Today Today is Tuesday, June 16, 2026 with a start time of 5:39. I would like to move on to pledge of the allegiance. Can we all stand? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America to the republic for its one nation under God indivisible and justice for all. >> Thank you. Ben Sunshine announcement.
>> Uh good afternoon commissioners. Today is Tuesday, June 16th. This is a special meeting of the Jersey City Planning Board with a scheduled start time of 5:30 p.m. Uh, in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, notice of this meeting has been posted with the city
clerk and the city bulletin uh and city website on June 12th of this year. Uh, and this meeting was also posted on the Jersey City Division of City Planning web page. and all distribution materials were made available to the board uh that
were made available to the board were published and made available to the public. >> Thank you. Can we have roll call? >> Vice Chair Wick >> here. >> Commissioner Stamato >> here. >> Commissioner Patel >> here.
>> Commissioner Kaplan >> here. >> Uh Commissioner Council person Little >> here. Uh and Madame Chair Gongadan >> here. >> All right. We have six commissioners in attendance. We have a quorum.
>> Thank you. Can we swear in the staff, please? >> I see Ben, Sophia, Matt. You guys swear any testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Ben, do you have any correspondence?
>> We have no correspondence for this meeting, actually. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay, that's great. So, at this time, I would like to go on to um old business. I would like to call in case P206-000072. It's a site plan. >> Actually, Madam Chair, could I interrupt you for one moment? I do see that a
couple commissioners are in the uh in the attendees audience so I can promote them to be panelists right now. >> Okay. >> For you. >> All right. So, I'm promoting Chris Capers to be a panelist.
And then, okay. And I uh do not see uh Commissioner Conway. Conway. There's a hand up. They they moved the hands up to the top of the list. >> I believe that is council for opposition
counsel for one of the cases tonight. Yeah, I I don't see the other commissioner in attendance. So, I believe this is uh the commissioner is in attendance. >> The record note that Commissioner Chris
Capers is now also in attendance. >> Commissioner Chris Capers, if you don't mind, turn on your camera. Thank you. We would like to welcome our newest member, um, Chris Capers. You had the opportunity to be sworn in prior to
or you will be having that done right now. >> Um, I haven't been sworn in as of yet. No. >> Okay. Thank you, Santa. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening, Commissioner. Nice to meet you. uh I can
administer the oath to you. So we can do that right now if you just tell me do you swear or affirm and then I'll administer the oath to you. >> Swear. >> Okay. So if you could raise your right
hand and repeat after me. I state your name. I, Chris Capers, >> do solemnly swear >> do solemnly swear >> that I'll support the Constitution of the United States >> that I'll support the Constitution of
the United States. >> and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey. >> and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey. >> And I will bear true faith and allegiance to Same. >> And I will bear true faith and allegiance to Shane. and to the
governments established in the United States. >> And to the governments established in the United States. and this state >> and this state >> under the authority of the people >> under the authority of the people. >> That I will faithfully
>> That I will faithfully >> impartially >> and partially >> and justly >> and justly >> perform all the duties of planning board commissioner >> perform all duties of planning board commissioner
>> of the city of Jersey City. of the city of Jersey City. >> according to the best of my ability. >> according to the best of my ability. >> So help me God. >> So help me God. >> Congratulations, sir. >> Congratulations and welcome to the team.
>> Thank you. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you. >> Sorry it happened on a Zoom meeting. >> So at this time I would like to I'm I'm sorry. I was just going to ask madam chair if we should save a speech for the next in person. >> Yes, we can. Yes.
>> At this time I would like to call in case B206-000072 which is a site plan extension. Property address is 169 Culver Avenue. Um the attorney is Veronica Shimini. Can we um
promote her please? >> She is now a panelist. Okay. Hi, >> good evening. >> Good evening, Madam Chair. Good evening, commissioners, council. Veronica from the law firm of Connell Foley on behalf of the applicant um LLCK Investment
Ventures LLC. Uh we are here for an extension request of final site plan approval which we obtained under case number um P22-082. Uh we obtained approval back in 2023. We obtained a memorializing resolution with
a date of February 7th, 2023. Um we're now here for a two-year extension request. Um I understand that the the previous composition of this board was not in the the practice of granting extensions beyond one year. Usually, uh, the reason for the 2-year request is
that if approved, a one-year extension would only bring us to February of this year, 2026. So, hence, we're requesting a 2-year extension, which if approved would take us to February 7th of 2027. Uh, the basis for our request this
evening is that the um applicant entity was made up of a number of family members, three of whom uh passed away in consecutive order over the past year. those three brothers were in charge of the construction and development of this project. So, the remaining family member
has obviously experienced some significant delays in in getting this project over the finish line. Um, so with that, that really concludes my testimony for the basis of this request, but I'm open to any questions from the board. >> Um, so you're requesting a two years
extension. >> Yes. And that extension will will end at what what uh period time? >> February 7th, 2027. >> February 7th. Okay. >> Any comments?
