why don't you go ahead, sir? >> Certainly. Uh, Jersey City will continue
to be one of the region's most dynamic and urban uh economies where families, businesses, and neighborhoods thrive by providing a high quality of life with the abundance of opportunities to live, work, and play. That's coming out of page 84. the need for all residents to have um convenient access to
neighborhood commercial amenities um was a consistent theme uh that emerged from the public outreach activities. Residents express support for a wider diversity in businesses within their own neighborhoods um especially small business options. There were significant interest in food options such as grocery
stores, healthy food opportunities, cafes, coffee shops, breweries, and distilleries. That's page 87. We can certainly um keep advancing that purpose of the um master plan. Another one, make the city more walkable, bikable, transit friendly, and less reliant automobile.
Page 89. I think we really support that from the master plan. And land use planning should be coordinated uh with the uh existing transportation network and planned improvements. The city should support efforts um to decrease or automobile use by providing safe and attractive alternative alternatives such
as providing frequent and reliable public transit, attractive streetscapes to walk on and a wide um coverage of bike lanes. Uh where possible, the city should work with u partners to develop new um I guess path NJ transit rail and
HBLR stations to coordinate smart growth land use policies around existing and new transit uh nodes. That's page 89. Again, I think we're really hitting that point as well. Again, we're just asking for 750 ft of growth out, which is basically an additional block, block and a half. So, advanced to redevelopment
plan as well as the city's master plan. >> Thank you. If there is no other board comments, I would like to open for the public. Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on Sorry. Okay. The whole truth.
>> I do. >> My home address. My name is June Jones. My address is 317 Pacific Avenue. I am the executive director of the Morris Canal Community Development Corporation.
We've uh community-based organization and we've been in business since 1999. >> Good evening. Before Before I speak, I'm so sad. I am really so sad of what you said today and
I'm sad that the city is not going to be able to have your leadership. I wasn't I I wasn't quite understanding are you stepping down just from the position of pres chair or are you removing yourself from the board? >> I will be removing myself.
>> Oh, now after this meeting >> as well. Please don't cry. >> And and I I'm I I just say that to to commend that I I really think that you have grown into this job. You have taught us a lot of things. Um, your
messages show that you care. Um, your comments show that you care. I hope that your caring is contagious and that your leadership is contagious and that everyone learns from you and feels um
caring about what they do and about our city. Um, it's important. It is important not to just have a project because it's a project because of the money. I mean, we are seriously about people and our profit and I hope that
the future decisions that come out of this board will show that. I wish you luck. I really do. And I'm so sorry that you and two at the same time. >> That's ridiculous. >> We've come to
>> They wanted to players, >> but you have a life and and life is lifing. and I'm sure your patients will be more happy to see you and I'm sure your family will be happier to see you. >> So, I'm here to to speak on >> Miss Jones. Yes.
>> If I could just respond. Um I I've How long we known each other now? >> You've been around. You've been around. Um, I I've always always appreciated your opinions and I you know your love of community and your
engagement with the board and you know I know we've occasionally been on opposite sides but >> okay we learn from them. That's the process. And um like I said, I've always respected your opinion and I
appreciate that you give your opinion because that's the most important. Right. So, thank you. I appreciate that. >> Thank you. And thank you for your service as well as you, Commissioner Gonzalez. >> Three minutes. >> Okay. I'm sorry.
>> Now I can go on the clock. Okay. I am here um to speak on on the project of uh Terry developments. I respectfully urge that the city planning department uh and this count this commissioner's council look favorably upon the proposed
development project based on its merit qualifications and the value that this uh project will bring. The developer represents a rarity in many aspects. She's a young black female developer entering into a field where
opportunities and representation have historically been limited. However, my support is not just rooted in the demographics of the project, but in the fact that she has demonstrated the qualifications, vision, professionalism, and the commitment necessary to
successfully deliver this project. The benefits to our community as a whole. The proposed development addresses critical community needs by creating affordable opportunity of housing while also incorporating commercial space that can serve local residents, stimulate e
economic growth and job, excuse me, and create jobs. This is the type of thoughtful investment that strengthens our ne neighborhood, encourages community engagement, and promotes long-term sustainability. besides all the boxes that she she checks, um I'd
just like to say two more very important uh boxes is that she is community. She's from the community. She's being able to do development for the community by the community. That's important to see people from our community get opportunities like that. And in fact,
this will be one of those boxes that will check that will help the data on that disparity study that we know still exist. Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public? >> Good evening. >> Good evening. >> Yes.
>> Tonight's going to be the truth. The whole truth. >> Yes. >> Erica Walker. E R I C A W A L K E R. Home address is 578 Ocean Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey. Proudly. >> Good evening. You have three things.
>> Uh yes. Before I uh start on this, I just wanted to get clarification. Um, can you raise your hand if you live in W F? Any board members from Ward F? Any board members from W C, >> B, >> B, >> A, uh, E.
Okay. And then I guess the rest aren't in Jersey City. >> No, you >> Okay. >> You forgot D. >> Oh, D. Sorry. D. Yay. How can I forget? Sorry. So sorry. Um uh I'm just making mental note of that in my advocacy. I'll begin. Good
evening everyone. Um my name is Erikica Walker. I'm here tonight as a ward of resident. I'm also chief of staff of Councilman Gilmore who has also publicly expressed his support with a written letter of support for this amendment. Um,
to me, uh, the reason why I'm in support of the redevelopment plan amendment for Naima Tererry's project in the Jackson Hill area is simple. It's a winwin for the neighborhood. Miss Terry is not asking to build some oversized tower that that does not fit in the community.
She is asking for one additional floor on a property that already sits next to another five-story development and is only about one block outside of the current light rail bonus zone. If this property were just slightly closer to the light rail, the additional density
would already be allowed under the current redevelopment plan. Instead, she has gone through the proper process, working with the city, working with the community, and the planning board to request a reasonable amendment. What also makes this project important is the commitment to affordable housing. Miss
Terry has openly stated that she wants to include affordable units and is even pursuing affordable housing trust fund money to potentially make more of the building affordable for working families. In a city where residents constantly talk about the need for affordable housing, this is exactly the
type of effort we should be encouraging. The project also helps improve an area that has long dealt with underutilized and blighted properties. Instead of another neglected building sitting empty, this proposal would bring new housing, retail space, accessible units,
and investment into the neighborhood. And importantly, this is a transitoriented development that makes sense. Residents already walk from this area to the light rail every day. The reality is the neighborhood functions as part of the transit corridor already. As someone born and raised in Wardf, I
believe we need balanced development that actually benefits the community. And this project does that. It adds housing. It supports affordability. It fits the surrounding neighborhood. And it helps revitalize the corridor responsibly. That is why I support this
redevelopment plan amendment. And I respectfully ask that you do the same. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak? >> I see no one from the public. I'd like to close the public portion. >> Second. >> Thank you, staff.
>> So, the Jackson Hill redevelopment plan was created um by combining two redevelopment plans back in September 2020 uh 2016. Um at that time, the transit bonus uh was thought to be a five minute roughly a five-minute walk area. Uh this
proposal would increase it to around a 10-minute walk area that's still very much in proximity to the light rail in which it um uh is based around. Uh staff agrees with the findings of their
their planner uh with it meeting the goals and objectives of the master plan. It is consistent. Um there is text in the memo that they provided highlighting the fact that this change does u incur the inclusionary zoning ordinance. So
any development that would um that would take advantage of this uh increase in the the the bonus area would include affordable housing. Uh staff recommends approval. I'd like to make a motion to approve case P206-00001
as presented to the board this evening with all staff recommendations and conditions. >> Second. >> Uh Vice Chair Wick >> I. >> Commissioner Langston. >> Um yeah, absolutely. I uh it's a good
project. I can't wait to see it once it's done. Um, I think it meets all the goals and objectives of the uh redevelopment plan as well as the master plan. So, it's an easy eye. Commissioner Gonzalez, >> same. Um, excited about this project. I
think it's consistent with the master plan. I vote I. >> Commissioner, Council Person Little, >> this is an easy eye. >> Commissioner Kaplan, >> absolutely an easy eye. >> Commissioner Barnaby, >> love it. I >> and Chair Gangadan. Well, yeah, I want
to thank the public for coming out and um voicing their um support here. Um for me, the affordable component of this is very important. So, my vote is I. >> Motion carries. All in favor. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> At this time, I would like to call in case B205-0180 minor subdivision with C variances. address is 113-115 Oak Street. >> Michael Higgins. >> Good evening everyone. Um and good
evening madam chair. That has a nice ring to it. Uh and uh former chair and vice chair. Uh you'll be missed. Um and congratulations vice chair as well. U so Michael Higgins of Castano Quigley Cherami for the applicant this evening.
Um I have notice for this application. I have the proofs here. Very. >> Thank you, council. >> Madam Chair, receive the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application at 113 to 115 Oak Street here in the city. I've 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. So, this is 113 and 115 Oak Street. It's uh block 19503
uh lot 3. Um it's a 50 by 100 lot in the R1 zone. Um the proposal is to subdivide the existing lot into two conforming 25 by 100 lots. Um, however, there is a variance associated with the existing
building. There's an existing building on the lot and because of where it's situated right in the middle, um, we need a sideyard setback variance where two feet are required and we have 1.03 ft. Um, so I do have one witness to
testify. That's Alex Doerty as a planner. You could have him sworn in. >> Thank you. Okay. >> You remain under >> I remain under oath. My license is still current. >> Still current. Good. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> So, I want to first off apologize. I have a visual exhibit um that I prepared. Unfortunately, the laptop um it's not it's not chargeable. There's no charger. So, I apologize. Um I say that to say I visited this site. I visit every site I testify to personally. Um
we are asking for that sideyard setback variance as council indicated. Um there is no windows on this side of the building for an egress purposes in in that regards. The left side of the structure has a little bit over three feet. Um again it's if we can just wiggle that a little bit or if the
building was slightly smaller I'd like to say that we wouldn't have a variance but u we are asking for that um sideyard setback. It's about one one foot 3 inch where two feet is required. Again, as council indicated, um this this project,
it's a it's a fairly large lot. Uh we are in that R1 zone. And when we talk about the the overall property here, um we can create in lot size an area um two conforming lots with the subdivision with that caveat that where the building
sits would have in my professional opinion a very dimminimous uh sideyard setback. Something that would otherwise not be visually intrusive in the neighborhood. I say that to say the following. It's a really well established neighborhood here on Oak Street. Um and uh we're kind of at the
tail end. So we have this gap, this missing tooth in the streetscape where we as planners like to see that predictable development pattern where you know all the front yards and in the properties are all in unison and then you just have this large gap. It looks like there's something missing. And so we like to fill that void. And I think
by doing that we can advance many purposes of the miscellaneous law as well as the intent of the um R1 zone here um to provide that um meaningful investment into the neighborhood provide diversity of housing choices. I think we
can um advance purpose uh a for the public health, safety and morals and general welfare. The sub the subdivision would foster reinvestment into the existing um dwelling and allows for future structure uh to be designed to meet current building fire safety codes. Um it promotes safer, more um resilient
residential development here within the neighborhood. Again, a newer building coming online, new housing options. Um purpose E for uh appropriate population densities. Again, creating a a lot of um required size with the structure that would meet those requirements. um this
will not over overwhelm the infrastructure or the neighborhood purpose G for efficient use of land and appropriate locations. I think when we look at the actual built environment seeing that void here certainly would qualify for a more efficient use of land. Um and purpose I for again
desirable visual environment we get to fill that missing tooth that gap in that residential streetscape. Um and certainly when we talk about purpose M um to coordinate the public and private development uh efforts uh with the view of lessening such cost um as well in
conclusion we can advance many purposes of the miscellaneous law with this um this relief I would justify as a C2 flexible you know balance if you will positives outweighing um any substantial detriments here um a better zoning alternative if you will um again there's
no windows on that side of the building so for purposes of having that sideyard setback for um egress windows and the likes that and adequate light air open space. I don't think we're going to be violating those those terms and and the understanding of why we have that sideyard setback. Again, it's it's very dimminimous in my opinion. It's not
visually two buildings right on top of each other. They still have about a foot and three in and we'll comply with the other sideyard setback. So, I think we'll still have that appropriate predictable um development pattern. Uh with that, I don't want to belabor the board. um the R1 district um explicitly
anticipates 2500 square foot lots and we're trying to deliver that 2500 foot lot for a new housing opportunity for the community at large. So with that I'll conclude. I do not see any negative detriment here with the subdivision. I think the relief is minimal and I think it meets the criteria for uh the C2.
With that I'll conclude. >> Thank you. Is there any board comments? >> Uh one please madam chair. >> Sure. >> Um Mr. already the >> electric meters on the side of the existing property. Are they going to be relocated?
>> If the board feels that need to be as my understanding um that they were >> okay. Are they going to be accessible >> with two feet? I believe certainly >> two feet. You think somebody's going to be able to get back there and read those meters? >> I I would imagine. Yeah. Two feet.
They're right on the side of the house. But if the board wants them to be relocated, I'll talk to council. And >> yeah, I think that I think that would be fine. We could um we could relocate them somewhere that the board feels is more appropriate.
Um it's not a hard ask. >> I I think just so so they're accessible to the meter reader. >> Most of the meter readers are now they don't even get out of the car. That's a shame. >> They just drive down the street and they pick them up. >> That's a shame. Um, yeah, but if
there's, you know, ever a need to change that meter out, >> you know, >> I know I could fit in there. I don't know if the average >> pretty easy >> meter reader. You just have to run it on the other side. >> Okay. Um >> for the uh if I can just say for the
building that would potentially be constructed on this new lot, it would need to be set back at least 2 ft. So there would be like a total three foot path between the buildings to read the meter
for the board's consideration. No, I would conclude with um Chris's opinion on um relocation of the meter. >> I think that condition is fine. Uh if maybe it would be phrased as the meter to be relocated somewhere uh accessible
and we could coordinate with uh planning staff to to find that out. I'm thinking the rear of the building, but I'm just an attorney. What do I know? because we have to also take into consideration it's different lot and block different deeds you're into somebody else's property
>> it will most likely be up to PS&G >> right that that line comes in yeah that's fine with me >> okay so we'll add that condition to it to the approval if there is an approval
>> is there that's conclude your presentation >> yeah it's uh one variance um But we'd like the opportunity to provide for a 2500 foot lot on Oak Street. >> Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on
this um project? Anyone? >> Sure. >> Good evening. >> Sure. >> Truth. >> Yes. Aubrey Rustler. A U B R E Y R U S L E R.
I live at 108 Oak Street. >> Yeah, >> Mr. Russell, you have three minutes. >> Okay. Um I live right across the street from this lot. The void in question is parking right now. And uh I would just like to state that
I have I've lived here three years. Um and in the three years I've seen many uh buildings go up. that is taking away parking. I drive daily. Um, and I just wanted to, you know, make it a point that that, uh, if there's parking being taken away, maybe there's parking for
the building that's going up. I'm not sure. But, uh, that's, you know, my concern with that is is is parking availability at the new building, the new structure. >> Thank you. >> We'll respond to question to questions
at the end of the public comment. Is there anyone else from public? >> I see no one else from public. I'd like to close the public portion. >> Second. >> Mr. Higgins. >> Yes. Uh, regarding parking, um, there is
existing parking. There's a curb cut. It's not being removed. Um, we're proposing to keep the curb cut. It'll be shared with the adjacent property. uh and we're just reconfiguring it and uh reducing it to 10 feet to be compliant with uh current standards.
>> Okay. Thank you. Any board comments on that? >> So, Madam Chair, just to confirm, are you reducing the width of that curb cut? >> That's correct. >> So, would that provide additional on curbside parking space due to the reduction of the curb cut from existing conditions?
Um, I suspect it may, but I don't have a traffic expert here, unfortunately, to testify to that. But, um, unless Alex, do you think you would chime in on that? >> I I'm going to follow your lead on that. I don't know exactly how wide it is today. >> All I can say is I suspect it may, but
we don't have testimony to back that up. >> Provide for one possibly. >> Who's a big curve cut? >> For the record, Mr. Klein sitting in the back of the room as usual waiting to help.
>> Thank you, council. >> Thank you, >> Sophia. >> Staff agrees with the applicant's testimony. I could say that if people park efficiently on the street, it there
could be potential to have another parking spot on the street, but that depends on how people park. Um, in general, staff does not see any detriment to the public good in granting this variance. Uh we do ask that the
applicant agree to the conditions in the staff memo dated April 27th, 2026 with an additional condition for the relocation of the meter uh of the meter being accessible.
>> Mr. Higgin, do you? >> That's fine. >> Okay. Staff recommends approval. I'd like to entertain a motion. I'd like to make a motion to approve case P2025-0180 as presented to the board with staff and board recommendations and conditions.
>> Second roll call. >> Vice Chair Wick >> I. >> Commissioner Langston >> I. >> Commissioner Gonzalez >> I. Commissioner, Council Person Little, >> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan, >> I. >> Commissioner Barnaby, >> I.
>> And Chair Gangadan. >> Yeah. I want to thank the public for coming out and voicing your concerns. My vote is I. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> Thank you. We'll take a 10 minutes break and then we'll be right back. >> You guys are killing it. >> Oh, stop it.
>> Killing it. I was here too. I was here. >> No, I'm trying to get I'm trying to get the interaction. So >> thanks. Thank you. Another month. That's right.
I'm sure you know That's really It's And there's a lot of I remember I just saw Well, that's why Thank you. I better eat something maybe. Thank you.
usually just like you don't like Come back. Huh? >> You're second. It was longer last night. I was looking on the first floor. I don't know.
Not just So I mean How are you? Yeah, everybody else. It's like I understood. >> I have no idea. right there. >> Very dangerous.
I'd rather be in the building. Well, that was an electric It's just making the Oh, no. I have like I have >> Oh, they're right. So in the summer I just
Not my house. My house. >> Maybe once I finish Yeah. >> Yeah. I think it's much better. Sit right here. Three in a row. shoulder left.
That would have been pretty sure Tanya looks I've been Well, actually the main entrance There's like a secondary elevator. You think they'll take another I hate
>> your daughter. It doesn't have any >> weird blood pressure. >> We're not saying we're not going to do it. adjust. >> You're waiting in July.
>> I would like to call the meeting back to order. >> All right, I'm going to put one piece back out. >> Would you like some? At this time I would like to call in case P2025-000087 minor subdivision. Address is 141 Oxford
Avenue. Applicant is 141-143 Oxford Avenue LLC. >> Good evening. Peter Chedenini on behalf of the applicant. The applicant's original attorney had a medical issue, was unable to make it uh tonight, so I'm
covering for him. Um I believe notice was already carried from the last meeting. Um so we're ready to proceed. Council, I can confirm that the notice was carried from the last meeting and I had an opportunity to review it. I don't
have the original because council does have it but in light of the circumstance he did not provide you with the original. >> Even better council So, madam chair, I am in receip the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application.
It is in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for the record. All right. Um, the 141 Oxford Avenue is a currently vacant You hear me now?
Uh, it's currently a vacant uh 50 by 99 lot. Uh, so it's slightly undersized. The applicant seeks to subdivide it into two lots, which means that a variance is required for lot size, but it's a very minor variance. Um, I'd like to call our
expert is Carolyn Morell of Dresnner Robbins. Yeah. What happened to the toggle? >> No. Yeah, it doesn't fit. Oh, does >> Oh, it does. >> I just didn't throw it in. All right.