>> Mr. Chair, we do have to make sure. Is it eligible for more than a one-year extension? council. I understand the reasoning and I understand the request, but under the subsection of the statute, is it
eligible? I don't recall specifically the size of the project. >> Um, I believe that this was this was a small project. This wasn't one of the ones requested under the subsection that had to do with the unit size. it was under the subsection of the MLUL that
allows those three um extensions before you get into um but I can pull up that section of the statute. I don't have that quite in front of me. Oh, I believe I apologize. It's 40 col55D-52 C where the extension uh request can be
made after the initial 2-year period. >> Right. But it can only go you can get three one-year extensions. So under subsection E of the statute, if I'm not mistaken, it allows you to get
and give us the discretion. So, Madame Chair, while I understand uh we're going retroactive to February and we're looking to then go to February of 28,
>> 27 >> 27 >> 27 >> but that would be one year from February of 26 >> over >> the initial period. would have expired in 2025.
So a one year would only bring us to February of this year, which is why I made the request for for the two-year to 2027. I apologize. >> So we're going retro a year and a half. Really? >> Yes, that's the request.
>> So Madame Chair, I think that that's acceptable. >> Okay. Thank you. any reason why we waited this long to file for the extension? >> The client came to us um this spring and that's when we were informed about the
passing of the family members and that's when he had realized the the lapsing of his protection. So when I had heard from him in um April, that was when I submitted my request as quickly as I was informed of the delays. >> Okay, understandable. Any comments from
the board? >> I have no comments. >> No. Okay, I would like to open for the public. Is there anyone from the public to comment on this? Um 169 Culver Avenue. >> There is one hand raised for uh Ed
Wikner. Uh the hand has been raised for a little bit before this started. So I can promote to a panelist, but if that's uh not the case that this hand is for kind of just stalling to see if the hand is dropped. Okay, I'm going to promote them to a panelist.
Okay. >> All right. Uh they are a panelist. And that if you're there and you can turn your video on and your audio might just not be there. Should I >> Are you there, sir?
Okay, Ben, go ahead and >> Is there anyone else from the public? >> Then I would like to entertain a motion. >> No one else from the public that I see. I would like to make a motion to close the public portion.
>> Uh there was uh just a a hand the hands down. Never mind. >> Thank you. >> And Ben, just move this gentleman back to the Okay, they are back to being an attendee. >> Yes,
>> um this is Cam. Who's fitting? Who's filling in for Cam? Ben, are you? >> You're muted. >> Thank you. Uh yes, I am filling in for Cam. Uh staff recommends approval
provided the uh applicant agree to the conditions from the original case. Case number P20-022. >> Yes, we agree to the underlying conditions. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> I'd like to entertain a motion. >> I'd like to make a motion to approve
case P206-000072 as presented to the board this evening with all staff recommendations and original. >> Second it. >> All right. Uh, Vice Chair Wick, >> I. >> Commissioner Stamato, >> I. >> Commissioner Patel,
>> I. Commissioner Kaplan. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Council person Little. >> Uh, Commissioner Capers. >> I. >> Uh, and Madame Chair Gangaden. >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor.
>> Thank you all very much. Have a good night. >> You too. Thank you. >> I'd like to call in KP2026-000085. It's a site plan extension. Address is 1A M Martin Luther King Drive. The attorney is Benjamin Wine. Can we
promote Benjamin Wine, please? Okay. I just promoted as Adam Lazeros from Ben Wines's firm. >> Can everyone hear me? >> Hi. Can anybody hear me? Just want to make sure my camera is working. >> Yes, we can hear you. >> Yes, we can. You're a little quiet, but
yes, we can hear you. >> I'll give a little more oomph to it. >> Uh, Adam Lazarus of Prime to Bella Melli appearing on behalf of the applicant that is Makadoo Plaza LLC and we are here seeking our third extension. Uh, the board may recall that we were before
you back in 2023 for our first two extension requests. At the time this property was under was under litigation regarding the approval and that is finally going to be resolved hopefully in the next two weeks which is why we're seeking our third and final
extension. We do believe we'll be putting a shovel in the ground in the next 3 months or so. But out of abundance of caution both in terms of whether or not the litigation tolls the appeals or you know making sure we can make that timeline we want to ask for that third extension to bring us to
September of 2026. The extension will expire. I'm sorry. I didn't just didn't hear you. >> Yes. The extension would would bring us to September of 2026. >> 2026. >> Yes. So, just a few more months. >> And they will be coming back to the board again.