>> I do. >> Uh, Carolyn Worstelle. C A R O L Y N W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W O R S T E L. >> Mr. Stell, your license current. >> My license is in current and good standing this evening. >> Thank you. You may proceed. >> Thank you. and and again uh Madame
Chair, pleasure to have uh to be uh have you this evening and and to to see you and coming in the future. Um and uh former chair Langston and Vice Chair Gonzalez, we will definitely miss you. Um >> but uh we're looking forward to the
future. Um so we're here this evening for uh this property. The subject property is uh one uh 41 Oxford Avenue. Uh it is on block uh 19301 lot 4. Um as mentioned it is uh an existing oversized
lot. Um it is 50 ft wide with an average lot depth of 98.8 ft for a total lot area of 4,939 square ft. Um it's currently vacant and closed by a chain fence. Um and the subject of this application is to
subdivide it uh into two lots. Uh proposed lot 104.0 01 me zoom in here. Uh would be 25 there go be 25 ft wide um and would have
an average average lot depth of 98.6 feet and a total lot area of 2475 square feet. Proposed lot 4.02 would have a lot width of 25 feet. Average lot depth of 99 feet and a total lot area of 2464 square feet.
Um so we're here this evening uh because with the subdivision uh we are going to be creating two lots that are undersized in terms of lot area. Um the the existing lot um again is oversized. Um but it is slightly
irregular. So the the um lot side lot lines don't quite hit perpendicular um to the front lot line. And so this results in um lot depths which range um uh along you know the property line. So
you can see you know it's 98.39 ft on one side and 99.2 on the other. So it it is slightly irregular lot. Um but the uh subdivision you know it will result into lots which are substantially
conforming. Um so 4.01 01 is only 25 square feet less than the minimum lot area. Um and that averages to one foot essentially across the width of the rear of the property. So it's only one foot short of the depth um on average. And
then uh similarly lot point uh 4.02 um would be uh approximately 1.4 1.44 feet uh less in lot depth across averaged across the the lot. Uh but in both cases the overall lot areas are 99%
of the minimum required. So it's it's very uh minor what what the uh the the reduction is. Um and I don't really see that there's going to be substantial impacts due to the slightly shallow or undersized character of these two lots to be created. Um they're certainly
large enough to provide conforming setbacks and coverages. you know, it's all achievable under the uh R1 standards, which are mostly, as you know, based on percentages. So, they they deal with the fact that many lots in Jersey City are undersized or slightly uh less depth. Um, so that's
already sort of addressed in in the ordinance. Um, and the conforming rear yard setbacks, I mean, when your average depth is only like a foot, we're talking inches, right? You know, you're going to lose a couple of inches in lot um in rear yard setback. So, it's really going
to again not going to be a really substantial impact here. Um, and I think overall the proposed subdivision would result in a better planning alternative um because you're going to take this larger lot and you're going to create two smaller lots which again sort of continues um that uh
typical 25 by 25 foot wide lot development which is um seen along this blockage. um and allow for those typical you know uh sem detached semi- detached homes which are very typical of the R1. Um I
think overall uh it advances the uh promotes the municipal land use law. Uh it's going to be an appropriate residential use uh uh of the property consistent purpose A. Um allows for sufficient setbacks uh to provide adequate light air and open space
consistent with purpose C. Um and then again it will establish an appropriate population density consistent with purpose E. Um so I think it really uh advances those um uh the municipal land use law. Uh and again I don't see this resulting in substantial detriment to the public good
or general welfare. Uh these lots are again overwhelmingly consistent uh with the minimum requirements for the subdivision uh in the R1. Um and likewise I don't see it substantial detriment to the zone plan or the zoning ordinance. Again, the R1 already, you
know, knows it addresses for lots that are slightly uh shallow uh with their rear yard setback as a percentage. Um and the intent of the R1 is to allow for infield of residential development, which again this would further. So I think overall uh the positive and
negative criteria have been met and and the uh variances can be granted. >> That's it. That's my testimony unless anyone has questions. Any board comments? >> No. >> Is that your presentation? >> That is it.
>> Thank you. 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. >> Sophia. >> Staff agrees with the applicant's
testimony and does not see any detriment to the public good in granting these variances. The staff asked that the applicant agree to the conditions listed in the memo dated March 24th, 2026.
>> Yeah, he has agreed. >> Okay. And with that, staff recommends approval. >> Thank you. I'd like to entertain a motion. >> I'd like to make a motion to approve case P2025-000087 as presented to the board with all staff conditions.
>> Second. Uh, Vice Chair Wick, >> I. >> Commissioner Langston. >> Yeah, I think uh I always agree with Mr. Worstell's uh testimony. I think the variance requested is dimminimous and uh there's no detriment to the master plan.
So, it's an I. Commissioner Gonzalez. >> Same. I think the variance is very dimminimous. So, um thank you for the presentation. I will. >> Commissioner Council person Little >> I. Commissioner Kaplan >> I. >> Commissioner Barnaby
>> I. >> And Chair Gongadan >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I'd like to call case B205-0196 minor site plan with C variance. Address
is 7 or orchard street. Okay, that is okay. Good evening, Veronica from the law firm Connell Foley. on behalf of the applicant, 7 Orchard Street, JC LLC. Um we're here for a minor site plan
application with 1C variance um for the property located at 7 Orchard Street, block 15201, lot 47. Um we're located within the R1 zone and we're proposing uh clearing the property and developing a three-story building with three units
and a twoar garage. Um I'm going to have two witnesses for you this evening. Our architect is Mr. Alan Feld and our planner, Miss uh Kristen Russell, um who will provide the testimony on the project and get into the um the drive aisle parking variance that we're
requesting here. Um I apologize. I forgot to say that we also did notice for this application originally for the March 24th hearing uh with preservation tonight, if I may approach. >> Thank you, council. Madam Chairman, receive the affidavit of
publication proof of mailing with respect to the application at 7 Orchard Street here in the city. Does appear to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for purpose of the record. >> Thank you. >> Okay, >> Madam Chair, uh point of order, please. >> Sure. Uh, I do need to say for the
record that um I do know Miss Russell. Uh, she was a member of the planning staff uh when I was appointed to the board and um she was also our first secretary that I
worked with here. and um my you know obviously we haven't had a discussion about this case and um I just need to get that on the record and uh it doesn't change my judgment whatsoever in this application tonight. >> Thank you
>> Madam Chair. Second point of reference here. Um I also know Christine Russell for that many years. Good friend. Uh and I uh also am going to be able to make decisions by myself without any I haven't talked to her about this case.
>> Thank you. >> All right. With that I will turn to my first witness uh Mr. Allenfeld. >> I do. Allen A L A N F E L D Allen Feld. >> Mr. Feld, is your license current? >> Yes, it is.
>> And in good standing? >> Yes. >> You may proceed. >> Uh, good evening. Um, >> good evening. >> So, this project is to construct a new uh uh building on an existing lot. The existing lot is an oversized lot. It's
25 by 150. And uh we're going to be building a three family house. um with a twocar garage. Um the two three family house is permitted due to the fact of the oversized lot uh area. Um actually
uh a four family would be permitted. Um but this is a three family. Um, also, um, the reason we're here before the planning board is because due to the size of the, uh, new structure, we're
over 5,000 square ft for the area of the construction, therefore requiring planning board, uh, review. Um, I'll leave the zoning chart up to uh Miss Russell to explain um how we comply
with all the zoning requirements. >> Oh, that was too far. I apologize. >> Oh, yes. So presently there is an existing two-story structure towards the rear uh and a shed which would be demolished uh and the the new structure is uh uh
going to be uh 22 feet wide by 108 ft deep uh leaving um I can't read this but uh a required uh rear yard setback Just keep going.
Um, now you can see uh the first floor uh has a twocar tandem parking garage in the front and a um one unit, a two-bedroom unit at the rear behind the garage with a separate entrance along the sideyard.
Uh on the second floor, we have another unit. Uh this is a a three-bedroom unit uh with a deck uh at the rear of the of of the of the building. And on the third floor is the third unit
which is also a three-bedroom uh unit uh which has access to a roof deck. Uh on page uh nine you can see the proposed elevation front and rear elevations and uh the next on eight on page 10 is
the right side elevation and on the left side is we have a zero setback. So there's no windows on that side because the adjoining property uh is also on the property line. So, uh we're on the same property adjoining
property line and then we have uh detail window details and other details uh uh paving details, railing details, uh entrance details and that's
uh what's been submitted for review. >> Presentation Excuse me. >> Is that your presentation? >> Yes, that's it. >> Okay. Is there any board comments for Mr. Feld? >> No. >> Thank you.
>> I had a question. Um you said the um you said you were not seeking any variances, but um here it looks like um you are seeking a variance or parking aisle requirements. Can you explain what that is? Uh >> the planner will discuss the variances.
>> Sorry about that. Thank you. >> And yes, next we will have Miss Russell to explain the uh variance request here. >> I do. >> Kristen Russell, K R I S T I N or US SS
ELL, licensed prof licensed professional planner here in New Jersey. >> Miss Russell, is your license current in good standing? >> Sure is. >> Thank you. You may proceed. >> Sure. If you'll indulge me for 30 seconds. Um, I worked for Jersey City for 14 years. Um, I left for the for the
planning department. Um, I left in 2015 and for many of those years I was a team with Chris and Orlando and we had some really good times and we did some really good work and I can't believe it is so lucky of me to be here tonight on what I didn't know was going to be your last um
night serving this board. >> You knew. Come on. >> I didn't know. I didn't know. I would have come if I had just for fun if I hadn't. But um I want to wish you both the best and I have many many fond memories and hopefully I'll still see you around town. >> Thank you Kristen.
>> Yeah. So on to my testimony. Um this planning board application um is for a three-story three-unit home um located in the R1 district. Um, it is surrounded by other R1 uses in similarly
identically zoned. Um, and the only variance that is part of this application is for what is essentially tandem parking in the garage. Um, your zoning code requires that all parking spaces except for those permitted for
one and two family housing shall be located with access to each space from an aisle. um which makes perfect sense for a multif family home where you need to juggle different units um and their ability to access their vehicles to enter and exit the site. Um in this case
we have a three unit building um with two interior parking spaces being served by I will mention an existing curb cut. So that's an existing condition. There is actually not a parking requirement for this property. So they could get
away with having none um and not need a variance. They have however decided to retain that curb cut, provide two parking spaces within the garage, but like I said, they're tandem. Um obviously with three units and only two
parking spaces, one of those units um will not um have parking in the garage. They will be either not owning a vehicle or parking on the street or offsite somewhere. Um but consequently the
parking arrangement basically functions as it would for a two family home which according to your um parking requirements two family homes are exempt from the need for a parking aisle. So um it
really is not an unusual it's not an unheard of um parking layout. It's just that we have a three family home and it was anticipated to function this way for only a two family home. So we will be seeking a C2 um variance
which is a variance seeking a better zoning alternative. Um and with this request I need to present to you the positive criteria which is the ways that this um zoning request advance the intents and purposes of the municipal land use law. Um just to run through
them quickly, it advances purpose A to promote to promote the public health, safety, morals, and welfare. Um purpose C to provide light, air, and open space. Purpose D um that it does not conflict with the development and welfare of
neighboring municipalities and purpose I that it presents a desirable visual environment. Um the negative criteria also needs to be um presented. The variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good. Again, as I mentioned, no parking is required, but we are getting two parking spaces off the street with this arrangement um through, as I mentioned as well, an existing curb cut. Um this request will not impair the intent and
purpose of your zone plan. Your land development ordinance says that the purpose of the R1 district is to accommodate existing housing and encourage compatible infill. This infill project is certainly compatible with the block. In fact, it's
more compatible than what's there now, which is an odd front yard setback. Um, this brings the street wall up to the sidewalk to match the existing context. Um and your 2021 Jersey City master plan
um sets forth a vision with several priorities that this project advances which includes continuing efforts to enhance residential neighborhoods, ensuring that the um city's available housing is balanced and meets the needs
of the residents and the project aligns with the existing character of the neighborhood. In short, the benefits here outweigh the detriments. Um, you're going to have a nice, um, attractive looking new building on a lot that really could use
some TLC. Um, you're going to have parking for two of the units under the site where no parking is even required. Um, and the, um, the third unit will just park as any other, um, residents would without
parking on site. Um, I also want to point out that there is one design waiver with the project. Um, your this is for lighting. Um, your code allows 0.5 ft candles at the property line, but
it doesn't differentiate between the front property line and sides and rear. So at the front property line we exceed the 0.5 foot candle requirement with our um front facade entry light. Um we are
at one um no we are at let me get the number right 2.8 foot candles. There's a little bit of a disconnect though because your code also requires a minimum of one foot candle at the sidewalk. So, I think that
the requirement that there only be five point five foot candles at a property line doesn't explicitly say it, but I think it may not have been contemplating the potential that that would be the front lot line where the sidewalk requirement is higher. That being said, to play it
safe, we're asking for a design waiver for that since the two codes seem to be or since the two requirements seem to be in a little bit of conflict with each other. Um but the the main gist of the testimony is that there is this parking C variance required for the parking
aisle and I believe that um I provided provided the testimony to justify it. >> Thank you. Is any board comments? >> Uh Madam Chair, one question please. Um Miss Russell and maybe council you might be able to answer this better. Um are
the units condos or rentals? and I'm going somewhere with it, don't worry. >> Yeah, I believe right now the only intent is rentals. >> Okay. So, are the spots in the garage leased to the units themselves?
>> Yes. >> Mhm. >> Okay. I'm just concerned that there's going to be a wild west situation where there's no lease attached to the parking spaces and someone eventually will be parking on that apron in the front and blocking the sidewalk. I've made sure to
discuss with the client that like the parking situation has to be very clear. Um so he is aware of that and they will be leased in connection with the units. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> Yeah. I have a just a point of clarification. Uh Mr. Russell, the you
were talking about the candles, the 0.5 for the property line. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And the sidewalk you said one. So that's where the discrepancy is. >> So the the code has two separate requirements. One is that you cannot exceed.5
foot candles at the property line. The code also requires that you need to have at least one at the sidewalk. Well, when the proper when the lighting at the property line and sidewalk meet, you can't have both. Um, so we we have 2.8.
So, we meet the sidewalk illumination requirements, but we also therefore exceed the front lot line requirements. >> I got you. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Go ahead. Sorry. >> Um I I don't really have a frame of reference for what a foot candle looks
like, but um if if you need a minimum of one at the sidewalk, but it also, you know, they're being a maximum of.5 at the property line, which as you point out are in conflict, but there still seems to be an interest
in in keeping um keeping it lower at the property line. And so I'm wondering where you where you got 2.8. Um because that is um you know almost three times one. And um I'm I'm wondering is it going to look like a thousand suns
blazing in the middle of the night. >> It's not um I I'm not a lighting expert, but I had um somebody on, you know, a colleague of mine write it um or pick out the lighting. That's a standard front door like front stoop light. Um,
and so it's not going to be three times brighter than anybody else's front stoop light on the block. Um I think the one the minimum of one for the sidewalk is really based on
um the idea of uh like a cobra head illuminated light that kind of spreads widely and kind of reaches the you know the the fringes of that illumination spot. The lowest point that can be is one. But when if you were to be right
below that light it would be much more than one. It's okay. Andy, >> Madam Chair, just one question. Um, I know we're discussing uh vehicular parking. Is there any bicycle parking included in the site plan? >> There's not. >> Um, and is that required or not required
for property in this scenario? I honestly don't know >> there. I'm quite sure it's not required because I went through the variances with a with a fine tooth comb. I will point out though that the um the garage does have sufficient width beyond the width of a
car that there's no reason that a person could not park their bikes in there. >> Thanks. >> Any other board questions? >> No. >> Thank you. >> That concludes our presentation. >> Thank you. At this time, I would like to
open for public. And is there anyone from the public? Tonight, the whole truth. >> Yes. >> Charlene Burke. C H A R L E N E B U R K E.
>> 56 Duncan Avenue. >> Good evening, Mrs. Burke. >> Good evening. >> You have three minutes. >> Congratulations, everyone. those retiring, those taking on more. So, >> thank you. >> Um, retired. >> The one question I have is about the
landscaping looks a little sparse here. I'm not sure what's required and how much is provided. And I was also wanting to ask about a street tree. And if there is a street tree, uh perhaps it could be
at the front of the property rather than on the the um public right of way cuz it seems like those that are on properties are more successful than on the public right away, especially with driveways.
Seems this area has a lot of car driveways that are two cars parking in front of houses. So, it's just my question about the landscaping in particular, what's required. It looks a little sparse.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else from public? >> I see no one else from the public. I'd like to close the public portion. >> Second. >> Can you address the concern? >> Yes. I just wanted to confirm. I believe
there is an existing street tree. Yes, there is an existing street tree which is uh going to remain. Uh I don't think that there is room in the front yard of the property uh to
include a tree. Um we do have some proposed landscaping as well in the front. Um the requirement is 30% of the front yard and I have in our zoning table that we have um 38%.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> I would like to um ask Ben our planner. >> Uh staff agrees with the testimony provided by the applicant and by the professional planner. Um the only thing I would add to her to uh Miss Russell's
testimony is that another goal of the R1 zone is to preserve street parking and the existing condition is a wider curb cut. So this is uh by making the curb cut compliant. It is providing more street parking. Um so staff recommends
approval provided that the applicant agree to the conditions in the staff memo dated May 12th, 2026. >> Yes, we're in receipt of the memo and we agree to the conditions. Great. Staff recommends approval. >> I would like to entertain a motion. >> I'd like to make a motion to approve
case P205-0196 as presented to the board with all staff recommendations and conditions. >> Second. >> Vice Chair Wick. >> I. >> Commissioner Langston. >> I. >> Commissioner Gonzalez. >> I. >> Uh Commissioner, sorry. Commissioner
Council person Little. >> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan. >> I. >> Commissioner Barnaby. I >> and Chair Gangadan >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor. >> Thank you all very much. Have a good night. >> You too. I'd like to call KPB 2025-0190.
Minor site plan with C variances. Address is 3113rd Street. >> Good evening everybody. Stephen Joseph for the applicant. uh architect's going to come up here and get uh set up. This
is a notice application. Thank you, council. Madam Chair, receive the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application at 3113rd Street here in the city. It does appear to be in order. Going to mark it as A1 for the record. >> Thank you.
>> Just as we're getting set up here, I just want to make sure you guys know how much I've learned from you, chairman and vice chair, over the years. Uh taught me a lot. This is still a learning experience and council will continue to keep me in line as we go through this.
>> I expect he will counsel. Thank you. Thank you for the kinds 3113rd Street. This is located midb block on Third Street. It's in the RC3 zoning district. What we're proposing here is a new four-story 4-unit dwelling. In order to accomplish this, we need minor site plan approval with C variances for rear yard
setback, minimum building coverage, and uh maximum I'm sorry, maximum building coverage and maximum lot coverage. What you're going to see in the plans is that there are a total of 15 lot line windows on the adjacent properties, which creates a significant hardship for us in
developing the property. Um, and that would will be the reason for the variances. So, let's get the architect sworn in and we'll walk through the plans. any testimony you get tonight. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing truth. >> Yes, I do. >> Antonio, first name N T O N I O. Last
name A I E L L O. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Ayeloo, is your license current? I understanding. >> Yes, it is. >> Thank you. You may proceed. >> Thank you. Thank you for all you guys have done. I appreciate it. Have a great one. Appreciate it. And we look forward to working further together.
>> Same here. >> Excellent. We have here 3113rd Street. Going to go down my list as I uh describe the project. Uh project is 3113rd Street, block 11106, lot 4. It is located in the zone uh RC3.