>> No. Presumably, we'll be putting a shovel in the ground to start construction within the next few weeks. This is just an abundance of caution. We're asking for this third extension. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, for the record, Commissioner Barnaby just joined us.
>> Thank you. >> Any board comments? >> No, >> Madam Chair. I just curious if there was a basis for the delay or just just that it's going to be constructed soon. >> Yeah, there was litigation encumbering
the property before we could start construction. That has finally been resolved. So, now we can actually move forward with the construction. >> Thank you. Is there any other board comments? No. I'll open up for the public. Is there
anyone from the public to comment on 1A Martin Luther King Drive? >> I do not see any hands raised for this case. >> See from the public. I'd like to close the public portion. Second. >> Do we have a
Ben, Ben, you're you're on this one as well. >> Yes. Staff recommends approval provided uh the applicant agree to the conditions from the original approval P21-00003. >> Yes. Applicant agrees to comply with all previous conditions.
>> Great. Staff, >> I entertain a motion. I'd like to make a motion to approve case P2026-000085 as presented to the board with all original staff recommendations and conditions. >> Second. >> All right. Uh Vice Chair Wick
>> I. >> Commissioner Stamado >> I. >> Commissioner Patel >> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan >> I. >> Uh Commissioner Council person Little. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Cap uh Capers >> I. and Madam Turangadan.
>> I right motion carries. All >> very much. Have a good night everyone. >> Thank you. >> So at this time our special meeting really was for case 2024-01H2 which is the it's a preliminary and
final major site plan and interim use. applicant is PY Homes of New Jersey Limited Partnership. Address is 200 Chapel Avenue. Um >> Madame Chair, uh with great regret, I
have to recuse myself um in reference to this matter. >> Thank you so much for attending and have a great night. >> Not a problem. >> Thank you. Um, this matter was heard
um and testimony was taken and we were at the point of public comment. It was heard on July 15th, 2025, August 12th, 2025, September 9, 2025, October 28, 2025,
April 28, 2026, May 26, 2026. Um, I know we have here our new commissioner, um, Chris Caper. Were you able to, um, certify the transcripts and
or watch the videos for all these meetings? >> So, I'll be honest with you, I didn't watch everything. I was in the in the midst of looking at the uh, meeting that was two weeks ago, and I only got about an hour into,
you know, the meeting. So, I'm not too familiar with really what was going on. I know it was someone was speaking about a net, a water net and the easement and that some people submitted some information between the two attorneys
and that's where I left off. So, I was >> Yeah. >> Okay. Santo, your legal advice. So, Madame Chair, obviously uh if it is that the matter gets called for a vote this evening, uh the commissioner would be
ineligible to vote. However, his participation is welcome. I think obviously he should stay and listen and and hear the case, but uh he's not eligible to vote since he's unable to certify that he has either read or
watched all of the numerous hearings. and I don't fault him for that. There's been a lot going on over a long period of time. So, sorry, thank you for your cander and uh Madame Chair, I think that uh if it happens that unfortunately
we don't finish this evening and he has 15 or so hours of his life to try to catch up, then he'd be eligible when we do resume. But as of now, uh, he is going to be ineligible. But
that's where we are. So, everybody else is up to speed, has certified, has been participating, and and is fully caught up. So, um, by my count, we're going to have six commissioners eligible to vote,
and that's sufficient for our purposes. >> Thank you. Can we promote um Jim McCann and his team? >> All right. I just promoted Jim McCann >> and Ben, if we could promote the other
councils as well. Let's at least get everybody up on the uh the screen, the the attorney, so we can go over the the ground rules for tonight. >> Sure. I just promoted Cynthia Hajianis
and then uh the other attorney was Martin Calibar. Was that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And I just promoted him to be a panelist as well. >> There may also be another attorney. >> Madam Chair, I see two other hands
raised. >> Can we check if uh Mr. Rodriguez and I also see Rebecca Mariello from Conno Foley. Should we just check to make sure?
>> Mr. McCann, do we need Rebecca? >> So, yes, it might be helpful during the course of the uh of the evening to promote Rebecca. >> Okay, I've promoted Rebecca. now. >> Let the record show that Commissioner
Barnaby has joined the meeting. >> And that hurt. Do we need Rebecca? >> I'm going to start demoting people so I don't have all these tiles on my screen in a second.
I'm gonna start with Jim. Rebecca >> and William Rodriguez. Um he was here at the last meeting for this and he >> Yes. Okay, I'll promote him to be a panelist as well. >> Yeah. See, now I'm two and a half screens here.
>> Madam Chair, I believe there's one other person with their hand raised. Not sure their status. >> I take that back. Okay, Madam Chair, >> you have some Yes, you have some ground rules right now that we are going to um lay out.
>> Yes, but let's call for appearances first starting with Mr. McCann and then we can go around uh the screen. >> Hi. Uh good evening everybody. Um my name is James McCann from the law firm
of Connell Foley in Jersey City. I am here appearing on behalf of PY Homes of New Jersey, the applicant in uh case number P2024-0229. Um, council, are we announcing the master plan amendment case at the same
time? >> We are. So I'm also appearing then on case P 024-0182 um which is the master plan amendment part of this case item 11 on the agenda
>> and your co-consel. >> Good afternoon Rebecca Marello of Connell Foley. on here as co-consel on behalf of the applicant for both cases. >> Thank you, >> Miss Hajianis.
>> Good evening, madame chair and planning board commissioners. This is Cynthia Hajianis. I'm appearing on behalf of Port Liberte Condominium Association number one. Thank you. >> Good evening, Madame Chair, commissioners. Martin Cabalar from
Becker NEPC on behalf of Port Liberte Homeowners Association, Inc. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Rodriguez. >> We don't hear you, Mr. Rodriguez. >> Hear you,
>> Mr. Rodriguez. We do not hear you and you do not appear to be muted, but having an audio problem, I guess. Now it says you're muted. Go ahead. >> So, we still can't hear you. >> Can you hear us, Mr. Rodriguez? Give me
a thumbs up if you can hear me. Okay. So, I guess it's your microphone, not your >> Mr. Rodriguez, if you utilize in the audio button at the bottom left, you see there's a little arrow. If you click that arrow and you'll see options for
select a microphone. It might just mean that the mic you have to select the microphone on your system to be the one Zoom is recognizing. >> I believe another alternative is to use your phone to call in.
So, Madame Chair, while Mr. Rodriguez tries to uh get connected here, we can go over where we are and what the parameters and expectation and do some housekeeping. So, first order of business, Madame Chair, is this
is a special meeting. We've moved from live meetings to the Zoom platform and that required Mr. McCann to renotice for the application. I am in receipt of the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to both the site
plan application as well as the Port Liberte redevelopment plan master plan amendment application. And >> madame chair I am showing and Mike if you can verify this would be
helpful. I was up to the last exhibit being marked as A31. So if that is accurate we are up to A32. >> That's correct. >> That's correct. So A32
is going to be the notice package, affidavit of service, proof of mailing for both applications for the special meeting June 16, 2026. That's A32. >> Thank you, consensus.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam chair, with respect to where we left off and what my notes indicate, my notes indicate that uh on the site plan application, the applicant had provided its case and chief. The
interested parties through council had provided all of their uh witnesses. Mr. McCann had reserved as to a particular witness and then we opened public. We heard from several members of
the public and we would be continuing with uh the public this evening. If Mr. McCain wishes to cross-examine the witness that he reserved on, Mr. McCann will be provided that opportunity. And
then of course uh the way we're going to proceed is we're going to then move into the Port Liberte master plan amendment application. Mr. McCann will give a
presentation on that. uh council for all interested parties will have the ability to challenge whatever that testimony is, present their testimony regarding that
and then at the end of the cases we will have to open for public again only as to that master plan amendment. Then we will hear the uh staff comments
on both the site plan and the master plan. Then we will provide the interested parties uh objectors the opportunity to give a closing statement that I do ask everybody try to keep brief. Then we will give Mr. McCann the
opportunity to make his closing statement and then we will vote on these individually. uh at that point in time if we get to it and hopefully before the 9:00 game time.
>> Thank you. >> I see in our midst um Commissioner Conaway was promoted. Commissioner Conway. >> Hello. Hey, how you doing? >> Good. Welcome. Um, just a quick
>> just a quick note. Were you sworn in prior to? >> No, I have not been sworn in yet. They told me I could get sworn in at the meeting if I'm not mistaken. >> You sure can, Commissioner. Commissioner, >> I suspect that you're parked legally
somewhere in the city. >> Correct. >> Sitting in your car. >> Uh, nice to meet you, Commissioner. My name is Santo Ory. I am the attorney to the board. Uh I can swear you in. In order to do that, I do need to know if you
swear or affirm whenever administered an oath. >> Absolutely. Not a problem. >> Do you swear or do you affirm? Just so I don't offend anybody. >> Uh I swear. >> Okay. So then we can swear you in, sir.
Uh I state your name. Samuel Conaway III. >> Do solemnly swear >> Do solemnly swear >> that I will support the Constitution of the United States >> that I will support the Constitution of United States.