Uh this is for a major site plan project to replace an existing structure that is 100% lot coverage. We're removing it in its entirety and building a new building on the property. Uh property is 25 ft wide, 95 ft deep. Uh it is undersized
given typical lots in the city. Um surrounding neighborhood consists mostly of mult attached multif family residential bu buildings. Uh currently on either side we have multiple windows on both sides of each property which does impact the design on this uh
project. As you can see here um on the property on the site plan um we have on the right hand side of the plan as you see it on the on the drawing uh all those red and green squares are all the windows on the uh one side of the project as I said
it's 100% lock coverage and has a number of buildings all up and down the uh property line uh the building on the other side also has windows so we had to design the building in order to try and ac accommodate those as much as humanly possible ible. Um, we are seeking a minimum rear yard and a maximum lot
coverage. Again, this was in order to extend the building since the amount of square footage that we lost setting it back. Uh, we're required 3T1. We are providing a 4ft setback uh on the 100% side um on the right hand side of the property in order to provide additional
light uh for both our property and theirs. Uh thus the extension of the of the rear yard um minimization and the uh additional lot coverage. Uh the project does comply with the
permitted use required for RC3. Um we have a total of I'm going to go through the floor plans. All right. We do have a crawl space which will accommodate flood plane requirements. uh flood vents on the front and rear in order to accommodate
all any kind of uh D requirements. Uh the first floor is a two-bedroom unit with a den approximately 15433 square ft. Second floor is a three-bedroom unit uh with about 1,691 square ft. And then
above that we have two duplexes, one in front, one in the back. Um those are two both two bedrooms respectively. Uh the front unit is 1672 ft. Rear unit is 1577 square ft that both have access
to uh private roof decks uh on the very top of the fourth floor. The building is designed as a uh contemporary urban infill. Uh the front and rear yard uh utilizes vertically proportioned um glazing systems with uh
black mullians uh smooth finish fiber cement panels on on the block. Uh proposed building is approximately 42 feet in height which does match with the uh which is consistent with the rest of
the neighborhood. Um, roof bulkheads are set back to minimize any kind of, you know, as much as we possibly can for people to walking down the street to be able to see them. So, it's not increasing the height of the structure. And then we have the mechanical equipment all surrounded
by uh screened sound isolated uh fencing. Here's a structure showing the first floor is the entire uh first floor. Second unit is second floor and then third units are the duplexes with the uh roof decks. We are proposing uh new
sidewalks, curbs, landscaping, fencing and utility improvements. Uh new street tree on Third Street. Uh the garbage is located internally and will comply with any uh Jersey City uh requirements and schedules. We feel the proposal does advance a
continuing continued redevelopment of the area. Uh we create we're replacing the uh current structure with a new flood resistant and code compliant building. Uh the scale fits with the neighborhood. Um in summary, we we feel it is appropriate with as a residential
infill of the RC district. Um the variances are limited and attributed to the existing conditions on either side of the properties and um we respectfully uh request approval. >> So Tony just uh sorry just two corrections unless I misheard it. I
think you said the lots under sized at one point but it's it's actually oversized. 1,800 square feet is the minimum here and uh we're we have 2 uh 375. Um and I I think you accidentally said major site plan. It's a It's a
>> Sorry. Sorry. Yes. Apologies. Uh I was just I meant the uh depth. Instead of a typical 100 foot depth, it's a 95 foot deep uh lot. >> Any board comments? >> No. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Great. Let's uh bring up Caroline for
some uh brief planning testimony. >> Yep. You got it. Still under oath. >> Still under oath. >> License still current and in good standing. >> Still current. Uh so good evening. Um so we're here for
311 Third Street. Um as as was mentioned, there are a couple of variances uh related to this application. First is for that rear yard setback. Second is for maximum building coverage and the third is for maximum lot coverage. Um, so again, this
property has some interesting conditions that we don't see every day. Um, you know, the the number of lot line windows, and we we get lotline windows from time to time, but this was a significant amount of lot line windows, which is very unusual. Um, so again, the the application would obviously had to
um really adjust for those. And so that was part of the design was to uh step back that building to create that side set back on those upper floors to really provide that additional layin air. Um again three 3T is required and four feet was provided. So again it is a little
more significant than is typical. Um but we're not asking for a sideyard setback. We're actually permitted to build 100 you know up to the lat line in the R3. Um what we're asking for is the rear yard setback. Um so we're proposing a rear yard setback of 10 feet where a
minimum of 30% or 28.5 ft is what is required. Um you know so we we sort of look at this uh in the fact that you know we're we're trying to uh adjust and accommodate uh the fact that we have to provide this
extra space um for these these windows on on adjacent properties um by adding for a little bit more depth uh to the building and so reducing our rear yard uh setback. Um, but I think that looking at the context that this building is in, um, you know, the adjacent property to,
you know, on on the right of the page, um, already is 100% lock coverage. It goes all the way to the back. Um, and this property in this, um, this block is is a little unusual. We actually back up on an alleyway. So, there is an alleyway behind us. Um, it's not your typical,
you know, lot line to lot line. Um and when you look at the the wider context of this block and and the buildings that are on it, uh you notice that um many of them go to 100% lot depth. Um
I was say we can uh zoom in on the aerial map here a little bit. Um so as you can see if this is our our our lot you know here is the building adjacent to us goes to 100%. Uh building over here is 100%. Um and then when you
you go down um the alleyway um the buildings over here they they have you know uh rear yard uh uh oftentimes have garages where their their ground floors go to the rear yard. So the condition of this block is that many of the buildings
go deeper. Um, and then when you do have a rear yard is oftentimes parking. So, we don't have that typical condition, you know, for the AR that you see throughout where you have that rear yard open donut hole. Um, that's just not the condition of this block because of the
alleyway. Um, you know, that wasn't how it was ever originally developed. It was developed to have, you know, rear yard structures, you know, on that alleyway, access to the alleyway. Um, so I think that overall, um, the proposed rear yard, 10 ft is, um, appropriate for
this. Um, you know, it's not going to really have substantial impacts on light and air to the adjacent properties. Um, you know, there there's that alleyway and and like I said, the context is there that that most of the buildings on this block already um have structures that go 100% law coverage.
Um the other uh variances that we're seeking uh relate to the coverage. Um so there's a uh we're proposing a building coverage of 89% where 70% is uh
permitted and a lot coverage of 90% where 80% is permitted. So um again we're we're asking for um this increased lot coverage. Um but what we're doing is we're actually creating uh and reducing the lot coverage on the lot. Right now
there is 100% lot coverage. Um so this this project even though we're asking for a variance is still creating more open space than is there today. Um so we are creating more again more um uh open space. We're creating uh more um
imperous coverage on the lot than is there currently. Um and overall this project um exceeds the green area ratio um which is we're we're at a 0. 28 uh where 0.25 is what is required. So we we are able to exceed um the g the green
area ratio. Um we are providing you know green uh roofing. Uh we're adding that yard area the additional uh rear yard area new street tree on third street. Um so overall this project really is improving storm water runoff conditions on the property.
Um I think you know this project advances the purposes of the municipal land use law. Um it's uh an appropriate use and development of the property um consistent uh with purpose A. Um an appropriate multif family uh building consistent with the surrounding area and
the zone. Um it's proposing a permitted density uh so it's consistent with uh purpose E. Um and then a more desirable visual uh development. Uh, you know, again, this is going to be a very modern building. Um, you know, it's an
appropriate infill development. Um, and, um, you know, I think with adding some of the additional green, uh, to the area, both the green roof and at the rear yard, I think that's an appropriate uh, and and more uh, improvement. Um, I don't see that this is going to result in a substantial detriment to the
general welfare. Again, it's consistent with resent with the character of the neighborhood um uh in terms of of its setbacks. Um and it is going to be providing more uh than the minimum required uh sideyard
setbacks for those adjacent windows. Um and again, we're we're going to be improving those storm water conditions. Um and that leads to uh the fact that I I don't think that this will be a substantial impairment to the zone uh plan or zoning ordinance. um you know
the R3 district uh looks at development uh to provide uh what is contextual to the existing uh area and I I think that this is a contextual development. Um and then one of the things that the RC3 is supposed to do is it's supposed to address and mitigate the impacts of flooding in low-lying vulnerable areas.
Uh so again I think this project does advance that with removing some of the impervious coverage and exceeding the G uh requirements. So I think that we do do that here. Um and then you know it creates that more resilient neighborhood uh because again the building is going to be uh fully compliant with um the
flood uh hazard uh area m uh standard. So residential has to be uh lifted above uh the flood plane. Uh so that is what is being done here um and having uh the crawl space and the flood vent. So again overall the the building itself is a substantial improvement in terms of
meeting the current uh flood uh standards uh by the state. Um and I so I think overall this project uh can uh the variance could be granted. It meets uh both the positive and and the negative criteria for for granting those C variances.
>> Thank you Carolyn. >> Any board comments? >> No. >> Um I I have a question actually and I'm not sure who the right person to ask this of. Um in the cover letter for the application it says um the property is currently a condo building with two condo units. The applicant owns both
condo units and is in the process of dissolving the condominium association and the applicant anticipates the condominium association will be dissolved prior to the hearing date. Do you know if that's happened? >> That's happens. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other board comments?
>> Just one question, Madam Chairman. Um, is there a requirement for a street tree in front of this property? I mean there's a standard requirement that you you have to provide a street tree and if you don't you payment in lie. Um so >> we we are proposing a new street tree in front of the in front of the property.
Yes. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> That concludes your presentation. >> Yes, that concludes our direct presentation. >> 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.
>> Second. >> Thank you, Ben. >> Uh staff agrees with the testimony provided by the applicant and the planner. Uh and recommends approval provided the applicant agree to the conditions in the staff memo dated May 12th, 2026.
So agreed. Great. Staff recommends approval then. >> Thank you. I'd like to state a motion. I'd like to make a motion to approve case P2025-0190 as presented to the board with all staff recommendations and conditions. >> Second. >> Uh Vice Chair Wick
>> I. >> Commissioner Langston. >> Yeah. Um I I think the variances are reasonable. It's uh consistent with infill development in the area. And uh Mr. Iel, I love the design. It's a very
bold choice for a facade. then uh we need that. We need more of that. So, it's an eye for me. >> Commissioner Gonzalez. >> Yeah, same. I think the variances that are requested here are needed in this case. And um that as soon as that picture came up, I was like, "Wow, that we need more of that. That's really good
luck with that." But it looks beautiful. So, I vote I >> Commissioner Council person Little >> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan >> I. >> Commissioner Barnaby. >> Looking forward to having that building in the neighborhood. I >> And Chair Gongadan.
>> Yeah. I um I concur with uh Chris and um Dr. Gonzalez on the um building. It's beautifully designed. I >> motion carries. All in favor? >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> I'd like to call KP2025-0191 minor site plan. address is 44 Cole Street. >> Mr. Joseph, >> good evening. Stephen Joseph, for the applicant, uh, this is a minor site plan. No notice was required. No notice was given for this. Uh, very simple. This is located midb block on Cole
Street. It's an RC3 zoning, so same zoning as the last project. Um, and we're proposing a four-story four-unit dwelling. Tony's going to take us through the plans. Um, there's no variances. As you can tell, it's a same client that
likes the modern designs. Thank you again for having us. This is 44 Cole Street, similar uh same neighborhood. Uh we're proposing fourstory, fourunit building. Um the property is 23 23 feet wide, 100 ft
deep, so a little narrower than than typical, but um works well. Um we have here proposed as as Stephen Joseph mentioned uh no variances on this project. We do have some windows. So we do have some
setbacks to accommodate which we have done here with the design. See I'm going to start here on the floor plans again. He we have here a crawl space that will again be flood uh flood prone uh flood compliant as per New Jersey DP. We do
have an alley a small walkway under the building for egress purposes uh that will also house uh the refues as well as uh gas meters. This creates an emergency exit off the rear of the building for the rear units. Um first floor consists
of a um three-bedroom unit. It is the entire first floor plus half of the second floor on the rear. Uh the second floor has the other uh second unit which is a onebedroom in that location. Uh first unit is approximately 1968 ft.
Second unit is 721 square ft. Sorry this computer is not doing what I want it to. Bear with me. Here we go. Uh third and fourth floor again are duplexes. This time they intertwine. Uh unit three starts in the
front. Uh the second floor is on the back. Unit four starts on the third floor rear, ends up on the uh front. Again, these also have private unit uh private roof decks uh with green roof um both landscaped and green roof trays uh
along the entire uh roof front rooftop as well as skylights to accommodate the uh dens units. Unit three and four approximately 1,400 plus square feet. Um the building has been elevated similar to the last one in order to accommodate
flood uh flooding in the area. Uh and again uh architectural contemporary struct uh design proportional to surrounding buildings but more glazing and smooth stone facade systems. Um different window pattern. Here we also have the recessed area for the first
floor where you have some step steps that go up uh into the entrance and then steps going down to the uh egress component on the ground floor. The sides will be stucco finish uh along the uh property lines and again we have
here the recessed area which will accommodate the windows for the neighboring property. Um go back to the rendering. Uh we are proposing sidewalks, curbs, landscaping. Uh new street tree is also
being proposed. Uh and we have approximately 43 feet 10 in in height for the building. Again, 40 uh four-story building with elevated first floor. And um again, this continues the redevelopment of the Cole Street area with high quality infill residential
building. uh replaces an older structure with the new compliant flood uh uh resistant building and the building setbacks scale and overall form are consistent with the neighborhood. As you can see here between the smaller structure to the left and this larger
structure to the right, it creates a little bit of in between uh scaling the neighborhood overall. >> Thank you, Tony. >> Thank you. >> Any board comments? >> No, pretty straightforward. That's our direct testimony. >> Thank you. Is there anyone from the
public? >> See no one from the public. I'd like to close the public portion. >> Second, >> Ben. >> Yes. Uh in reviewing this application, staff found that there are no variances or deviations proposed within this application. Uh the proposal aderes to
the standards of the R3 residential commercial district 3 zone as written and fulfills the objectives of the land use element of the master plan by mitigating the impact of flooding and create a more resilient neighborhood. Uh staff recommends approval provided that the applicant agree to the conditions in
the staff memo dated May 12th, 2026. >> Yeah, and I noticed we started adding a new standard condition about the the utility placements, but they're they're all uh conditions are acceptable. >> Great. In that case, staff recommends approval. >> Thank you. I would like to entertain a motion. >> I'd like to make a motion to approve
case P2025-0191 as presented to the board with all staff recommendations and conditions. >> Second, Vice Chair Wick. >> Another beautiful design. I vote I. >> Commissioner Langston. >> Mr. Ielo, is this your last one tonight? >> Yes.
>> It might it might be cookie cutter if I see one of these tonight. All right. Um Okay. Yeah, it's an I. It's It's an I. It's a good one. >> Commissioner Gonzalez. >> Same. Good. Good luck. I vote I. >> Commissioner Council person Little >> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan. >> I.
>> Commissioner Barnaby. >> I. >> And Cher Gongaden. >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Have a wonderful evening. >> That's it. >> I would like to call KP 2026-00003. It's a minor subdivision. address is 210-212
Bergen Avenue. >> Mr. Higgins. >> Good evening everyone. Uh Michael Higgins of Castanoquigley Cherami. >> Thank you. >> Uh for the applicant this evening we did notice for this application I have the groups over here.
>> Trick or treat. Madam Chairman, receive the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application at 210212 Bergen Avenue here in the city. Does appear to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for purpose of the record. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. So this is 210 to 212 Bergen Avenue. It's uh block 2343 uh and lot 6. Um, so it's right now a 4,926 square foot lot. Uh, the proposal is to
subdivide it into two new lots. Um, proposed lot 6.01 will be 2419 ft and proposed lot 6.02 will be 257 ft. Uh, it's in the R3 zone. The minimum
lot area there is 2,000 square ft. So there's no variances associated uh with this project. Um, and that really does conclude it. We've submitted a subdivision plat that's on the portal and signed and sealed and that's part of the record. >> Thank you. That was pretty short.
>> Yeah. >> Any board comments? >> No. >> Is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this? Anyone from the public? >> See no one from the public. I'd like to close the public portion. >> Second. >> Yeah.
>> Two seconds. public is closed. >> Straightforward application, no variances. The all minor subdivisions have to appear before this board. Staff recommends approval. >> Thank you. I'd like to make a motion to
approve case P206-00003 as presented to the board this evening. >> Second. >> Vice Chair Wick. >> I. >> Commissioner Langston. >> I. >> Commissioner Gonzalez. >> I. Commissioner, Council Person Little, >> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan, >> I. >> Commissioner Barnaby, >> I.
>> And Chair Gongadan, >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I'd like to call KP2025-0176, preliminary and final major site plan. Address is 723 Grand Street.
>> Mr. Harrington. Evening uh madam chairwoman um congratulations >> and uh commissioners uh for the record Charles Harrington of uh Connell Foley on behalf of the applicant I do have uh notices that I'll
have marked. Thank you, councel. I'm trying to receive The affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application. It's block 17202 lot 1.01 here in the city. Does appear
to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for purpose of the record. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. So, yeah, the application we're presenting tonight um is an as of right application. uh
meaning that we're not requesting uh any any deviations or variances. And the reason for that or partially is it's it has somewhat of a a long history that uh I could you know if I want it I won't be too long but I'll summarize so that the the board gets an understanding
of how we got here. Uh this property is located directly at at well the corner of the junction. Um, if you go through the junction, you'll see where that park is with the it almost looks like the Statue of Liberty crown. Uh, that is actually city property. Um, and some
time ago, uh, many years ago, there was there was, uh, supposed to be a development there by the Urban League. Um, and you'll see all this the existing steel structure there that has been there for for many years. That that project started and stopped. Uh and then
what happened was um the Urban League uh it was the property was originally owned by the city and the JCA. They transferred it to the Urban League. The Urban League transferred it to another party uh without the consent of the JC and then that other party transferred it
to my client uh further without the consent of the JC. So my client took he didn't realize he that they were supposed to get the consent. So he takes the parcels that he had and combines it with that and wants to, you know, have a development and then a litigation ensued
after that with the JCA. Uh and and it involved my client. Uh the long uh or the short story of that is that uh this is a result of a settlement with the JC. Uh the and the zoning that was created for this project was a result of the
settlement with the JC. So the zoning amendments came before this planning board. It went before the city council and it's now part of part of here uh as as the zoning within the Morris Canal plan. Uh and my client has been designated as the redeveloper of of the
uh the subject property. So with that, we're proposing uh the project today. It's a fivetory and a partial sixstory because the property slopes from the intersection of Communal Avenue and Grand Street uh to to the east as you go go down towards uh
Summit. Um and it's uh 70 residential units, 10% will be affordable, so you'll have seven affordable units. Uh and it does have um uh 18 on-site parking spaces. So it'll it'll it'll go from
from uh the corner of Grand and Commun and slope down to the corner of Communa and Summit um and kind of fill in that void. Uh the the older iron structure that you see there now that's going to be demolished uh if uh if approved it as part of a new structure. They took a
look at that to see if it could serve any purpose, but it doesn't. the front yard will be that park um that this the city has has proposed and that'll open up to the retail. Um I also note that you know during this whole process there were numerous meetings with the
community groups and and with the Councilman Gilmore. We started we started before COVID so it's it's been a long road. Um so we're happy to be here. And with that said, I I have um I have three experts here, but my my plan is to just um present Jeff Lewis, our
architect, and then my civil engineer is here for any questions, and our traffic engineer is here for any questions. And I'll then proceed with Mr. Lewis. >> Yes, I do. >> Jeffrey Lewis. JF R Y L E W I S. Mr.
Lewis, your license currented in good standing. >> Yes, it is. >> Thank you. You may proceed. >> Thank you. Okay. So, >> before you begin, Mr. Lewis, uh the slide deck that you have, we want to mark that as an exhibit. Isn't that correct? >> Yes. If we can mark this as an exhibit,
there are a few minor changes we made, just corrections that I'll I'll point to when we get to them. >> We're going to mark it as A2. Let's identify it. Tell me how many sheets, if there's a date. >> Sure. It's the same number of sheets, 13.