>> the Constitution of the State of New Jersey. >> The Constitution of the State of New Jersey. >> And that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Sain. >> And that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Sain. and to the
governments established in the United States. >> And to the governments established in the United States >> and in this state >> and in this state >> under the authority of the people >> under the authority of the people. and that I will faithfully
>> and that I will faithfully >> impartially >> impartially >> and justly >> and justly >> perform all the duties >> perform all the duties >> of the office of commissioner of the planning board
>> of the office of the commissioner of the planning board >> of the city of Jersey City >> for the city of Jersey City >> according to the best of my abilities >> according to the best of my abilities So help me God. >> So help me God. >> Congratulations.
>> Congratulations. >> Thank you so much. I really appreciate this opportunity >> and welcome to the team. >> Thank you. >> Congratulations. So to bring you up to speed, I just wanted to um certify if you can certify
that you have read the transcript or watch the video on this case which is P2024-0182 and P2024-229 address the um 200 Chapel Avenue, PY Homes of New Jersey.
So, I did not review all the files regarding these cases. They were extremely long. So, I have been trying to get through it, but >> can you hear me? I'm sorry. >> Yes. >> Oh, yeah. So, yes, I have not reviewed all files uh including those like cases
at the moment. >> Okay. Your cander. >> Uh thank you for your cander and your honesty. I agree. It's been very voluminous. I did not anticipate that we would have had the opportunity to do
that. Uh so Madame Chair, as I had indicated with Commissioner Capers as well, obviously uh Commissioner Conway will be ineligible to vote should this matter be voted on this evening should the matter carry over to a subsequent
meeting. uh and they are able to watch andor read the 15 plus hours of testimony and all the good stuff up on the portal and now including exhibit A32 they would be eligible to uh to vote at
that time but of course great learning experience to to see what we do and how we do it. So uh it is not a loss for them to to participate. They can ask questions. They are just ineligible for both.
>> Thank you, Santo. So, we'll move on. Um, if I may, um, Mr. Rodriguez, if you want to put your, um, you want to be on the record. >> Um, Madame Chair, it looks like Mr. Rodriguez may have a second call-in account for his audio that needs to be
promoted. >> Okay. Um um Mr. Rodriguez. >> Yes. Can you hear me now? >> Yes. >> All right. Excellent. Uh good evening. I'm sorry for the technical difficulties. William Rodriguez from
Griffin Alexander appearing on behalf of the Port Liberte Condominium Association number three. >> Thank you. So, Madame Chair, at this point, uh,
Mr. McCann, obviously, you heard all of my comments. Is there do you need to address any of them? Is there anything that that you need to do?
>> Uh, I do not believe so. I thought we were going to start out by continuing with public comment. >> Okay, I agree. >> So, >> Madame Chair, I think that we can just
start queuing people up and I think that we just give everybody a reminder. If you were one of the individuals that was able to make your comments live and in person at the last hearing, you will not be afforded that opportunity again at
this juncture. If you are not one of those individuals and you wish to be heard, we will recognize you in an orderly fashion. You are limited to three minutes. At the three minute mark, your microphone will be muted and you will be sent back down into the
participant pool or I guess the observer pool, whatever we call it. And then uh I ask that if you have specific questions, you get them all out there, which has always been our practice, and we will
then attempt to answer whatever questions we can or feel and deem worthy of a question. I just ask all the board members not to engage in back and forth with any member of the public. Let's get
them sworn, get their comments out. If they have questions, let's list the questions and then get the right answer from the right individuals. Uh so, Madame Chair, back to you. >> Thank you, Santos. So, at the last
meeting, which was on May 26, we um had open for public comments and there were six member of the public who spoke. And so we will continue to number seven. So
anyone from the public on KPB 2024-0182, Ben will promote you. I am promoting Michelle Bird to be a panelist. >> All right. Michelle is a panelist. >> Hi Michelle. I will swear you in before you speak. If you could raise your right
hand. You swear any testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes. >> And for the record, can you state spell your name and give us your home address, please? >> Uh, I am Michelle Bird. I am a um owner of 15 Freedom Way in Jersey City, New
Jersey. >> Thank you. >> Miss Bird, you have three minutes. >> Thank you to the planning board for listening to my testimony. Um, our family is opposed to PTE's development plans as currently presented for uh, one
primary reason and that is safety. I'm sure that some of you have older parents that you worry about. Uh, my mother is a full full of life independent 83year-old. She is able-bodied. But my question is, what happens to her and her
thousands of neighbors if there is an emergency um in this little community where there is only one lane in and out? What if there is a need for an immediate evacuation? How would emergency vehicles make their way through with only one lane in and out? How will I reach her to
get her out? This keeps me up at night every night. It is my sole concern. It's a concern of my sisters as well. Permitting PTE to increase the density of this community, both people and vehicles without a viable and safe new
path that increases access for emergency preparedness is irresponsible and a disaster in the making. The master plan for Port Liberte was conceived at a time prior to the modern erys supertorrms, flash floods, fires, and other human-caused disasters we experience all
too often. Port Liberte's already taxed infrastructure requires accommodation for significantly stronger emergency preparedness by PY in order for our family to view their development plans as viable from a safety perspective.