And I don't think we added a revision date. So, it will be the same the same date. Oh, we do have a revision date. Uh the last date is January 7th of this year. >> Okay. So, we'll mark that as A2 for
purpose of the record. And as you go into any changes from what's been previously submitted, you can just highlight those, Mr. Los. Right. >> Thank you. I did want to be zoomed in on these. Okay. So, as was mentioned, the property
is located on what is a kind of small triangle-shaped lot. Um, this is a block right just east of the junction. We are taking up about half of that lot. Let me just zoom in a little bit to
these photos. So you can see the shaded area on this drawing. The shaded section is what uh this project will be built on. The rest will remain. And the junction park is actually at this corner here. Um so we do have frontages on Grand Street. We
have a frontage facing the park. We have junk uh frontages on communes and frontages on Summit Avenue. Uh I wanted to go through the photos very briefly. This is the junction looking at the junction park. So this is the park here. We would be built behind this. Uh
this is uh this is Grand Avenue, Grand Street, excuse me. These buildings remain and we will be build built here sticking out between those buildings and the park. Uh this is Summit Avenue where we have a few buildings remaining and then our building will start here and go continue to the corner. And then this is
looking down communal avenue and the whole frontage of communal avenue would be our building. With that, this is the uh existing site plan. As was mentioned, the first thing is that the steel structure and everything else on the site will be removed and can't be reused. Uh the
second thing I just wanted to bring everyone's attention to was you can see that the property line and the curb line don't actually line up parallel to each other. So, we have a lot of extra space down at the Summit Avenue side, and it
gets very tight uh as we get closer to uh to the junction itself uh where this is actually um only about 6 ft between the curb line and our property line. And I'm just bringing attention to that because we're going to address that situation and remedy it a little bit.
So, as was mentioned, we are proposing a six-story mixeduse building. We have about 3,500 ft of ground flooror commercial and 70 residential units above. Uh that breaks down as four three-bedroom apartments, 12 two-bedroom apartments, 22 one-bedrooms and 32
studio apartments. Uh looking at the site plan in front of our property, we are keeping six existing street trees and adding five new street trees, so 11 total. We're proposing new concrete curbs, new concrete sidewalks. Uh there are existing paver planting strips along
the curbs line curb lines. We'll be removing those pavers and just replacing them with new permeable pavers. So just doing the entire streetscape over again. Um as was mentioned, we are stepping back our building at that pinch point. You can see that here.
So what we're doing is we're making sure that we have a minimum of 12 ft between the curb line and our building. Uh and that's the smallest. It actually is a lot wider. Once we get down towards Summit Avenue, we actually have a full 12 foot wide sidewalk and then we even
have some extra space. Uh we're proposing a planting area at this corner. Some of the planting areas on our property, some of the uh planting area is on city property. Uh but we're obviously proposing to maintain the entire area ourself. Um
we do have uh main residential entry is facing Commun. We have secondary exits uh at Grand Street as well as uh Summit Avenue. And the commercial entries, we have three commercial entry doors. One is facing
Grant Street, one's facing the parklet, and the third is facing uh Communic. And uh Mr. Harrington did note that we have a very big grade difference here. Uh it actually goes down as we walk from the parklet towards uh Summit Avenue.
So, at Summit Avenue, it's actually about a full story uh lower than we are at the parklet. So, we took we used that to uh provide a new 10-ft curb cut and garage door into a seller garage. So, we would be uh pulling into the seller here
and we'd be walking into the first floor at the parklet. Um we are providing the um pedestrian notification system at the garage door. Might as well note that now. And with that, I'm going to move into that plan.
And I do want to correct you. I thought it was 21 parking spaces, but I think you said 18. >> Six. >> I did say 18. I >> Was I incorrect? >> No, you're right. It's 18. I was wrong. I apologize. So, there are 18 uh parking
spaces. Three of those spaces are EV parking spaces. Uh we also have 60 bicycle parking spaces and over here we have two small motorcycle parking spaces. Uh we do also have a lot of extra room. We have uh drive aisles that go from 22 ft to 24
ft. We have some extra space that we think would be um appropriate for uh cars and vans to for people who live in the building to do some loading and unloading somewhere in this area which is pretty close to the um to the elevator. Um, we also besides parking here, we
have our meter rooms at the bottom right corner. Uh, this includes our sprinkler room. This will be a fully sprinklered building. We have a full uh recycling room as well as a trash compactor room. This is fed from a chute from above. Um, and trash and recycling would be brought
to the street by the building management and picked up by a private hauler. Here I'm moving to the first floor plan and I am going to start just at the top at Grand Street where we have a secondary residential uh entrance. After
that we have uh what is uh the commercial space. It's 3,500 ft as I mentioned with uh three doors, one facing grand, one facing the parklet and a third facing commun. Um this is a double height space. It has about 18 ft in ceiling height. Uh it's
flexible so it could be one space or it could be broken up into as many as three. Um what we did add here is um we are going to be keeping the trash inside the building. So there won't be any trash outside for these commercial units. And we did show three areas. One
here, one here, and then one here, which would be potential trash uh room locations that are against uh blank walls, so there's no windows or anything there. And uh they'd be able to be vented pretty easily. We just don't know how many spaces it's going to be. So, we
don't know where we're going to put the actual trash room, but it's going to be inside the commercial space. Um, as I mentioned, our main entrance is here on Communal Avenue. We have a pretty large entry lobby. Uh, we have
our trash room with a shoot, a package room, a fitness center, and then over here we have uh some co-working space and a lounge area for the building tenants. Um this all of these spaces are also double height spaces. So they also have about an 18t uh ceiling height
here. And then lastly, we do have five apartments on this floor. Uh two of them are two-bedroom apartments, one of them is a one-bedroom and two of them are studios. Um and let me mention now for all of our apartments, we have PAX for heat and air
conditioning. Uh they're all ADA adaptable apartments and they all have washerdryers inside the units. And the last thing I want to mention here is we do have two window wells in the back of the building. One here and then a larger one located here. And these continue all the way to the top of
the building to provide light and air for these units. This is the second floor plan. As I mentioned, everything to the left here uh has a double height space. So there's no second floor there. Uh the second floor is is uh served by two stairs and the elevator. It has the trash room and
a hallway. and it has the same five units that we had uh below on the first floor. So, two two bedrooms, a one-bedroom, and two studios. Next is the layout for the third through the sixth floor. Uh we have 15 apartments per floor here. Uh and it's
all color coded. So, the studios are in blue, the one bedrooms are light gray, the two bedrooms are green, and the three bedrooms are dark gray. Uh we have two stairs and a centrallylo elevator all connected uh with a hallway. Um and the other thing I do want to note
here is we do have two balconies, one at each corner of the building. Uh and there this one is part of a two-bedroom apartment and this one is part of a three-bedroom apartment. We also have a roof deck on the building. It's served by both stairs and
the elevator. The elevator has its own little lobby. Uh we did separate the patio, the roof deck patio into two separate areas. In total, they are 1,887 square ft. We also have 3,52 ft of green
roof area. Um we have some equipment areas. All of them are screened with some wood slat screening. Uh the image of it is shown here. And additionally, we do have some uh raised uh planter beds uh around our roof deck just to add a little extra
grain. Um, so looking at the building elevations, we're going to start at Communa and then just kind of wrap around the entire building moving towards the park. So the main finish here on the ground level and I'll try to zoom in a little bit to get a better view.
I think it's appropriate. So our main finish at floors one and two. That's a little too much, isn't it? Sorry. So, at the first and second floor, our main finish is a dolomite gray brick. Uh, above that,
above that, um, on floors three through six, the main finish is a composite wood vertical slats. Um, and they're finished. You can actually see an image of them here. They're a black a charcoal charcoal black color. Um, and then we have these uh smaller uh
accent bay windows. These bay windows, excuse me, they're just bays that are only a couple inches out, and they're finished with a light mist fiberment siding. Uh, the entire building has black aluminum windows and doors. Uh, we have black PEK grills to match those below the windows, and we also have
black fiberment infill panels to match those windows as well. uh the corner balconies. Again, the base of the balcony is wrapped in black fiber uh panels and we have uh glass railings on those balconies. Um we also have a few additional details
at the ground floor level. We have some recessed brick band sections here and here. Uh we have these open grate canopies which we're showing a detail of here. You can see how it's kind of open great. And we have then these black uh louvers up
above there above the canopies. So that would be in this location and then above most of the retail space. It's more of a decorative uh finish. So let me just start wrapping around the building.
Come on. Sorry. So the next elevation we're wrapping, we're going around the left. So this would be facing the parklet and then here we would be facing Grand Grand Street.
Um so both of these um elevations actually have the exact same finishes as we have on Commun. Uh you can see the balconies at the side. Uh we also have the main commercial entry centered on this line. So it would be centered with the park itself. So you kind of walk
right through the park into the commercial space here. Now these elevations are actually kind of our rear elevations. So this is wrapping around from Grand Street on the side. Uh the only additional finish that we have here is when we're on the property line where we have a smooth
stuckco finish and that's going to be painted. It's going to be scored and painted the same color as that first floor brick. So like a gray color. Uh that would be here and these locations over here. Uh everywhere on the back elevation where we're not using the um
stucco, we'll have that same light mist fiber spent siding that we have on the front of the building. And then here we have the Summit Avenue elevation. So we have those existing buildings and then our Summit Avenue elevation. And this is and then this is that little corner where we have the
balconies. Uh the only additional finishes that we have here would be at the very base of the building where we have a uh a scored smooth stuckco finish which again would be painted the same color as the brick. Uh and then we have a black uh open metal gray uh garage
door. And besides that, I think we did cover all the rest of the finishes. Uh is there anything else that you want me to address directly? >> Uh >> oh. If I could note one more thing going back to the site plan, we do have a storm water retention system beneath the
garage. I forgot to mention that. And I would also like to mention on the site plan because I forgot and I apologize. The one thing that we did change was the location of the driveway was wrong. It had slid up a little bit on the drawing
accidentally. So, we revised that to be in the correct place. is about five feet lower than where we had shown it on the original uh drawing. >> And that was just a drafting error on the original drawing. >> Correct. >> And that was that was it for the changes.
>> Okay. >> Any questions? >> Yeah. In regards to the afford the seven um affordable units, where is it located and um are they onebedroom, studio, two bedroom, three bedrooms? We have um we don't have the locations um yet. We'll
we'll figure that out with the division of affordable housing, but you have four uh lowincome uh units will be studios. Then we have three moderate income uh units. Two one-bedrooms and one threebedroom. >> Okay. >> And those will be all the same finishes
as the rest of the apartment. >> Yes, they will. >> Okay. >> Chris to say that. I just took it from you. >> No, I'm glad somebody took it over for me. >> Got to do it, right? >> Right. >> I do have another Go. Go ahead. Go ahead. >> No,
>> no, no, no. Please, please. >> Vice Chairman of Please. >> Oh, thank you. Wow. Mr. Lewis, as a throwback to uh Commissioner Torres, you may have said this already, but the balconies, do they go all the way down? >> Yeah, the glass balconies will go all
the way down. And they're not hanging over the street itself. They're actually set back a little Yeah, that's how they're Yeah. point. Okay. >> Um, regarding the landscaping, um, you noted that some of the landscaping is going to be on city property and that, uh, the applicant would agree to
maintain that landscaping. Yes. >> Is there any sort of agreement to memorialize that or how is that? >> We can provide for that in a resolution. >> Okay, that's great. Um, and I don't know, please forgive me if any of these questions are for one of your other uh,
witnesses. Um, but could you talk a little bit about um the the junction park? Um, I don't know if that would be the architect. Um, but just a little bit, you know, I guess that's city property,
but you're going to be providing an entrance to the commercial space directly from that park. Is that right? >> Yes. So, let me zoom in a little bit. So the park itself sorry I should be better at this by now.
Okay so the park itself is kind of this circular circular park and has the a kind of a straight walkthrough where we have the stairs in the middle here and then our entry door would be basically right through those stairs. So, we kind of have everything on a straight line
kind of using using the park and obviously you can walk through in the back here as well. >> Are you proposing any improvements or upgrades to the park? At this time, we're not we're not proposing any wholesale improvements, but we we we
would like an opportunity to work with the city to um fix and repair some of there's we see like there's some chairs there that that are broken like and and work with the city to dress it up because it is it's our front door, you know, but it is city property. So, that that would have to be some future
coordination with the city. >> Yeah, that'd be be great. I know it's kind of a unique situation, but you know, it's resulting in kind of a park as your front door, which is, you know, to everyone's benefit, but >> right, we're we're hoping that the retail activates that, you know, um so we could get a complimentary use.
>> Great. Um I guess a couple quick questions on loading. Um and again, I could defer to your transportation if you so inclined. Um but you mentioned about loading uh and unloading by the elevator. >> Yes. Yes. Would that be how is access
controlled to the garage and so would that be for residents with parking spots or residents without parking spots? >> Yeah, that would really be just for the residents in general and it's really limited just to cars and vans because we have about a about an 8 foot 8 head height limit. >> Gotcha. So for any resident without a
vehicle or without a parking spot I should say um what would be the expectation for their loading and unloading needs? Yeah, I think the intent would still be all residents of the building would have access to the garage for the purposes of loading and unloading. >> Gotcha. So then how would a vehicle exit
the garage without using a parking space after loading? Does it have that circulation ability? >> Yes. Yeah. I think I think Lee can probably testify to that better if you would like, but we do have at a minimum 24 foot wide drives. We have a lot of extra space. Um,
let me go to that. You can see we have a lot of extra space in that area that I just this area here. So this is 24 feet plus all this extra space here. It's probably about 30 35 ft from there to there. So I think turning would be pretty easy.
>> Gotcha. Um okay. They be able to make you turn that space. So the the area that's hatched that would just be painted. >> Yes, that's just painted. >> Gotcha. Right. Um, would you be able to speak to the the two cars to the the left of the screen that are kind of against the wall and their ability to,
you know, either back in or back out of that spot? >> All the way to the left >> here. Yeah. >> So, the end the end ones. >> Exactly. >> Um, well, we do have some extra space, some buffer space. So, there's about three feet here. So, they would be able to kind of back out and get a little bit
of a turn before they came back out. Um, and it's the same for this one here. So I do think they have enough uh space to make their K turn. And again, we do have the 24 foot wide drive aisle there. >> Gotcha. So the the width of the drive aisle would provide the sufficient space. That's >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> Um >> couple So so back I guess to the loading and unloading um for the res there's um large more units than parking spots, right? Which is typical. Yes. >> Um so some of the residents presumably would not have a vehicle in the garage.
Um, is there any sort of loading on the street or how do you envision kind of Ubers or lifts or you know deliveries to kind of operate? >> That's something we're having some problems with because there's really no parking allowed around. There's no parking on Commun. There's no parking on
Grand Street and there's very limited parking on Summit Avenue. >> Yeah. And that's that's yeah, we did discuss that like the the application project in and of itself does not trigger uh like any loading zone. Um but uh we talked about the possibility
internally of of where could you put an on street loading zone working with the city. Um we we identified some areas on summit that could potentially, you know, have that discussion with with the traffic and engineering department. Um but we're we really kind of left it as
that that's something if if they want it um you know we we would work with them but uh you know obviously it's a city council decision >> because if Jeeoff you could point that out like the areas that we we talked about >> and this is this this is why we wanted to update this to show where the the
curb cut really is because we thought this was really one of the more this is really the only place where they're even allowed to have any parking along our building. Um, and we do have about there's a fire hydrant right here and we have about 18 feet between
our curb cut and the fire hydrant. And that's that's an area that there is no parking there. So there will be no parking from our curb cut all the way down to the corner. And so we think this is an area it again it's not the best area to park because it's close to the
corner. But that's really the only place we see as a >> Yeah. on on the other side of the driveway there is parking permitted. >> Yes. >> But if you provided for a loading on on street loading there then you would be taking away a parking space. So we're
we're reluctant to propose that. But if that's something that you know ultimately the city thought would would be you know beneficial then that's we think that's the area where it could be. I I appreciate your willingness to do whatever the the city wants, but I guess
uh what I'm responding to is uh the memo from the transportation, right? >> Um which kind of asks for the applicant provide testimony about how you anticipate those to work. So, obviously the city would be a partner in >> determining the appropriate curb space and it would ultimately require council
approval, but I would appreciate your perspectives on what you think would be the right solution to handle the loading needs of the building. Yeah, I mean I we think that this is really the best the best location for where people would park. It's not too
far of a walk to the front entrance, which is right here. Uh so it would be a pretty quick walk. Um and again, as we mentioned, it's the only place where you you're even allowed to park on the street in front of our building. >> Yeah, because we believe that the residential move in, move out, loading,
unloading, we can handle uh within the garage. Um, and then on street with the Ubers and lifts and and things like that, we we thought that would be a solution because you're not going to you're not going to have that type of situation on communal or grad street there. Just it's too busy. Uh, right.
>> You know, so we looked at Summit and we think that's the best solution. >> Okay. So, you would >> we're going to work with them and that to them and hopefully they agree. >> Great. Um, could you also then while we're on the topic of loading for the commercial tenant, um, you know, I'm not
sure if you have identified the type of tenant, but but how their loading needs would be accommodated. >> I think we probably assume they're going to do what everyone else in the neighborhood does and really just try to schedule their deliveries off peak as as best they can, >> right? because we we looked at that as
well with the the loading. Um the area of the retail and commercial does not trigger uh any loading um on site. And again, we we looked at the other commercial. There's a lot of commercial there in in that area. And we assume
that they're they're either doing, you know, on street early in the morning or or later. Um and and that they would or they could come around to summit, you know, to this area that we were thinking about. Gotcha.
>> Any other board questions, comments? >> Um, so sorry, one other comment just from the transportation memo about repaving. Is that going to be part of the remediation to repave kind of the block around the site following construction? >> Yeah, that that would be we would follow
the uh the Jersey City ordinance on that that uh requires repaving. If you if you disturb the street, you got to repave it. So that we would that's that's the responsibility of every every developer and application. >> Perfect. I just appreciate that. And then one last kind of topic from from
these memos um for uh bicycle parking. I believe the memo requested to not use the garage >> gator motorized lift and provide an alternative that >> a bike could be locked to for a shared setting. Is that
>> And don't be mad at me. I forgot to mention that is one last thing we changed. We did get rid of We did get rid of that and change the layout to uh keep the 60 bikes but meet that requirement. >> Well, thank you. >> That was easy. >> Thanks for bringing it up because I forgot. >> Yes.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> You're welcome. That concludes your presentation. >> Uh yes, unless you want to hear from our civil engineer or traffic engineer. >> No. Thank you. >> And that completes our presentation. >> Thank you. At this time, I would like to
open for public. Is there anyone from the public? >> Truth, the whole truth. >> Yes. >> Natalie Leone. L I M O N. Do you need my first name spelled too? >> Okay. And 55 Wales Avenue.
>> Good evening, Miss Leon. You have >> Thank you. Yes. Um I wanted to comment on the um planting strip um where the remaining existing trees are and the plan to convert that to um pvious surface which um I note that it's pvious
surface that's good but considering there's already a planting strip. I think it should be landscaped. Um and it's an opportunity to support the native plant ordinance which states that it is the intent to maximize the use of
appropriate native plants on municipal properties. Um that is municipal property. Um tree pits or planting strips where trees are is municipal property and it would be a really wonderful community give back if that
were landscaped rather than being paved over. And I would ask if that cannot be granted that the trees on that both the existing and the new trees be given tree barriers
um which is not a requirement um for developers but would help protect the trees um especially the newly installed ones which are very vulnerable within the first two years but again considering there's already I ostensibly
grass us there. Um I would say we should keep um keep it and landscape it um rather than turn it into paving um even though the paving is pvious. >> Thank you. >> So is
>> it actually is existing as regular pavers. So there's pavers along the curb now. We're ripping them out and just replacing them with permeable pavers. Um I think the reason that we have pavers there is because it's more of a hightraic area. So, we don't we usually
have more pavers. Um, it's it's I mean, if we needed to do more planting, we could, but again, because it's a hightraic area, we usually wouldn't. Um, I would say at the very least in this area and on Grand and Summit where it is a lot tighter and we don't have a full
sidewalk, it probably wouldn't be a good idea. I think it's something we could probably add in this area of commun um towards summit if that's something the board thought was appropriate. We don't have a problem with that. A green is great. Um but again it is kind of a
hightraic area so that's something we don't typically do. Can you go to your details page for your tree street tree? Yeah, that'll be here somewhere. which one do you want to say? >> Okay. Uh the bottom left uh bottom
right, sorry. So, we're indicating here a uh a steel edge along permeable pavers. That's a a tree barrier. >> Is that would that be correct? That's what you're selling. >> Yes. >> So, that that element uh of the comment
is included in their proposal. They aren't going to be doing a tree barrier to protect anyone from walking on that peripheral area uh where the tree is going to be planted. >> Okay. Thank you. Anyone else from the public,
>> Charlene Burke, >> Miss Burke, you have three minutes. >> Thank you. Um, this is encouraging because it's u it's long time coming. I mean from the time that the Urban League had this property and had been stopped
from developing it because they were undermining I believe Communor Avenue was being affected. Um so I hope that that was addressed in this proposal. Um, I don't know what they were doing the
what the contractor was doing before, but to reactivate this area that's been a really sore site and gets a lot of cars passing by. My only concern is I know in the questioning about dropping
off or uh loading and unloading is these are all drive lanes and particularly Grand Street is just incredibly busy all the time and I just fear that with that one of the exits to the building or even
the retail Uber drivers will just be stopping in the drive lane. Um, not many of the other businesses in the area have that kind of foot traffic, but this one possibly would be creating enough foot
traffic or customers that would be a problem to then those drivers because they are active drive lanes. So, I just wanted to say that that's just a concern as a person who drives through this area
quite a bit to have somebody just automatically stop in front of you. And as you all know, as drivers, people are impatient today. They don't want to sit and wait for somebody to just pick up somebody from the curb. So, I can just
see that being a problem and hopefully they can address it. But I'm very enthusiastic that this this intersection the junction is actually getting a facelift. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any anyone from the public?
>> I see no one else from the public. I'd like to close the public portion. >> Second. >> Mr. Harrington, would you like to address that concern >> uh with the uh Charlene's uh concern? Yeah, I think that it goes to the comments we talked about during the
application where uh we think, you know, if you propose um a loading area on Summit Avenue, uh that's uh that that might address that. There are other developments immediately in this area on the junction. Um some newer developments. So, you know, that it's
happening now. Whatever, you know, the Uber drivers would pick up or drop off, uh they I guess they find, you know, they find us find a space. But we're we're thinking that you bring them around to to Summit, there's there's an entrance to the residential on Communa. You're not coming all the way around to
to Grand Street. So I think that's you know that that'll be the space where that will happen. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Madam Chair. May I suggest just a condition of approval be that a loading zone or a short-term kind of drop off pickoff area be identified in the
vicinity of the site um following the vote tonight? Would that be a condition seems amendable to it, but we could be open to that being a condition. >> Yeah, absolutely. And we could propose that on on on the signature plans and then make an application to to the city for that. >> I think that's very fair.
>> I like that. >> Yeah, >> I like that as well. Thank you, Commissioner Kaplan. Um I I had a um follow-up question uh with regard to Miss Leone's comments about the um possibly incorporating more native
plants. And I'm glad to see that the trees already are going to be protected. Uh you mentioned that it wouldn't really be feasible on the more narrow sidewalks. Um but I believe communal was where it might potentially be feasible um to have some native plants there. And
I just wanted to um ask about if if you were to put a small native plant strip there, would there still be five feet width of sidewalk for for accessibility purposes? Yes. Yeah. I um I would actually be comfortable for at
least half of Communa from from Summit about halfway up having some planting ships where we would be able to have actually a full 12t sidewalk beyond that. >> Okay. Okay. >> Well, once once we get closer to the the corner it gets a little tight. >> Okay, that makes sense.
>> And we'll I guess we'll work with staff to to see how far we want to go with that. Is that okay? So that would be an additional condition added to >> right >> the existing conditions. >> Yeah. If if folks are amenable to that. >> We are.
>> Okay. Great. Thank you. >> Any other comments? Board comments? >> No. >> Thank you. >> Ben, would you like to wrap up? >> Sure. Uh so in reviewing this it was apparent that there are no variances or deviations proposed in this application
as the applicant testified to. Uh the proposal adheres to the standards of the mixeduse C district of the Morris Canal redevelopment plan as written and fulfills the objectives of the land use element of the master plan by providing a variety of housing options. Um, and as
Miss Burke uh said in her public comment, this site has been vacant for a very long time. And uh I think this is a very uh welcome change to this site. So staff recommends approval provided that the applicant agree to the conditions in the
staff memo uh dated May 12th, 2026. >> Yes. >> With the additional condition, >> correct? Yes. with those uh two extra conditions of uh the loading and unloading space and then the green strip >> and they they would be acceptable.
>> Great. In that case, staff recommends approval. >> I'd like to entertain a motion. >> I'd like to make a motion to approve case P2025-0176 as presented to the board this evening with all staff and board recommendations and conditions.
>> Second. Vice Chairwick. >> I. Commissioner Langston. Hi, Commissioner Gonzalez. >> I'd like I think this we needed this and I'm glad that it's one of the last applications that I'll be hearing. It's a very pleasant one. Uh I vote I
>> Commissioner Council or uh Council Member Little >> I and I'm excited to see this. Thanks, >> Commissioner Kaplan. >> It's a great project on a very underutilized site. So with that, I vote I. Thank you. >> Commissioner Barnaby >> I. and Chair Gangden.
>> Yeah, this is a great addition to the neighborhood. Um, gladly vote I. >> Motion carries. All in favor. >> Thank you. And if if I could give you a two minute just very quickly, I just want to thank uh Chairman Langston and and Commissioner, you you'll always be
the chairman of me. >> Chairman Langston >> and and and uh Dr. Gonzalez. Uh yeah, I just want to say thank you for your time and dedication all these years. We spent a lot of a lot of nights here. Lot of nights. lot of long hours >> and and it's been a pleasure and you know your dedication to it is is really
unsurpassed. It's uh >> it really it really has been a pleasure and uh I know you will be missed and uh I'm a little jealous. >> We'll send you pictures wherever we are. >> You guys are having a few beers. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you, council. Likewise. It's always been a pleasure. >> 10 minutes break and then we'll be right back. >> Thank you. Is that your last application you just said? >> I think that's it. >> You need us for um
>> Lake Street. >> I mean our presentation. >> All right. Yeah, you should absolutely >> get >> It's probably the sugar crash. >> It's weird seeing you engage. >> It's weird seeing you.
Sorry, we don't we don't take >> complaints. track. >> I would love for it to go. I would love for >> you. >> I would love for it to get to this little road.
>> Bishop, but John really >> was originally supposed to go all the way to Garfield and then go down Garfield, but that was next long ago. I have a project over here. >> It is in redevelopment. >> Oh, on the corner.
>> Yeah, >> that's a Mecca. No. >> Oh, it's the >> song car sales place in lockmith. >> You bought that? >> He bought all that gas station.
>> Did you buy this? has the other project. >> Yeah, he knows he's going to accommodate. >> He could probably go back to >> why they
hated it when they when they that was bending to the wheel of pressure. Yeah. No, that's fine. >> Mike, >> I guess I guess you guys will do that. >> So, I'm not doing >> Yeah. We had special meeting.
>> You weren't at the zoning board meeting when you started swearing cursing everyone out. You know, >> god forbid someone builds an project next door. >> You were here for that meeting, right? >> You would. Yeah, that's right. You would think he like you could be mad but like
you serve on the board like you should know how to talk to a board like you don't curse out a board but they vote against you >> did he okay >> yeah he was he said he was talking about it like the house was for sale and because of this I have to take it off
the market. That's the reason that we should be able to build our >> I mean this is place. >> Yeah. Sherman Avenue in real crap. >> I'm on a >> No, no. I bought a house. >> Yeah, I bought a house up the street on
a >> right by a branch park. Little house. Nothing too big. Walk around park. Not a bad deal. You're still right.
Okay. >> Nice. I got lost there once or twice on my bike. >> Yeah. Yeah. Was really far away. I don't know how I got there. >> South Orange. >> Well, that's why I think I went the wrong way on >> I had to stop and ask like some like
some some Mexicans that were doing yard work to see a map to see where the hell I was. It was in Spanish. >> And then it started raining of course so I had like >> they're uh they're building the uh the greenway off of park. They are building
the greenway. >> It's cool. I mean, it's not going to go anywhere. >> It's gonna go to Montlair. >> Oh, yeah. That end will go somewhere. >> Jersey City and it's just >> Oh, to get over the rivers is
>> Well, that part of it I think they're going to do. It's more once you get to Jersey City, >> you get on St. Paul's or can you get to something else? again. >> Couple problems.
>> It's not exactly where people want to go either. I mean, are they I don't know what's going on. >> I mean, people >> I've heard weird stuff. >> They're going to run buses through there. I mean, look, I saw a bunch of it were
up to me. I would just >> I think the turn >> should just go through. >> That'd be great because then you don't need the rest of the turning extension between there and and >> let's get rid of all that and let's make that a really nice like linear park
through all the Jersey City. >> Nice. You get a little highline area. We get a bike super highway. all the leg. >> Yeah, I was going to say I don't think there's going to be >> the bridge. The bridge goes to
you get onto >> and you get onto paper road and then you could If you look at you look at >> use the same exit for um that's for now
just go bring that right to the arches >> be nice >> it's been studied already I saw you can do four lanes of traffic in >> but I mean that study was from the 80s like there was literally no light rail or definitely want that.
>> Why does want that? >> I think they want >> Oh, buddy. >> That's what they want to call it. >> Parkway. >> Oh, yeah. The little foot.
>> They want to connect to that. >> Yeah, that's not happening. Why would you connect to that and not the home tunnel? >> Are they crazy? >> I mean, I guess they want to buy the whole community.
>> Oh, yeah. >> I love that. Do you see? >> Yes. >> I have one more bone. No, I don't have I saw what happened at the >> zoning board last week. I know someone
>> kind of did what we said we wanted to do >> asked for density variance >> originally gave an affordable unit away like gave the affordable unit without using the affordable house overlay >> the planning board doesn't care >> as for density varian
>> I think it's a single family >> house weird You'll probably be getting something for that soon. I've been dragging my public. >> I think honestly I think we're going to end up doing exactly what we want to do and going against you.
That's That's what I think we're going to end up with. >> It's gonna go get denied. You get denied. You don't think they would? >> I mean, attorneys do, right? >> Well, it depends. If you say depends
what you say. You want to be neutral on it. >> You already saw it. I said >> Yeah. in the back. >> How are we going to put on this? >> Again, the rear yard. >> Yeah, rear yard back and building
>> for rental. >> We'll see. >> Yeah, look at it again. It's a good project. I think it's a good project. >> And one more thing. I see all these people here. >> All right. >> After that, >> do you want me to
>> How do you want to deal with that? >> You don't mind? >> I was I'm thinking I'm just going to go like halfway up the street. >> The chair to come out wide sidewalks anyway, right? So, you don't have that much, >> right? >> Yeah. I have 12 foot to the curb
everywhere, but I don't have >> Yeah, but I'll do it. 25 >> what do you think? >> Do you have any opinion on the loading area at all? >> Stay the hell out of
the way. >> It stopped the main building. >> Yes. And you >> the seller I mean seller >> seller >> like I'm sorry I don't want to cut a good thing back.
>> Sure. >> Sure. Absolutely. different maybe eventually. >> Oh, you will. >> I'm all right. >> I called you
texted. I said, "Mr. Mayor, >> you know, letting you know, tomorrow's the day. Thank you for >> How dare you?" >> Yeah. >> I mean,
like, >> is it really? >> It's so funny. He's just a very dynamic character. He They're just so different, but he lets her be exactly like this is so fun to watch. >> That's awesome. >> Yeah, they're a good duo.
>> I don't think I've ever actually met her. >> Really? >> No, we need to go because, you know, more so. >> Yeah, for sure. I I think we should make that intro. >> Yeah, I actually um I was going to email you regardless. >> I appreciate it. Um, and I can have one of my girls uh
>> come to the office >> and drop off some like our information, prescription pads, whatever you need, things like that. >> Yeah, please. I mean, >> the only thing you would have to let your patients know is we're out of network. So, >> but our
>> But they come to me, I don't think. Yeah. >> Well, we just got to care for those. >> Exactly. >> We always get the best patient. >> There's a couple of people. >> I would like to call this meeting back to order.
>> Yeah. >> Instead of calling case 22, I'll go to 23. Okay. Speed 2025-0269, which is a minor subdivision. Address is 411 and 413 Liberty Avenue.
>> Uh thank you uh chairwoman and uh and thank you for moving this uh ahead. Thank you, Mr. Wine and um Mahi for your patience. Um this is a very simple application. Peter Chetchini on behalf of the applicant Thank you, council.
>> This is just a um we do have an architect who is available if if um there are any questions about the subdivision. However, it's such a simple one that it might we can probably just get through it. Um this is a uh basically it's a 50 it's two separate
lots that were previously not one was non-conforming. It was too small and they had this weird kind of lot line in between them. um applicants proposing just to turn that into two 25 by 100 foot conforming lots. They're both currently vacant and uh this would
actually bring the lots into conformity that are right now not in conformity. So uh we do hope that the board will ask will uh confirm the uh subdivision. So council for purpose of the record I am going to receive the affidavit of
publication proof of mailing for 411-413 Liberty A here in the city. It does appear to be an order and madam chair based on council's comments it does appear that it's really a lot line adjustment to take two lots that were not conforming and resubdivide them and
make them uh conforming lots. So, uh this is probably one of the easiest applications the board's going to see, but uh I guess if we have any specific questions for council, >> I I just have one quick question. Is there any curb cuts?
>> Uh there are no curb I don't know actually if there are curb cuts. The the lots are vacant but the client the the applicant would agree to the um one curb cut between if that's that's requested by the board. >> Yes. >> So I they would agree to that. Okay.
>> Okay. >> Any board comments? >> No. You're good. >> Yeah. Good. Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak on this application?
>> Anyone from public? >> I see no one from public. I'd like to close the public portion. >> Second. >> Thank you, >> Ben. >> Uh, yes. So, this application would take two non-conforming lots and then turn
them into two conforming lots. Planning supports this uh provided the applicant agree to the five conditions from the staff memo dated May 6th, 201 >> in addition to the carp cuts as well. >> Uh that's a standard in the in the zone, but yes,
>> we do agree to those conditions. >> Thank you. >> Great. >> Okay. At this time, I'd like to entertain a motion. I would like to make a motion to approve case P205-0269 as presented to the board with all staff recommendations and conditions. >> Second.
>> Commissioner uh sorry Vice Chair Wick >> I. >> Commissioner Langston >> I. >> Commissioner Gonzalez >> I. >> Commissioner Council person Little >> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan >> I. >> Commissioner Barnaby >> I. >> And Chair Gangadan >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Thank you board. >> I'd like to call KPB 2025. -0091 which is a minor site plan address is 69 Lake Street. Mr. Wine, >> I'm sorry if I could just jump in quick just to carry the two applications I have on the agenda given the time of
night. >> So for the record that's council Steven Joseph, Mr. Joseph, case P2025-012730 to 32 Waverly Street. >> Correct. and case uh P2025-000032662 Communip Avenue
>> carry it to a date >> um if we I figured we'd carry it to the May 26. I know it's not getting heard on that date, but then we'll we'll coordinate with staff on on when the virtual meeting is going to be so we could renotice. I don't know if we have a date in mind at at this time.
staff is agreeable to that. Assuming the applic >> Yeah, if we if we have if we could pick a date tonight, that's uh that's fine with me, but I'm not sure if we we have those agendas planned out yet. >> So, we'll carry it to the >> May 26th.
>> May 26th. I suggest that you speak with staff between now and May 26. This way, if you don't have other applications, >> Absolutely. >> We don't need people coming. >> All right. Thank you. That's uh the other case B205- Z0032 as well. >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. Have a good >> Thank you, Mr. Joseph. Mr. Wine. >> Mr. Wine. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Good evening again, Madame Chair, commissioners. For the record, Benjamin Wine of Prime and Misselli on behalf of the applicant 69 Lake Realy
LLC. The application before you this evening is for minor site plan approval with no variances, deviations, design waiverss, or exceptions requested. And the property in question is located at 69 Lake Street. That's block 4701, lot 56 in the R1 zone. Um, just before I get
started, while this is not technically a notice case, as it is a minor site plan only, um, we did go ahead and notice anyways. And, uh, actually the notice date, this is not a typo, we were originally scheduled for August 26th, 2025, and we have been continuously carried for some reasons I'll get into
momentarily, but I would like to have uh, this entered into the record as we want. Council, you're absolutely correct and a minor site plan application without any deviations does not require notice.