That is my uh testimony. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. I am now promoting the American Society of Jewelry. I can't quite read the last part. Uh jewelry historians to be a panelist. They are a panelist now.
>> I'm so sorry. The panelist is not the American Society of Jewelry Historians. My name is Diana Singer. >> Hi Diana. I just need to swear in before you speak. If you could turn your video on please. >> Yes. Got it. >> Great. I see you and I hear you. I'll swear you if you could raise your right hand. >> Thank you so much.
>> Do you swear any testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Absolutely. >> For the record, can you state and spell your name one more time and then give us your please? >> Diana Singer, S I N Ger. I reside at 30 Freedom Way in Port Liberte, Jersey City. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. You have three minutes.
>> Thank you so much. Uh first of all, I have been coming here for the past year and like all of you on the panel, we have been coming here in the evening after a long day at work. So I want to thank everybody on the planning board for their attention to detail and their time and efforts in making Jersey City
the best it can possibly be. Um I have listened with interest to all the expert witnesses presenting evidence on Py's behalf. With all due respect to these people, I doubt doubt that they're experts in their respective fields. However, one thing they are not experts
at is living at Port Liberte 247. I and everybody else testifying tonight are experts in this field. So, we are not people paid to offer an opinion based on cursory evidence and actuarial information from afar and our observations differ significantly from
theirs. The traffic expert said that there would be no material impact on traffic flow with the addition of the proposed py community. Let me ask you all from a logical standpoint. If there is one single road in and out of an area with no room for any additional vehicles
within each road, how is the addition of 416 extra cars not going to cause problems? One road in and out for the 800 plus homes in Port Liberte plus the 400 odd apartments in the Oliver and now the proposed 400 plus for PY. Seriously,
if there is a large truck or a parked car just standing there, there is no way to safely pass. And this is something we have been dealing with on a daily basis since the building of the Oliver construction. Weather patterns have changed over the past years and we have all experienced this. Damage sustained
during Sandy was significant. The proposed plan to subvert water sounds woefully inadequate and we are in a culde-sac. We will be trapped. It is indefensible for the one of the largest developers in the United States of America to be so callous about the
safety needs of the adjacent community. Is that the American way? I would certainly hope not. As to the expired master plan, have you changed in the past 41 years? I know I have and I suspect that this community has too. Our
current mayor Solomon has offered expert opinion and bill o day as well that the plan is expired and needs to be re-evaluated by another level of government before any further development occurs. Mr. PY, your job is to develop property, sell it, and then move on. That's what you do. I get it. I
understand business. I respect that. Mr. McCann, you'll do your job as hired by PY Brothers and you will collect your fee and you'll move on to the next client. We in Port Lib will be forced to live with these flawed plans and the ramifications that jeopardize our safety
and well-being. Any future development by PY or any developer who ultimately buys the land needs to be planned with respect for everyone's safety and well-being. Is this a lot to ask from a successful developer? I do not think so. I urge the planning board to respect the
expiration date of the original master plan and send this back to the council for re-evaluation. considering our community. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> All right. I am promoting Ed Wagner to
be a panelist. All right. Head is a pan. >> Good evening. >> Ned, if you could turn your video on. On mute. Ed Waggner, I'm not seeing it. >> All right, Ben, let's >> let's go to the next person.
>> Okay. Uh I will promote uh David Rosenberg to be a panelist. >> Hi David, I can see you. And let's see if I can hear you. >> Hi Hi, I'll swear you in. Okay. >> Yep. If >> you could raise your right hand. Do you swear any testimony you give tonight is
going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> And for the record, can you state your name and give us your home address, please? >> David Rosenberg. David D- A V. Rosenberg. R O S E N B R G. And I live at 18 Half Moon Isle, Jersey City, New Jersey.
>> Thank you. >> Mr. Rosenberg, you have three minutes. >> Okay. So I've lived here since 2002, so about 24 years. And um right now, so I'm very familiar obviously with the roads, three kids, lots of moving back and
forth. And I could say that since the Oliver moved what in that area was essentially like uh one and a half lanes, arguably two lanes going both ways. Now it's one lane. There's cars parked, so there's one lane. About 30%
of the time with like taking kids to like dance practice and school and all this stuff. 30% of the time there's someone double parked. So it basically two lanes for both ways goes to one lane about 30 possibly more% of the time.