However, since you've provided the notice, we are going to mark it for purpose of the record as A1. The matter has been continuously carried since that August 2016. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, councel. Um, I'll just give a brief opening to kind of orient the board to our application. Uh the
existing site fronts on Lake Street and backs onto reservoir number two as well as the middle the Williams Middle School campus and uh currently it contains an existing single family residence. We're here this evening proposing to construct a new three-story 5-unit residential building on the front of the property
with an additional accessory dwelling unit or ADU at the rear of the property. And that five residential unit density came directly from the fact that this is a a significantly oversized lot. um approximately twice what is required within the zone and ultimately that's
what generates the at the 42 unit per acre density the five units that we are proposing as I said before we are fully conforming we have no variances no waiverss or anything of the like being sought and uh as you heard from when our notice was provided we were initially on
that August 2025 agenda which uh which is crazy it's it's quite a long time ago ultimately we were pretty far down that agenda and we're never going to get reached so the first couple of times we adjourned were simply due to our location on the agenda. Ultimately, we were finally scheduled and uh ready to
proceed at the December 2025 meeting before this board. And uh despite having gone back in uh in time and checking my email records and everything, and I'm I'm hopeful that Mr. Dilva will back me up on this, we had requested uh to know if there's any relevant neighborhood association in the area to meet with and
uh we were at the time told that there was not. So when we showed up at the December meeting fully ready to proceed, um we did we did uh engage with Miss Nixon from Persing Field, she showed up and and correctly said she is, you know, representative of the association within the area. And as a courtesy, again,
despite having reached out and been told that there was nobody here, um we did take that opportunity. We did not present any testimony that evening and requested to be adjourned for an opportunity to meet with uh with Miss Nixon and her neighborhood association, which we did do. Um, we had some good
conversation, I will also add, with the immediate neighbors. Uh, we were able to work in some solutions to their concerns, which we'll go over through our presentation here this evening. Um, but in so dealing with the Persingfield Neighborhood Association, it was about a 2-hour Zoom call and the vast majority
of the time unfortunately was spent talking about the R1 zoning requirements and why the association did not feel that they are appropriate. And so while we were able and again I want to reiterate we were able to talk to the immediate neighbors and certainly address some of their concerns which again we'll go through. Unfortunately
the R1 is the R1 and that's the application that we're proceeding with um here this evening. But again we we did take that opportunity and did try to solicit some feedback um with respect to the immediate neighbor to the east which uh which I think you'll hear from uh from both of
them here this evening. uh they were most concerned about primarily a couple of things, but one of them was the number of windows on our proposed building along the side of our building. And so my client has met with them and has agreed and I'd like to put it on the record uh just so that everybody
understands that um we are proposing to put on any amount of landscaping on the neighbor's property uh planted at a minimum of six feet height that they might want. and we'll obviously work with them to that degree to minimize some of the visual impact of our building on the property. The other
major item I would say that uh that they had when we had some discussions with them was regarding they have a a tree on their property in the rear of their property and they were concerned about the root structure and whether that root structure may extend onto our property and if it does extend onto our property
would it be damaged uh in the process of pres of uh developing our site. And so we've agreed to do a couple of things. Um, ultimately, obviously, we don't know where roots fully extend until we start doing the site work. Um, we know that there definitely are roots on our
property, but we don't know if they're what are called critical roots. But, uh, nevertheless, we we've uh decided to accommodate um and and help protect to the best of our ability by doing the following. So, first, you'll see on our plans that we do have utilities proposed within our sideyard setback. Um, we are
intending and our architect will confirm this evening to be able to relocate those utility lines to underneath our building so that there would be absolutely no disturbance of that three and a half foot sideyard setback which again should hopefully help um avoid to the extent that there are any roots
there would help avoid that any more than is necessary for the actual building foundation itself. The other thing that we are planning to do is uh we will engage with uh with an arborist throughout the construction of our of our project should it be approved by the board. Um to do whatever possible during
the the demolition and the subsequent construction to protect as many of those critical routes should there be any. Um and again this is a this is a promise and this is something that we wanted to ensure the neighbors are comfortable with. I spoke to them earlier tonight to let them know that we would put these on the record and we are comfortable with
them being conditions of any approval as well. Lastly, I just want to indicate that throughout this whole period of time um we've worked diligently with Mr. D Silva to come up with uh again what you'll see as a fully conforming plan and uh we have imposed upon ourselves these
mitigative techniques because we do understand that there is some concern primarily by the neighbor and uh we want to ensure that we can be you know as accommodating as possible while understanding that at the end of the day um what we are proposing is something that does conform to zoning and my
client did purchase this property in reliance upon that zoning. Finally, I just want to add that the proposed development will actually eliminate um three nonconformities that do exist today. So, right now there's a non-conforming front yard setback that will be eliminated. There's also a
non-conforming sideyard setback on that side um related to the the one concerned neighbor that again will be eliminated and actually created in a way that is more of a setback than is required by the zoning. And finally, we'll be adding a street tree to uh in front of the subject property, which again does not
exist today. And lastly, I'll just say for the record that due to the size of our property, we're actually able to create and propose our development with less coverage than is otherwise permitted, less height than is otherwise permitted, greater side and rear yard setbacks than are required, and more
landscaping than is ultimately required. And so I think that this project as a whole, while it may not make everybody happy, it's it's been curated and designed in a way that allows my client to develop the property with something that he has a right to rely on with
respect to the zoning, but also has really really taken good care and caution to do whatever is possible to protect the neighbor interests again as best as possible and practical. With that, I do have two witnesses I intend to call this evening. I have our project architect of Art Patel who's going to
walk you through the site as well as the uh the overall proposed design of our development. And I do while it's a little bit unusual to have a professional planner testify with an as of right application, I do think that it's uh something that the that the board may like to hear this evening. So
we did retain Miss Worstelle to provide some planning testimony as well. >> So Madam Chair, unless you have any questions of me, I'm happy to proceed with Mr. Patel. >> Absolutely, sir. I I actually have a quick question. Um, you mentioned you were going to be adding a street tree in front of the property. Is that something
that would have been required anyway or are you adding it >> um to to accommodate the concerns about the trees? >> So, it would have been it would have been required um when what I what I said is that right now there isn't because obviously a lot of properties do not have street trees, but the current
zoning does require that they propose street trees. So, we are bringing that into conformity with the zoning requirements. >> Okay. So it's it's not a bonus tree. It's one that would have been required anyway. >> Correct. I mean to the extent we can add an additional tree. We have no objection to that. I just think that the spacing
requirements given that it's a 25t lot. I think the city may have some cons. I mean you're the council woman. So I think the city may have some concerns with spacing the trees too close together. But we take no objection to you know if that's a request by the board. We have it's certainly not no opposition from our end.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Come on up a bird. >> The truth. The whole truth. The truth. >> Yes, I do. >> Uh, Avar Patel. A A V A R T P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P A A T E L. Matelli, your license is current and in
good standing. >> Uh, yes, it is. Thank you. >> Thank you. You may proceed. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. So, Avar, if you can please walk the board through our proposed uh development here this evening. >> Sure. >> Um, the property is located at 69 Lake Street. Um
it's uh 25 by um uh 98 on on one side and and 213 uh averaging out to be about uh 205 with the middle midpoint of the lot. Um the lot area is about uh 5136
ft. Um going to quickly go to the proposed site plan. Um, as Ben indicated, there is an existing single family house uh which uh would be uh demolished and we are proposing uh uh five units in the
primary structure and an uh detach ADU in the in the back of the property. Um we are uh providing a street tree uh and and uh some front yard landscaping as required per uh per zoning requirements.
Um there is an existing sign. So if uh a secondary is recommended, we would have to go through um uh forestry and and just make sure that there it is acceptable. There are existing uh sign and and some other uh elements which
would prevent us from putting a second tree on the um the front of the property. Um overall um the building because of the uh the lot depth uh um it's uh a little longer than uh what we usually see on a
100 by 25 by 100 lot. Um and in order to make the the length of the building work, uh we kept the the front of the building or front portion of that building uh with a with a 5-ft setback as you can see here. uh that would go uh
close to the midpoint of the building and then uh the the sideyard setback would could go to go down to 3'6 which is still better than uh what is required for uh uh for for R1 um zone. Um and the
overall building floor plate is divided in in two parts. You have a front and and then the rear. Um I will walk through the floor plans uh uh on there on the next slide. And then uh the the twotory detach ADU uh which
is a little larger than and uh we usually see for 25 by 100 lot uh and uh it is separated from the main structure by at least uh about uh 23 foot uh uh separation. Uh we are conforming with all the required setback and given that
the the site has a our rear property line is at an angle uh we we get a a little backyard for for the ADU as well and then all the other setbacks are are uh what's required per R1 or better than that.
Um we are proposing the utilities uh within that that setback. Uh and given that the the proximity to the tree uh we're going to move the utility underneath the building and uh um you know try to bring it out uh through that 5ft setback
towards the front. Keep it uh in the sideyard but you know move it away from the tree uh especially where the uh it is close to the the the trunk of the tree. I'm going to quickly go through the uh floor plans. Uh we are proposing a a
partial cellar uh which is placed towards the front of the building uh which will house all the uh building services. Um and there is one staircase servicing um that level. Um at the first floor we have two units.
Uh there's unit number one which is uh towards the front of the building and uh uh that is one bedroom one bath uh which is an accessible unit which is required per code. Um and then on the rear we have unit number two. They are separated with a with a a
small foyer or vestibule uh in between two units. Uh and there is a second staircase which is placed uh at that uh location. Um the unit number two which is towards the back it's a it's a three-bedroom uh two and a half bath and a and a small office
uh with a with a sliding patio door um sliding patio door uh located off of the the bedrooms towards the back of the building. Um the second floor uh as you can see there's just one staircase uh going up from the uh from the front
of the building uh that will go to the unit number three which is uh um which is a a duplex unit. Uh and that is in total about it's a threebedroom, three bath uh
totaling about 1,850 ft². Um and um again it's a duplex. Uh we have a living areas on the u living and kitchen with a one-bedroom place on the uh at the second level and then the staircase would lead up to the the third level uh
where the additional bedrooms and uh bathrooms are are placed. Um at the second floor towards the back of the building, we have uh unit number four uh which is pretty much matches the the one below that three-bedroom, 2 and
1 half bath about 1,400 ft². Um and as you can see on the plans, uh we did step back the building towards the you know the the rear wall of the building does step back uh to create uh
more distance from the ADU as well as uh creating a step setback effect which kind of opens up um or or reduces the impact on the uh the neighboring property. I'll cover that in the uh the building
elevation in the section. But uh let me quickly go through the uh the other floor um the the third floor plan. Uh unit number five again which is similar to uh unit below about 1420 ft 3bedroom 2 and a half bath.
Um and then the the unit number five and unit number three uh which is uh placed at the third floor will get their private roof decks. Um
this is the floor plans for ADU. Uh fairly straightforward. We have a living and a kitchen with a with a small powder room at this level and then uh two-bedroom, two bath uh on the second level. Um >> and Evard, I'll just note for the record, I think that's a clerical error.
It says unit 7. It should really be unit six. Is that >> correct? That is that is correct. Yes. um front of the building. Uh we are proposing just predominantly the the brick along the first floor and then um at the the second and third floor there
are two small balconies proposed which would have uh horizontal siding material and then uh there's a little uh bay uh twotory bay which would again a similar horizontal siding but uh uh a lighter color.
Um as you can see this is the rear elevation which shows the uh the building stepping back uh first floor patio door second floor and third floor and then they have the uh the terraces um which you can see on the side
elevation over here. Um the setbacks are are um 5 ft on on each floor second and third. So uh by the time the third floor exterior uh the rear wall uh we would increase the separation between the ADU and then third floor uh to almost uh uh
35 ft. This is the um the uh left side elevation which kind of faces the uh the neighbor's yard and where the the trees is supposed to be. Um uh and this the the siding material on
the side is again is going to be vinyl uh horizontal siding. Um um for the ADU again the front of the ADU would be similar to the the front of the the main structure and then the the remaining sides would would be um vinyl
horizontal siding. Um I think that's about it. Uh do you want me to cover anything specific, Ben? I think that's uh I think that's mostly it. Just to confirm as well all mechanicals uh they'll be located uh and screened as well on the roof. Is that correct? >> Uh that is correct. We are showing that
the condensing units uh to be located on the on the roof and uh they are screened. >> Okay. And then I think the green roof is uh as well is it either meets or exceeds the green roof requirement. Is that correct? >> Uh that is correct. >> Okay. And then finally, just in terms of
uh the the ADU itself, I would just say that is uh compliant as well with the twotory 18 foot height limitation. Is that right? >> That is correct. >> Okay. Thank you. I have nothing further for Mr. Patel. >> Any board questions for Mr. Patel? >> Question. >> Yeah, the the balconies. Uh what's the
space underneath those on the front of the building? >> Oh, you you mean the Mr. Torres question? Torres question. Okay. >> I'm trying to recreate it as my own. It's a good question to know. >> Yeah, you know, we we will have uh uh
the railing would be placed at least 4 in. You know, there will be a curb around and we're going to retain the water and take it out rather than shedding the water off of uh so there will be a 4 in curb. >> We usually make that less. >> We do. >> We do make that less. >> Whatever. What's the recommendation?
>> What I'm saying is, you know, from the from the surface there will be a 4inch curb and then the railing will sit on top of the curb. >> Got it. So, it is sealed. It's not an open area. >> Yeah. Nothing can roll off uh the uh the balcony surface. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Any other board comments? C >> could you just discuss the building materials and the aesthetics a little bit? >> Uh sure. Um as I indicated the on the front of the building, especially on the first floor, we are proposing uh a brick um and then that would continue on the
uh the upper two stories uh where the balconies are. they are um there's a break in the plane uh you know and that would have a a gray uh darker gray color uh siding uh and then this element which is a like
um um more like a bay window uh you know that will have a horizontal siding again lighter material and then this is just to kind of create a frame around this bay um and then the the remaining three sides uh actually two sides uh they will have a vinyl siding and This is against
the property line. So that would be stuck out. uh and the ADU >> uh the ADU the front of the ADU will have a similar elements uh you know the break on along the first floor and then the darker gray siding on the second floor and then the remaining sides would
have uh um the uh light gray vinyl siding um on the remaining three sides because the ADU is set has a setback on on all three sides. Um the window frame uh would be would be
black or dark gray color. Um Yep. That's Mr. Wine. Can we just go through where the vinyl siding is? Which side of the building is this? Um, let me just go through the floor plans.
>> And sir, you got to go slower because I'm motion sick. Me too. >> Um, so facing the front of the building, the right side is on the property line. That would get the stucco. Uh, it is a firewall, so it would be a masonry wall,
threetory tall, uh, block masonry, and that will get covered with a stucco. And on the left side, um, that would be the vinyl sighting. >> And the vinyl siding goes on the left side all the way down the building.
>> Correct. And then it would wrap around >> and goes across the back and the stucco goes the entire length of the right side of the building. >> Correct. even though threequarters of that is exposed.
Uh yes I mean there's a the building code requirement where you know the buildings are on property line you know we try to go with a masonry material so it behaves better in terms of maintenance and uh in case of any fire exposure
>> of our could we finish that with anything like wrap the uh the vinyl at all on that side or is that a building code issue? Oh, we we could you know and the stuckco would have uh uh you know there's a joint pattern you know you have to provide the joints at every uh you know within 144 square feet is the
typical requirement. So there will be joints horizontal and vertical >> but it is exposed. >> It is exposed. Yes. >> So there's anything else that we can do um where the vinyl is? >> We could Yes. Absolutely. Absolutely. >> I no I think that Madam Chair correct me
if I'm wrong on the side with the vinyl you're referring to. >> Both. >> Both. >> Right. Is there anything we could do in addition to to supplement that vinyl perhaps to break it up? >> Um, yes. >> Or to change the vinyl material >> or change the material. >> We could we could >> like a hardy plank material.
>> Yes, sure. We can we can provide couple of alternate >> um the aesthetic would look a lot better with that. >> Chair, former chair Chris, what is what is your thoughts? >> So, we're talking about changing the vinyl siding to Hardy Plank, correct?
Mhm. >> Is any of the issue the side with the block? >> We think >> proposing to put Hardy plank on that side as well. >> Uh we could >> Okay. And that would meet fire code. >> Uh yeah, Hardy does.
>> Okay. >> Vinyl usually doesn't, but the Wardi does. >> Now you're talking and I I mean you're talking a matter of inches with insulation be behind it. Does that encroach on the neighboring property now? Uh so typically we are required to
have a 1 in space. Uh so the building is not literally on the property line. There is 1 in uh space and uh um when we are building we are required to put an insulation uh in between. So that would create enough separation where the material can wrap around. It's not going to project beyond the property line.
>> Okay. >> Would it maintain the 1 in required space? >> Uh so the the required installation is is uh when you're building against the adjacent property. So you know you don't damage their material. It's a loose laid insulation. You're not securing. It's
just they place it and then keep building. Uh so uh we don't have to put that insulation on the the exposed side which is you know open to view that would be covered with a material. >> Just so I understand I I apologize. I'm many things but not an architect. Um, so
the existing building line could have additional material added to it without getting closer to the property line and eating into the required correct you need. >> That is correct. >> Well, it'll get closer. >> Obviously get closer because they're not cutting the building back,
>> right? But you'd maintain whatever distances that are required on that wall. >> Yes, absolutely. >> Which is the one in >> Yes, it's reasonable. And madam chair, just so I have it down correctly in my notes, was the suggestion for the Hardy plank on the front as well.
>> Wherever the vinyl siding was >> where there's vinyl siding. >> Yes. Right. Okay. >> You have vinyl siding, I think, on the window. >> I mean, if you want to show the um front elevation. >> Yeah, that white. >> Right.
>> So, this is a a hardy sighting here. And then the white is also um >> hardy siding. The front is all hardy. Okay. >> So, we're just going to carry that material on the sides and back. >> Yes, we can. And we will
>> And from an aesthetic standpoint, will it be a single color or any sort of things to make it break up the monotony of the the long side? >> So, the facade is not continuous. you know, as uh I indicated the the front portion of the building has a 5ft
setback and then as you go towards the back it does uh change it to uh uh 3 and 1/2 ft and and there is a like a little recessed area. So the facade is not continuous. It's already broken. So we'll have to transition the materials uh and and you know create the uh the
interest you know but there will be breakin materials. C could could you kindly just show the the side elevations? >> Um, >> and I think the concern is about the other side >> there. I think there's concerns on both. >> I think it was both. >> Okay.
>> But but yes, this and the other side. >> So this is the uh the side where we we're proposing a STECO, right? Um so we'll have to present come up with the materials uh you know the elevation with the materials and and present it to uh to planning for further review and
approval >> and just to confirm that that conversation and commitment would extend to the ADU as well. >> Uh yes. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. You had a boyfriend? >> No. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh so with that, I would like to call up our professional planner, Carolyn Worstelle. >> I'm still sworn I'm still have my license is still in good standing. It hasn't changed in the last couple minutes. >> Have we hit midnight yet? because then we really need to check.
>> Hey, I just paid for and got the the update, so we're good. Um, >> all right. So, Caroline, you've heard obviously you've reviewed the uh the plan package uh extensively. You've heard the testimony tonight. You've also heard um with respect to the changes that uh the board has requested and that
Mr. Patel has agreed to. So with all of that, can you please speak to the the general zoning and uh and how our proposed development uh meets every meets the requirements and ultimately fits in to the scheme that is envisioned by the R1, >> right? Um so obviously the R1 um
district is is uh one of the most common districts in the city. Um and uh you know it was um typically envisioned to be for a 25 by 100 foot lot. This lot is obviously much much deeper. Um but that
is sort of a condition along this block um because this block um backs up onto an open space, you know, so there's no street behind it. Um so we do sort of see a little bit of an unusual condition here, but um the building itself meets
or you know is actually under all of the R1 district standards um that are applicable to development on this property. Um, so I know Ben Ben had mentioned this and and I'll just sort of reiterate it. Um, you know, we are providing sideyard setbacks that are
greater than what is, you know, the minimum required. So 3 feet is what is the minimum that's required and we're providing both five and 3 foot six. So there is greater separation for light and air. Um, so even though it's a longer building, there is going to be more distance space between this
building and the adjacent uh property. Um it is exceeding in the rear yard setback. Um so I think we're providing 50 to 65 feet. It it depends where you're measuring along that rear yard lot line because obviously it's not
parallel. um which exceeds not only the minimum which is you know 25% uh but the R1 district standard does have um it acknowledges that there are lots in the R1 district that exceed 100 ft and it basically says you're not required to
provide more than 45 feet of rear yard setback. So that is a standard in the R1 and it does acknowledge that there are lots that are deeper than 100 ft and it has set that there's you know you don't have to provide more than 45 ft no matter how deep your lot is but we're
still we're still complying with that 25% we're still providing more. We're still providing the 50 to 65. So again um we're exceeding what the minimum is for the the district. Um with the lot coverage uh we're providing 84% lot
coverage. um where 90 is permitted. Now, that 90% is because an ADU. Um again, the R1 district standards allow for an ADU and they acknowledge that there would be additional coverage oftentimes generated by that. So, you your typical
85% goes up to 90% with an ADU, but we're at 84%. We're under the 85% for a conforming uh building, you know, on a lot, not even accounting for an ADU. Um, so again, this lot is so substantially
larger that we are able to accommodate the bulk while still meeting all those bulk standards. Um, and then the height itself is 30 feet where 35 ft is uh permitted. So again, you know, we're not maximizing out the height on this property. Um, and again, you know, this
this is uh has an unusually deep building, but that's because it's an unusually deep lot. Um and again it's twice the depth that is typical um for the R1 district standards but it's not uh terribly atypical for this lot for this block. Um there are nine properties
on this block frontage which exceed um that 100% or that 100 foot uh lot depth that is typical. Um and they range from 115 to about 230 ft. Um so there are other properties on this block and on
either side of this property which in the future could develop to the same or you know very similar bulk. Um they aren't there now but the bulk standards are there that they could in the future someday be developed to a similar depth. So um you know this this property is
sort of it may be the first one but it's not out of character what what could be developed on the adjacent properties. Um and then you know really I sort of even to look at it just to say you know you can't even really subdivide this
property right. Um it's uh it is backing up onto um public lands. It's it's open space. Um there is no street access back there. So you can't subdivide this property. It it's impossible to to do so. So that really the depth of the
property is what it is. And so there really isn't other opportunities to create a different dynamic for a different more typical um development style. And then uh finally, you know, when you look at, you know, it is a a a bigger
building, you know, concerns are oftentimes for, you know, impacts of light and air um and open space. Um again, we're we're under on all of those sort of bulk standards, the height, but greater setbacks. Um but in terms of impacts to uh the open space to the
public open space which is directly behind us they are to the south. Um so uh shadow impacts from the proposed development really won't have a substantial impact on the the public open space to the south. Um it really uh because of of the orientation of this
particular property. Um you know so again this property is really consistent with that R1 district and all the standards that are there. Um and then again when you when you look at what does the Jersey City master plan sort of say, you know, the there's a social
equity goal to accommodate population growth and changing needs. Um and it really sort of the intent of that master plan is to create that balanced housing supply. And you know, this is this is part of it. You know, these these units allow for um you know, different
typologies of building types, you know, in neighborhoods. Um and um we're proposing you know one to three bedrooms on this with this um you know and it's uh providing a the diversity of housing option and more housing options in an
area that has access to a lot of um the the amenities which make Jersey City so attractive. um you know walking distance to schools um walking distance to to uh uh public open space um you know so
again it it's sort of meeting that standard to accommodate that growth uh with the diversity of housing options um so that's it >> thank you Carolyn >> thank you any board comments >> thank you >> so that would conclude my presentation
and chief I would respectfully request the right to address any comments uh either from the public or the board. >> Thank you. At this time, I would like to open for public comments. Is there anyone from the public? >> Oh, no. I know. >> Yeah. She's going to go right after me.
>> The whole truth. >> I do. >> My name's Ronald Cron. Kohn 69 Lake 67 Lake Street. I'm the the neighbor with 30 windows and a tree. >> Good evening, Mr. Colin. You have three
minutes. >> All right. Yes. The um the planning board staff have recommended the approval of 69 Lake Street plan. The site plan calls for six apartment condos over 10,000 square ft of living space on a 25x 200t lot with
no rear access in a block of small and one and two family homes. On the property line at the 110 mark is a 90-year-old 70 foot high healthy silver maple tree. The plan construction would cut away half of the critical root
system, which according to my arberous report, which I will submit, would kill the tree and cause a dangerous and possibly life-threatening situation. I believe the planning staff's recommendations are flawed and incorrect for these reasons. One planning staff
stated deemed a redesign infeasible without substantially impacting the applicant zone development rights. In all one zones, plans of more than 5,000 square feet need need board approval, which mean their zone development rights for plans over 5,000 square feet are
what the board deems them to be. Under 5,000 ft, rules ones to apply. Over 5,000 ft, the board apply decides. Two, more consideration should have been given to the one of the city ordinance 321 core mission which states whereas
mature trees absorb ex exponentially more storm water sequester exponentially more carbon and provide exponentially more leaf cover that translates to shade than newly planted trees.
Three site plan has two buildings 9,072 square ft plus 1,08 ft a total of 10,80 square ft for the site plan. This is over the 10,000 square ft for minus site plan limit. This plan or redesign plan
should be resubmitted. Four, the only access to the ADU and rear of the condo units which are 150 ft from the seat from the street is through a three-foot setback. I having Jersey City Fire personnel and
my immediately family have learned it would be difficult and timeconuming getting hoses and especially ladders to this area which would eat critical seconds in life and death situations. As a note, a fire can double every 30 seconds. This plan should be reviewed by
fire safety officials. In conclusion, it is my belief that this plan is fatally flawed and that a building stopping at the 90 foot mark would give the developer over 6,000 square ft plus 1,000 square feet in the
ADU. That is more square footage than dozens of similar properties other developers are currently selling. I feel this result would be safe and would follow the spirit of letter of odd 321 and keep the character of neighborhood. Thank you. >> Thank you
>> Anna. >> Hi. >> Oh, sorry. >> Yes, I do. >> Anna Cron an AA khn 67 Lake Street. >> Thank you. Okay, >> Miss Cron, you have three minutes.
>> Okay. Um, issue regarding the very healthy silver maple tree, which oddly seems to be absent from the site plan. Root system spans both yards. Okay, so it's a 70ft tree on the prop that's been on the property probably for 90 years or
more. Um, the fact that we really haven't been included in any discussion regarding saving the tree and not destroying it for the sake of development is a little bit troubling to me. Plant development will kill the tree causing a possible lifethreatening
situation if it's not removed as stated in my arborist report. So if the tree needs to be removed due to the critical root system being destroyed by construction, who will be financially responsible for not only the removal of the tree but the
compensation to the city as per city code 321? There's also the issue of safety regarding any first responders as well as residents on both properties and proposed ADU if there should be a fire or any other emergency response needed.
The three-foot setback does not provide enough clearance necessary for hoses and ladders to quickly and safely provide necessary access for first responders to provide life-saving responses if an emergency should occur, especially on
the second and third levels. This isn't fair to the residents and it's definitely not fair to the first responders who risk their lives daily on a regular basis. Has this even thought have even been included in the planning for this development? It seems as if it
has not. Um the final thought is the new building will block out much sunlight that we've enjoyed for years as well as an intrusion into our privacy as 30 windows will now be facing my home. 30 windows. There's no parking allotted for
additional units proposed and parking now is at a premium on the block as it begins. Um, my hope is that the new administration will consider quickly changing the zoning laws that seem to favor this overdevelopment more than longtime residents that have been the
heart and soul of Jersey City. And I want to thank the board for listening to my concerns and hope they'll give some of it some consideration. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Tonight, the whole truth. >> I do. Sure. Cynthia Scott, cyn hia a
Scott s o tt. I live at 63 Sherman Place and I am the representative from the Persianfield neighborhood um association that Mr. Wine referenced before and we do appreciate the time that they took to meet with us as we do at your time here tonight. Um and and I think the reason
we have neighborhood associations is also, you know, our goal is also one of the goals of the Jersey City's master plan, which is to prioritize the needs and ideas of current residents. It seems that site visits are not required for minor site plans. That should be re-evaluated. Jersey City is a very
large city with geographically diverse neighborhoods. If a site visit was done, one would have seen the large 90-year-old silver maple tree from the backyard of in the backyard of 67 Lake Street. It can be seen from the street. The tree was not included in the original plan submitted to city
planning. The tree roots extend into the 69 Lake Street property. If 84% lock coverage of where this project is permitted, the tree will not survive. Forestry assessed the tree and submitted comments months ago requesting that the plans be revised. A few weeks ago,
planning submitted comments stating that the root zone impacts the back half of the applicant's property. It states further that planning consulted with the applicant and the division of forestry but not the owners of 67 Lake Street. How is the city prioritizing the needs
and ideas of current residents? It is unacceptable not to include the property owners most directly affected. Planning references the tree ordinance. However, the tree is not located on the property being developed. The ordinance states that the property owner may be granted a permit. No permit has been applied for
as of yesterday for the removal of a private tree on his or her property. The tree is located at 67 Lake Street, not 69 Lake Street. The ordinance should protect this tree because the owners of 67 Lake Street are not developing their property. The green roof included in the developer
plan may seem like a great idea and if it's maintained properly. The green roof plants need regular watering and care during the establishment period, which is a minimum of two months to a year, which is stated in the Columbia Green maintenance document. Who will be responsible for this? One of the unit
owners, a contractor. Clarification is needed and future oversight is essential. A green roof can be great, but if it does not offset the removal of a m mature tree that could live for several more decades. The current plan also prevents adding more trees in the future, which saddles the neighborhood
with more heat, more flooding, and less habitat. Yes, we have flooding in the heights. I also want to add that this project does not promote any idea of affordability. It will most likely be sold as separate units, having the applicant be the one who benefits no one else. This density is out of character
for the neighborhood. It is feasible for the plans to be amended and for the project to be scaled back. the current development is not in line with the promoted intent of the master plan or the tree ordinance. This is not a clear-cut situation and its outcome will determine how serious Jersey City is
about prioritizing the needs and ideas of current residents and future residents and its vital tree ordinance. Let's make caring about our environment and residents more than just photo ops. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> Thank you. >> Could I give you a report? So sir, first
you got to go back to the mic. >> The avarest report that I mentioned, could I give you copies of it? >> So here's the issue, sir. Mr. Wine is going to object to >> Sorry, I can't hear you. >> Mr. Wine is going to object to me taking that. Is the author of the report here
tonight? >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I can't. I'm hard of hearing. >> Can you hear me, sir? Sorry, he has a problem hearing. >> That's okay. >> Sorry. No, the author is not here tonight. >> Okay. So, there is no way for us to
authenticate the document. >> Okay. >> Mr. Wine has the right to question the author of the document. So, without the individual being here, >> we can't take it and evaluate it. >> Okay. So the author of the document, the arborist himself would have to be here.
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> And that's the only way it could be put in. >> He has to physically be here. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. There's no way of sending it have it notorized or anything? >> No. >> No. >> Anyone else from the public?
>> Nat Natalie Leone, 55 of Wales Avenue. and um I'm here today as the founding member of the Hudson County Tree Allies. Uh now, it's been my observation that not even the most compelling speech will allow this board of functionaries to make a decision beyond evaluating whether something is or is not in line
with the master plan. However, I would like to speak for the public record and in the hopes that our elected officials are listening for this case has brought to light unforeseen issues regarding the ADU ordinance, including the way that ADUs can endanger major assets on neighboring properties, trees in
particular, large mature trees. And if that being the case, they in fact can pose a danger to the city's tree canopy if this becomes precedent. as some of the largest trees in the city um besides cemeteries are on old uh house lots. There is only one piece of existing code
that is relevant here in favor of the homeowner whose trees is at risk. That is in city code chapter 321 section 3 uh titled prohibited activities which states no person shall damage a city or private tree knowingly or unknowingly by improperly pruning, cutting, ripping or breaking any part of the roots, trunk or
branches. This will occur should this ADU be approved given the placement of the tree and it is the reason why according to my investigation the division of forestry submitted plan review comments which requested that the petitioner explore a possible redesign. It is my understanding that there was never any follow-up regarding this
recommendation. It has also come to my attention that the tree is legally considered the property of both parties considering that roots are by chapter 321's definition considered part of the tree. This means that the developer does indeed need to apply for a permit for their work and should be required to follow through with the Division of
Forestry's requested redesign. This case brings up many issues that are not covered by our current laws. Should the ADU be approved and the treere's roots be decimated as both the forester and an independent arborist hired by the owners of the tree have affirmed. When the tree becomes at risk of failure due to the same and must be removed, who will have
to pay for the removal and pay for the city uh restitution or replacement in accordance with our most recent tree ordinances requirements? There is nothing codified that would require the developer to shoulder this cost, but there should be. Beyond the costs, what about compensation for the loss of the tree as a real estate asset or as a
sentimental asset? As of now, I imagine the parties will have to bicker over these questions in court. But if our city ordinances stand such that this issue repeats itself, and surely it will, then there is a responsibility to amend the ordinances. The ADU ordinance was pitched to citizens as something
they could do to legalize already common garage, basement, or carriage house units, or to convert said structures into legally rentable units. Unsurprisingly, however, it seems that it has been developers more than citizens who have been taking advantage of it via a practice of lot clearing, demolishing one to two family homes to
create three to four family bayon boxes, and then applying to pave over backyard green space and create an additional dwelling unit. This may be in line with the master plan's focus on density, but it was not the alleged purpose of the ordinance. And when this becomes a systematic developer practice, a dangerous trend is underway whereby we
stand to lose what little backyard green space our city has. And that green space is not just for enjoyment. It serves as impermeable uh rather per >> I'm sorry, your time is up to three minutes. Thank you. >> Hi there. testimony tonight. The whole truth of
the truth. >> Yes. >> Yes. Philip Pia Vstrap. P H I L I P P I A V is in Victor. A A A R T S T R A. >> Miss Barer, you're >> good. Uh home at 99 Sherman Place
Apartment, New Jersey City, New Jersey. >> You have three minutes. >> I just want to echo everything that she just said. um a mom of two young children and I care deeply about fostering a city where families can actually plant roots. But I'm um where development strengthens neighborhoods
instead of slowly eroding things away that make them livable. We got to laugh in life. Uh this is not about posing housing. Jersey City absolutely needs housing, but good housing policy means building thoughtfully with infrastructure, services, and quality of life to be able to keep up with the pace of development. growth should benefit
communities, not just maximize what can be extracted from a parcel for developer profit. What's being proposed at this cruise ship that we're seeing, aka 69 and Lake Street project, feels like an example of increasingly aggressive and permissive development practices that
maximize profit while pushing risks and consequences onto neighbors and the community. The proposed ADU would begin roughly 150 ft, I think I heard, into the property, extending development far into the rear yard area. Placing an additional unit that far back raises
serious questions about emergency access and the impact excavation could have on the neighborh on the neighboring property's century old tree and root system. Even if the developer is not the one physically cutting down the tree, destabilizing the roots will leave neighbors with an unsafe tree that they
are then forced to remove themselves. So the question becomes at whose expense? Who pays for the removal of a 100-year-old tree if this project effectively causes its decline? Who compensates residents for the environmental and financial impacts that come with losing mature tree canopy and
so much open green space, increased heat, higher cooling costs, worsening urban heat island effects, and long-term strain on families already struggling with affordability. Because affordability is not just the cost of housing itself. It is also insurance premiums, utility bills, flooding, and whether families still have access to
healthy, shaded, livable neighborhoods. There's also a major unre unresolved question about the future sale of these ADUs. At a recent 85 Sherman Place hearing, where an ADU is proposed and now built, residents were told uh the board could not speculate about what a developer might do with an ADU in the
future. But if Zillow histories are already showing ADUs being marketed or pushed for separate sale, then this is no longer speculation. It is a pattern that matters because New Jersey state law does not permit ADUs to be sold separately. Uh if projects are being approved with every indication that
developers intend to test or circumvent those restrictions, then the city is potentially putting itself at legal Uhhuh. my legal buddy over there. Um legal and policy risk by continuing to prove projects without stronger safeguards or enforcement. Ordinances can have consequences beyond their
original in intent when aggressive development practices begin testing the outer limits of what is technically allowable. At the end of the day, there seems to be far more questions than answers surrounding this applications. It is not straight cut. It's not just R1 zoning. And for that reason, I urge you
to not approve this project tonight. Think who are we building for? And you have young families here that need backyard space. We were talking about, you know, sorry, I'm a time. Thank you. >> I said it. Thank you. >> Good evening, Charlene Burke.
>> Miss Burke, you have three minutes. um when ADUs were part of were being proposed during the master plan and I participated in those master plans as many as I could those meetings as well as the community meetings. Uh they were
in fact just about converting a garage or some other structure in your backyard to create for a homeowner an opportunity for additional living space for themselves or for affordable housing.
That's what we were sold on. what is translated into something entirely different. And in New York City, where they began with ADUs, they've now imposed where if it cannot be a hundred
more than 100 ft from the front property or from the street for safety reasons, as many of the speakers spoke about, firemen can't get there. They can't get their equipment back there safely unless
you know what you start using the neighbor's yard or the neighbor's property because that one's not built on to the extent this one is. So, we're not even thinking of the safety of those people who will be occupying these
properties honestly. And that really has to be one of the main drivers of what you're deciding on tonight is the safety of the people who will be occupying a frame house that could burn to the
ground very quickly. I really impose or ask of you that these are the things that when you make decisions about master plans and that that go to the city council that I wish
planning would bring to your attention because as community members we were bringing it to their attention. But I'm not sure it always translates to all of you. I don't know how many of you sat on this board while that master plan was
being approved, but we had a lot of concerns when it was in front of the city council. But we only have three minutes to talk about it. And even in that 3 minutes, as much as we can mention, ADUs, as the
speaker said, it shouldn't be a condo separate and apart. It was additional dwelling unit to the primary structure. That's why it's called ADU. And yet we're condoing them.
But I really have a lot of concern about how this massive massive building and I am uh the president of a community group on the west side. We have 200 foot lots as well. But planning doesn't think
about adjusting some of these parameters for these very deep lots. Not everybody's like downtown 25 by 100. >> I'm sorry, Miss Burke, your time is up. >> Thank you. >> If there's no one from public,
>> I see no one else from the public. I can uh would like to propose to close the public portion. >> Second. >> Mr. Wine, can you address the um concerns? >> Definitely. Definitely. Excuse me. And I wrote a few notes, so I'm going to try
to capture them all. Um, starting with, and I think this was Miss Nixon of the uh of the neighborhood association who talked about, and I think it was a very good point and something that does often get overlooked in planning board hearings and in reviews of applications are about maintenance of the green roofs because I
think this board sees on probably 98% of the projects that come before you, they do include green roofs. Um, they also typically include roof deck structures which allow um, personal access there. And one thing that you typically don't hear and it is a requirement that those be maintained, but I think it should go
on record and I think it should be if it's not written into the uh the ordinance the way it is, it should be perhaps even a condition on all approvals that go forward that they be maintained, that there be a structure for maintenance. So what I mean by that is you heard a lot of talk about these
are going to be condo units. The truth is we don't know that they're going to be condominium units. They could be rentals. They could be condominiums. If they're condominiums, there would be uh an uh excuse me, a uh an association, a condominium association, and that would be responsible. That would be part of
any master deed to maintain the common elements, which would include the green roof. That means if some of the greenery doesn't survive, it would be required to be replaced. That would be a violation of the condo scheme and uh and as well as a violation of the uh land development ordinance. If it is a rental
structure, then there will be a management company and the same rules would apply. So, while there may not be a violation of a master deed, there would certainly be a violation of the zoning standard. So, I think I think it's a valid point to bring up and I think I I have no problem with with city planning considering including that in
their staff report. Um, maintenance of green roofs in perpetuity. I think it's a it's a requirement. I think it's a good point. Um, a couple of the other comments that came up regarding the uh regarding the tree on the neighbor's property. I understand that there has been a report that's been handed out. I
did I did skim through it. Um, you know, I truthfully and it's not it's not that I'm going to disagree with it. I I don't have the knowledge to be able to disagree with it. I'm not a tree expert. Um, and I I certainly don't hold myself out to be one. But one two of the things that I think we agreed and and skimming
the report, there was concern about potential damage of the tree. There's concern about where >> I only have three minutes. >> Okay. Exactly. >> There's concern about the fact that maybe a root may be damaged in a critical root zone that may end up harming the tree, but there's no
guarantee because it hasn't been investigated. And I think the condition that I imposed upon my client at the beginning of this application that we engage with an arborist throughout the demolition and construction of the site would be a much better way to ascertain whether there are in fact critical roots
and if those roots can be protected throughout the uh throughout the construction. And you heard from our architect that in the rear portion of the building, it's slab on grade. There is only a seller in the front portion of the building. So there's no need to excavate in the rear more than what it more than a little bit in order to
accommodate the slab. But again, by engaging with a with an arborist or a licensed tree expert throughout the construction process and demolition process, I feel comfortable that we'll at least know we're in good hands in doing whatever possible to try to protect any roots that are deemed at
that time to be critical. There may be some, there may not be some, but we don't know until we begin that process. Um, we also we also may not, as I mentioned, we may not actually need to remove any roots. We may and if we do, they may not be critical roots. So, I think that's something that remains to
be seen and cannot fully be ascertained until we have an approval to engage and permits quite honestly to be able to engage in actual site work here, which we which we don't have because we don't have site plan approval yet. Um I also and now I'm trying to read this comment.