This is very unsafe and it's also a complete nuisance. So it's bad now. It's horrible now. It's so bad. We My family talks about moving. This is just you can't live here. Like someone said, it's a culde-sac. So going one having one
lane that's blocked off. So yes, if there's an emergency, huge problem. But just every day moving back and forth. 30% of the time one of the lanes is blocked. So then you either have to wait for a truck or a car that's double parked or you have to go out into the
other lane with oncoming traffic and get around. So this does not work. There should be no more construction. It's completely irresponsible the way this is designed. There should be zero more construction. I highly encourage everyone not to vote to allow any more
construction here. There are too many people, too many cars. And the fact is there's always someone, not always, but 30% of the time someone's double parked. This does not work. Please do not let this go forward. quality of life is greatly reduced and safety is greatly uh
reduced. It is not safe in this situation. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker >> uh I am promoting David Prozant to be a panelist.
All right. And David is a panelist now. >> Good evening, David. >> And David, if you could turn your video on and unmute. >> How about now? >> I see you and I hear you. Perfect. I'll swear you in. Do you swear any testimony you give tonight is going to be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Absolutely. For the record, can you state and spell your name and give us your home address, please? >> David, first name D- A V I D, last name Presant. P is in Peter, R E Z A N T. I live at 208 Sheerwater West, unit 16.
>> Thank you. >> David, you have three minutes. >> I have lived here since 1996. I lived here during 911. I lived here during Hurricane Sandy. I lived in several different places in Port Levitate. Now
I'm in 208. Before I was in 202. I was also prior to that in 9 half moon ale. So I know every area of Port Liberty. I know exactly what happened on 911. I know exactly what happened on Hurricane Sandy. Although I am uh testifying as a
resident. I actually am a world's expert in disaster management. I run the World Trade Center Health Program for the New York City Fire Department. I can tell you that it's not just a matter of convenience. It's a matter of safety. During any disaster that would happen
during Hurricane Sandy, every car had to move out. Cars that didn't were destroyed. Families were impacted. Luckily, there were no deaths. All right. The same thing would happen today, even worse, because there are now 400 additional people living there in
the Oliver Apartments. And soon, if this was approved, another 400. It's not just a one lane in one lane out culde-sac. There's absolutely no other way to get out, right? And when you meet the the
the U merger of Chapel with Caven, there's no left lane special or no right lane special. It still remains just one lane in, one lane out. This is a complete disaster waiting to happen. Furthermore, this lack of infrastructure
both both in terms of the lanes, water, electricity, etc. When you look at any development 10 or 20 years later, who is paying for these problems? It's no longer the developer. It's actually the taxpayers of Jersey City or any other
development. You can see that in newspaper clippings all over the United States. Don't fall into that trap. This is a disaster. This is a safety problem. This is a convenience problem. And this is a impact on the taxpayers of every
person in Jersey City 10 years from now when these things have to be fixed. All right. Hurricane Sandy taught us a lesson. We need to learn from that lesson. Thank you very much. >> Thank you.
Our next speaker. >> All right. I am promoting Michaela Ala to be a panelist. And Michaela is now a panelist. >> Hi Michaela, I can see you. >> Hi. Um, >> I can hear you. Just hang on one moment. I need to swear you in. Okay, if you could raise your hand.
>> You swear any testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. And could you state us by your name and give us your home address, please? >> I'm um Michaela Almeida. I live at 101 Sheerwater Court, apartment 41. I'm also with Ed Wigner that couldn't get on. And
after me, I'm hoping he can go on my my Zoom camera so that he can say his speech after. >> Fine by me. >> Okay. >> Miss Almeida, you have three minutes. >> Thank you. Good evening. My name is Michaela Almeida. Um, I have lived here
for about 6 years and I'm speaking tonight as a private citizen. First, I want to thank the members of the planning board for your time and service to Jersey City. I know these meetings require significant commitment and I appreciate your responsibility, Carrie. Over the past year, I have attended many
of these meetings because the future of my community is stake. I respect the expertise of the consultants at witnesses hired by the developer. However, their experts are their professions and they're not experts here at Port Lib. residents are. We experience firsthand the realities that
studies and projections cannot fully capture. Our concerns are straightforward. Traffic, flooding, infrastructure, and public safety. We currently have one primary road in and out of our community. Anyone who lives there knows the traffic can already become severely congested during peak
hours and major events. It is difficult to understand how adding additional resident units vehicles will not create a significant impact. We have also experienced flooding, storm related damages and recurring infrastructure
issues including including sewage backups. These are not hypothetical concerns. They are existing challenges now that residents continue to face today. Most importantly, this proposal is being evaluated under a redevelopment plan that is more than 40 years old.