Um oh there was some comments from the forester about about potentially um looking at some redesign. So again by by keeping the building more than the required setbacks off the property line. It's the best we can do at this stage. There's no point in going through a
redesign without knowing where, if and where those roots do exist because again any redesign may still impact the roots or may not impact the roots. So I think the comment the way I read it from the forestry division which I agree with, they had a comment in there to do anything we can to try and protect the
root system. And I think I've beat that that issue to death. I think I've said it a few times. That is fully our intention, fully the developer's intention. Um and and we would put that as a condition of approval. Excuse me. Um, there was also a comment about uh safety and a fire fire access
and all of that. Um, that is built into your permit review process. Um, and I think it's done very well. You can ask any developer in the room. You yourselves may have done some development work or even homework on your own homes. Nothing gets passed between zoning, planning, building,
fire, electrical, plumbing, all those other aid and forestry for that fact without them reviewing their required portions of an application. And so I think with respect to the fire safety access, you see a lot of properties that have um either no setback and kind of a door that runs through to the rear of
the property. You see a lot of buildings that are proposed with two foot on one side, three foot on the other. Here we're proposing greater than that. So, you know, our architect who is our design professional feels confident that this would pass muster with uh with respect to fire safety, but ultimately
it's fire safety that has to make that final determination and and uh otherwise we don't get a permit to develop on the site. Um there was also a comment about uh about parking. So, this is an interesting one to me and if you've ever I mean a lot of you have heard me
provide uh not testimony but present applications before and I I like parking and that's I think where city planning and I might be at odds. Um but I think parking is something that in a perfect world nobody would own cars but people do own cars and people that do own cars
need a place to park those. We are 25 foot wide lot. We actually and and Mr. Dilva can correct me if I'm wrong. We explored and and actually asked to provide parking on this site and we're told that city planning would not support that given that it does not align with the master plan
recommendations for a 25- ft lot within this ward. Um again, we have the area to do it. We we would like to do it. We think it would be a benefit to to the development quite honestly as well as um as well as a mitigation to the public. Unfortunately, we were advised that that is not something that would be
supportable um given our lot width here. And then there was also I think that's yeah there the uh no actually I think that was oh the one other thing that uh Mr. Patel neglected to mention but it was submitted as part of our application
package so it is within the record. Um there was a comment about trees providing storm water management. We are proposing a storm water detention system on this property. We did submit a set of civil plans. It is included in there. U Mr. Patel can certainly come back up and and identify that and speak to that if the board would like to to see the ins
and outs. But the fact is we are coverage compliant and nonetheless providing that system because I agree. I think it's good practice and I think um when even though the ordinance permits us to build up to 90% coverage, that doesn't mean that there won't be storm water drainage effects. So I think to be
able to mitigate that is uh is yet another bonus to the project and will hopefully mitigate some of the the lack of greenery on the property in that particular area. Um, so with that, I I don't I don't want to belabor the point and and I and I don't I don't want to uh
sound a little bit pedagogical towards the board or patronistic towards the board. At the end of the day, this is a site plan application. Um, there is there is immense case law on on when you have a conforming site plan, what it is a board should look at. And I give the board credit because I think one of
those things that the board should look at, which we did have some dialogue back and forth about, is the design, right? The city of Jersey City's land development ordinance does have design guidelines and that's my wife um does have design guidelines for the R1
district and uh and again we we thought that we complied coming in but we heard some good comments um from the chair and from several other board members regarding changing some of those materials in a way that would provide a little bit more um aesthetic aesthetic care and comfort to the neighbors as
well as overall to the site itself. So, I think that's it was a good recommendation and we're happy to undertake that. Um, I think that concludes all of my notes that I have. So, I would just uh I would just again thank the board for their time and I would request um to the extent that the board has any other
comments um or requests for inclusion, we think we did the best that we could to accommodate um the concerns and the comments that we heard absent developing something on this site that is significantly less than what the zoning calls for. And I don't want to I don't want to sound um disingenuous. We could
develop a single family house here. We're absolutely permitted to do it, but it wouldn't necessarily require less bulk. Um and it wouldn't take the best advantage of some of the things that the master plan are trying to promote here, which is appropriate housing. And and as you heard even from some of the members of the public needed housing in the
area. So with that, I I appreciate the board's time this evening. I would welcome any additional comments for inclusion in our project and I would respectfully request that the board approve the application as presented and with the additional conditions placed on the record. >> Madam Chair,
>> um council, this actually we might need Mr. Patel. >> Sure. >> For this. >> So Mr. Patel, I do know the building is fully sprinkled. Correct. >> Oh, that is correct. Yes. Okay. So, I see on the rear of the building
there's what's labeled as a hose bib. >> Um that is just for the uh watering plants. You know, it's a host pip for um general maintenance and you know, watering the plants, keeping the patio clean, things like that. >> Okay. Are you within fire code to do you
have to require >> a hose valve on the back of the building? we may need a um a connection like a CME's connection. Uh again we will explore that when we develop the full construction drawings and uh of course you know that needs to be fully compliant. So
>> uh the fire department may ask for it and and you know we'll since the building is sprinkled you know we will be we will be placing that connection back there >> but the ADU is not sprinkled. Correct. >> That is correct. So my question is
and I I understand fire will catch it. We we in my opinion have the best fire inspection division in the state. Um, but since the question of safety and >> carrying hoses to the back of the
property are concerned, knowing that there's a fire department connection in the back of the building mitigates that concern. >> That is correct. Yes. Absolutely. And even the exterior wall for the ADU are 1
hour. Well, that means that you would accept that as a condition to push >> I didn't want to interrupt Mr. Patel, but that's what I >> We're going to interrupt Mr. Patel. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Yes. So, so that's where we're going. >> Sprinkle the building. Former chair, do you want that ADU sprinkler? >> I I don't think we could sprinkle the
ADU. It's it's a logistical nightmare running water underground now and and in the frost plane and and you'd have to create a dry system in the back. And I don't know that that would be possible in an ADU, but
>> I know a pipe fitter that could do that. >> I know a lot of them. I know 63 four of them currently that could do it. Um, >> but can we explore the possibility? >> I think we could condition that because I think that's going to be required.
So you have a Siamese connection on the front of the building. You have a fire pump in the building, correct? >> Uh, most likely we would need a fire pump. Yes. I don't think you have the water pressure not to need a fire pump. So, I don't see a reason we couldn't run a a fire department connection to the
back of the building to protect that ADU. So, you know, firemen carrying that much equipment to the back of the building isn't a concern. And I think it's, you know, beneficial to the neighborhood. I
think it's a it's a valid safety concern. >> Yes, that's correct. So I think that should be a condition of approval. >> Great. >> Mr. Wines already agreed to it. Yes. And finds it reasonable. >> Okay. >> Amazing.
>> Any other questions? >> M. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Uh just to address one of the concerns from the public. Uh could you guys do an irrigation system on the roof because I see these green roofs every single day. 80% of them are just dried
up dirt and they don't provide any benefit. and it doesn't have to be that expensive, but if you guys could commit to that, um I think that could ensure that you guys have a green roof instead of a brown roof. >> Um >> I would defer to the architect as to
>> uh sure we can but I think there is a there is a requirement that we have to provide or the the developer has to provide a guarantees that um the whatever the green roof system is you know would be maintained up to certain duration till uh the plan settles. So um
you know providing an above like exposed to weather irrigation system is uh uh you know challenging because of the the weather we are in but we are providing uh you know the host bib so it could be
maintained uh I don't know whether we can put a permanent uh uh system uh above the roof surface exposed to the weather. >> We'll we'll explore we'll we'll certainly explore that option. Yes, >> please. Yeah, they have smart ones that know what the weather is so they can
change. And I did that in my house. It was not an expensive thing or hard to install. Um, and as far as the tree, let's say, god forbid the tree dies in two or three years. How is that going to be outlined? Who's going to be responsible for it? What's going to be the compensation? Wondering how that will be handled.
>> So, I can tell you that that's a private matter between the private property owners. That's not for this board uh to get involved in. So, depending on the tree is on the neighboring property owner based on what
the neighboring property owner was saying if there's some kind of damage to that tree as a result of the development uh that may be actionable between the two property owners but that's not
something that this board has jurisdiction over >> it just on the topic of the tree I know uh the concerns about the arburous reports the objectors did not submit but I did want to just to provide some facts based upon what was submitted to the portal from forestry if if that's
appropriate um counselor to read into the record if it was on the portal. >> So forestry's comments are absolutely uh part of the record and appropriate but everybody does have to understand that that's a separate process that has to
take place. So, this board, what's being dealt with tonight is whether or not what the applicant is proposing conforms to the zoning ordinance. Under a separate section of the municipal code, we have a tree ordinance. We have a
division of forestry. There are all sorts of permits and uh really permits that have to be applied for. To remove a tree, you need a tree permit. To put up a fence, you need a fence permit. to put in plumbing, you
need a plumbing plumbing permit. So, they don't all come to this board, right? So, the forestry issue is within the Department of Forestry. If they need to apply for a permit, if they need to secure that permit, that's
through the Division of Forestry. That's not something that this board has jurisdiction over. Uh, but in terms of what Forestry's initial concerns are in their memo, it's it's part of the record and I have no
issue with it being part of the record. >> Thank you, councelor. I think it just may ensure that we're all on the same page with the facts. Um, and then I appreciate and understand your point regarding what our role is as a board. Um so ju just from an arborist which I
am not but the forester is. Um their memo says it has been brought to our attention there's a large silver silver maple present at the site that will be heavily and likely fatally impacted by the proposed plan. The proposed construction will involve trenching put through the critical root zone of the tree which will not only kill the tree
but compromise the integrity of the buttressing roots dramatically increasing the likelihood of failure. As such the plan is not approved. This is forestry's words. Um, as per the city code, all means prior to removal, including possible redesign, um, including the elimination of unnecessary
elements such as driveway, must be attempted before removal will be permitted. Um, removal will only be permitted if a redesign is demonstrably unfeasible. Note, removal of said tree will be subject to approval from the forestry and that removal will require payment of restitution reflecting the
health, condition, size, and species of the tree as determined by an evaluation from the forestry department. Um so I just to clarify the record of the city's arborist's opinion on on the what the development's impact would be um quoting the code saying that the believe you
addressed the comment about the design being demonstrabably unfeasible counselor um and that the permit would still be an outstanding issue outside of this board's jurisdiction to our council's comment. >> I I have a follow-up question to that.
Um these um revised forestry comments were uploaded to the portal on November 25th, 2025. Um it is now May 12th, 2026. You mentioned you had made some design changes such as moving utility lines um
to try to accommodate the treere's root structure. Were those changes made after these comments were submitted or before? Were >> so that change was was put on the record tonight. Right. That's not on the plans as Mr. Patel showed it still showed the uh utility lines within that area. We've
stipulated um after we had a huddle up to determine if it's feasible, we've stipulated that they can be run under the building instead. So that is May 12th, 2026. >> Okay. So So there has been a design change made to increase the likelihood of the tree survival, but we do not have
an arborist weighing in on whether or not that does in fact increase the likelihood of the tree survival. But it it would it would seem like a positive step but you know none of us are arborists. >> So is that accurate to say >> that is accurate and the other thing I would add to that as well is having had
an opportunity to discuss that further. It's also not advisable for our own water lines right and sewer lines to run them close to tree roots. So, this is what I was alluding to before and said outright that once we begin the the process of actually developing the site
and things become a little bit more clear. Um, that's an example of something that would would come up and and if it's if it's a route that is not critical, right, and we've agreed to have an arborist oversee this. If they determine it's not critical, then it would likely be cut to accommodate um,
you know, those the the building itself and then the lines. If it's a route that's deemed critical, that's where we've stipulated that we would attempt to protect that. And however, that means running those utility lines is something we would explore because it's beneficial to to the neighbors and to the tree, but
also to ensure that we don't get, you know, we don't have holes created in our in our utility lines. >> Okay. >> Thank you for the clarification. >> There's >> Madam Chair, sorry, one one other question. Councelor, you mentioned in your testimony about the green roof that
this property may be rentals or it may be condos. Um I was just wondering if you could kind of address one of the public comments about the legalities of an ADU being sold as a separate condo. I don't know the facts, but would appreciate a response to that. >> So, Commissioner, that is well outside
the jurisdiction of this port. So, uh, it's it's really nothing that will help us determine whether or not to evaluate this application. >> Okay. >> The municipal land use law, I just want
to add, explicitly prohibits um, discriminating against applications on the basis of ownership status as well, whether it's rental, condo, co-op, etc. Um, that is an explicit clause. Um I I
don't have the exact number of the clause in the head memories, but it's an explicit clause in the MLUL. Um the document that governs all land use proceedings in the state and which all licensed professional planners have to
take a knowledge exam on in order to uh attain and maintain our license. >> If there's no other port um comments, um Matt, can we wrap up this? >> Um certainly. Um, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, and, uh, thank you members of
the public for showing up. Um, it's part of the process and it's always nice to see civic engagement. Um just in response to a few points um just brought up. Um so regarding minor versus
major site plan thresholds um it is currently the division of planning policy that we count the square footage within primary structures for the purposes of determining of that threshold. Um Mr. Cone did point out that the total square footage of the
project exceeds 10,000 square feet, but that includes square footage within the accessory structure. Um the primary structure on its own is below 10,000 square ft. Therefore, it is a minor site plan for jurisdiction. Um and that is a consistent divisional policy. Um as
we've adjudicated classifying applications. Um so just to I guess outline a little bit of history after um we received that memo for forestry um you know planning
staff engaged in meetings with the developer where we looked at what the potential impacts would be and looked at potential options to reduce those impacts um in the types of light touch ways that could you know would not substantially impact the applicant's own
development rights. Um, you know, aside from a few items such as, um, you know, removing the separate utility trench that Mr. Weine brought up, there weren't really many. Um the nature of the site and its configuration made it that
the to build the structure to a structure to the general specifications of the zone plan um that meets the density standards, bulk standards, design standards, etc. as enumerated in our
code. um really essentially required um construction on parts of the site that would be in the potential root zone of the tree. Um you know um this application isn't requesting any
variances. Um you know as such planning staff um is treating this as as of right development. Um it's my professional recommendation um that
you know that tree removal you know development is a valid reason for tree removal and this according to our chapter 321 and therefore um you know if there was a variance this would maybe be a different story but there isn't it's an as of
right project um you know there's the the thresholds and the standards are very different from as of right projects it conforms with their zoning. Um, with that being said, um, staff recommends
um, approval um, according to the conditions laid out in the revised version of the memo dated April 28th, 2026. Um, and in addition to those six staff recommending conditions, um, several
conditions were, um, requested by the board. And I just want to enumerate those before, um, the applicant, um, consents to them, that we're relocating where the utilities are under the building. Um, that the applicant will
engage with an arborist to protect critical roots during the construction process. um that we're making design changes from vinyl to hardy plank for the non- primary facades >> and stucco the stucco >> and stucco >> turning into hardy as well.
>> Yes. All the non non- primary facads. Um the um honestly and I'm I miss Nixon. I actually like this recommendation. It's going to be one of my standard form conditions going forward. The um the adequate maintenance of the green roof in perpetuity. Um, so
>> sorry, Cynthia Scott. I don't know where it's late. >> Miss Scott, my apologies. Um, but honestly, you bring up a good point about ensuring the adequate maintenance of those green roofs going forward. And um, that's something as a prof as a professional I'm going to add to all my
recommended conditions going forward. Um and um in regards to chairman Ammeritus Langston's recommendation um Commissioner Langston's recommendation um the provision of a fire hose
connection to the back um of a specification of um that the uh fire subcode professional deems appropriate. Um, and with that, um, staff recommends approval with conditions. >> Thank you, Matt. I would like to entertain a motion.
>> Um, can I can I ask one more question? Is that okay? Sorry. Um, earlier you expressed, um, potential um being potentially amenable to exploring whether a second street would be feasible. I understand it may not be
feasible. Um, but is that, you know, given that we just added a whole bunch of other conditions, is that is exploring that something you would still be amenable to? >> Yes, we would. And and I didn't want to interrupt, but there was also one more um condition that I had noted as well.
And that was uh Miss Barnaby's recommendation and if she could send us her her roof irrigation plan um which she did at her house. It's something we're we're open to exploring um for this particular installation as well. I you know without seeing it we can't commit but we'll explore that as well.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Great. >> Okay. So so and to uh to the council person's recommendation of if we add a second street tree if it's if it's feasible. If it's not uh Mr. Patel just informed me we can add another tree to
the rear yard as well. Um so if for whatever reason we can't get that second tree in the front we will add one to the back. >> Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to make a motion to approve case P2025-000091 as presented this evening with all
recommendations from the staff and conditions. Second. >> Uh, Vice Chair Wick, >> I. >> Um, Commissioner Langston. >> I, >> Commissioner Gonzalez. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Barnaby.
>> I, >> Commissioner Kaplan, >> I, >> Commissioner Councilwoman Little. Um, I want to thank everyone for their engagement tonight and I want to um thank council for being so willing to
incorporate so many suggestions. Um, you know, I definitely empathize with the concerns about the silver maple. If this were my yard, I would not want the silver maple to be damaged either. Um but I also want to take very seriously
what our chairman Emeritus said um in his departure speech and I want to thank both our both our emmeriti um for your years of service even though I didn't get to overlap with you very much. Um, but I, you know, I think it's it's very
important. You know, I I I took what you said to heart about making sure that how we vote is lawful and that we don't contradict legal advice and that it is not our role to
to to decide to vote based on whether or not we like a project. It's our role to call the balls and strikes. Um, so I vote I. Thank you. >> And Sher Gangadan. >> Yeah, I want just want to thank the public for coming out this evening and addressing your concerns. And I know the
um developer and the attorney um take that into consideration as well and we'll work with you as as the project goes along. This is a rightway project and there is no variances requested. And so based upon the um master plan, my
vote is I. >> Motion carries. All in favor. >> Thank you everybody. Appreciate the time. >> Resolutions. >> Do I just straight up read these like Oh, >> um resolutions um P2025-0163. Applicant 155 Newark AB LLC. Address 155
Newark Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey block 11405, lot 6. Decided on Tuesday, April 14th, 2026. Memorialized on Tuesday, May 12th, 2026. Application for site plan amendment. Case number P2026-0046
decided April 28th, 2026. Memorialized May 12th, 2026. application for extension of preliminary and final major site plan approval with C variance deviation. >> Excuse me everybody. We do have some other things that we have if we could vacate the room. Thank you. >> Case number P2025-0227
that was at the end. Liberty Harbor Holding LLC for amended preliminary and final major site plan approval. 39 Regent Street, Jersey City, New Jersey, block 14001. P2025-008
applicant 68 W Wayne Reality LLC address 68 Wayne Street, Jersey City, New Jersey. Block 12901. Lot 29 decided on Tuesday, April 14th, 2026. Memorialized on Tuesday, May 12th, 2026. Application for minor site plan approval. I'm doing
this correctly. Correct. Okay, cool. P205-00009. Applicant 68 Wayne Reality LLC. Address 66 Wayne Street, Jersey City, New Jersey. Block 12901, lot 28. Decided on Tuesday, April 14th, 2026. Memorialized
on Tuesday, May 12th, 2026. Application for minor site plan approval. Applicant two 229 New York LLC. Property 229 New York Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey block 3805, lat 7 for minor
subdivision case number P2025-0128. He hearing date, April 28th, 2026. Result approval. Applicant 66 61 Prospect LLC property 61 Prospect Street, Jersey City, New Jersey, block 5802, lot 6 for minor subdivision case
number P2025-0131. Hearing date, April 28th, 2026. Result approval. Applicant 214-216 Palside AB LLC for one-year extension for a preliminary and final major site plan with deviations 216 Paliside Avenue, block 6001,
lot 8, Jersey City, New Jersey. Case number is P2026-0044. in the matter of John Durma. Application number P21-060, memorialized September 20th, 2022. Abandon abandonment of approval.
>> Um resolution the city of New Jersey City Planning Board granting an extension of time to perfect pro previously approved preliminary and final major site plan for 30 and 40 Newport Parkway 7302, lot 60.
Second. >> Roll call. >> Roll call, please. >> Vice Chair Wick. >> Oh, I >> Commissioner Langston. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Gonzalez. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Council Person Little. >> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan. >> I.
>> Commissioner Barnaby. >> I. >> And Chair Gongan. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> I make the motion to adjurnn. Thank you. >> What do I do? Second that. Yes, I'll second that.
>> Are we journed, Madam Chair? >> We are certainly >> You made it 11:00. >> I can't believe you broke the rule. >> The first night you broke my 10:30 rule
with all of us together. What I was saying, >> Madam Chair, I think it'd be appropriate if you make a rule that all chairman ameritus get three and a half minutes to speak at future planning. Very nice.
>> Everybody's looking everybody eyes. >> Yeah, we're going to have to pinch the bottle. >> Oh my god, this really came up. >> Great job. >> No, thank you guys for stepping up.
>> It'll be a good >> eight years. Mr. Many other class members will be mysteriously absent. >> Oh, sorry. Class three. >> Many class members will be absent from
or or vote no once they know it won't change the outcome.