Jersey City has changed dramatically since we that plan was created. Our population has grown. Traffic patterns have changed. Infrastructure demands have increased. Climate related risks are different than they were decades ago. The question before us is not whether development should happen. The
question is whether development should move forward based on assumptions and plans that no longer reflect the realities. Today, Jersey City, before approving another major development, the city council should re-evaluate and modernize the redevelopment plan to ensure it addresses current conditions,
infrastructure, capacity, and environmental concerns and our public safety needs. Before I close, I would like to share one final observation. When the Oliver development was approved, many residents welcomed our new neighbors and look forward to becoming one community. Yet over time,
issues emerge that may not have been anticipated during the approval process. We have experienced concerns relating to trespassing, disregard for property boundaries, increased traffic, and added strain on local infrastructure. Perhaps these impacts were not expected, but residents are now living with the
consequences of that after the fact. That experience has taught us an important lesson. Planning must anticipate problems before they occur, not react to them afterwards. We do not want history to repeat itself. The concerns are being raised today are not based on speculation. They are based on
lived experiences. We are asking the city to learn from what has already happened and ensure that future development is guided by updated planning, adequate infrastructure, and respect for the communities that already call this area home. I respectfully urge
the planning board to send this proposal back to city council for a comprehensive >> Your time is up. Thank you. >> Can my husband speak now? Ed Wagner. >> Sure. >> All right. I'll bring him to my screen here. >> I'm gonna sit there. >> Yeah, sit here.
>> Hello everybody. I appreciate >> No problem. I'll swear you in. Okay. If you could raise your right hand. >> Do you swear any testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> And for the record, can you state spell your name and give us your home address, please? >> Yeah. My name is Edward Wigner. It's ED
D W A R D W I E G N E R. I'm at 101 Sheerwater Court, Jersey City, Port Liberty in unit number 41. >> Thank you. >> I've been a resident 5 years. >> You have three minutes.
>> Great. Um, so I have a military background. I was in the Navy. I'm a sailor. I know a little bit about storm surge and uh tidal effects. Um during our last meeting, there was a
a big uh discussion on that. And uh we actually have had a real-time example locally here of a storm surge and a tidal surge at the exact same time. And it was referenced earlier, Sandy.
It was a terrible uh time for everybody. I'm sure you all remember. So, specifically my challenge is with the engineering comments on at the last meeting. They referenced the water tank
holding containers reached a level of two inches from the top. That isn't actually two inches from the top. It's two inches from failure. And uh so now we are in my opinion we are taxed
with sewer and water usage. We have the residents that you know about Port Liberty and we have the Army Corps of Van Engineers that has about 150 people working there that use facilities every
day. We have the restaurant, the venue. It's a wedding venue that has three weddings sometimes on Saturday and Sunday and Friday, which increases the burden on our systems. And we have the sports complex. I think it's the biggest sports complex in New
Jersey at the end of Chapel. Uh not to mention the train tracks that are just above that. So if they the sport complex, they have facilities there that sit in the same sewage system as us. Uh so that's a concern. But my
biggest concern is the wildlife refuge. It's a federally protected area, a wildlife preserve that is going to be impacted. When that contaminated water overflows, that 2-in capacity tank, it's
going to kill what is left of our wildlife preserve. There isn't much left. The golf course ate most of it. I don't know if you noticed all the trees being cutting down. There's just not a lot of uh wildlife and green space here for wild animals. So, I'm hoping that
I can request that the board conduct an engineer to the review the capacity of all the venues and facilities that are being used to use our facilities that are dedicated to us and not let
something tragic happen. let those polluted water flow tanks overflow and contaminate that wildlife refuge that I believe is protected. >> And I'm sorry, your time is up. >> Listen, I appreciate your time and thank you very much.
>> Thank you. Our next speaker, >> okay, I am going to uh promote Jorge Oando to be a panelist. All right. And Jorge is now a panelist. Is Jorge a panelist? I don't see Jorge.
told me he was promoted, but I'll try again. And I do believe for folks who are being promoted, you need to click okay when you're invited. Okay. Jorge is now a panelist. >> Hi, Jorge. I can see you and I can't
hear you because you're on mute. You need to unmute. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Great. I need to swear you in. Okay. If you could raise your right hand. Do you swear any testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> And for the record, can you state and spell your name and give us your home
address, please? Porando and my address is 20 constitution way city pol you have three minutes. >> Okay. Thank you. So basically Paul liberte was originally
approved as a community of two 2280 homes. The boardwalk obligation was intended to be supported by that entire community. Today only about 800 owners carry that border.
Each time the city approved a new development on Port Libert land, it reduced the number of properties responsible for maintaining the boardwalk. That didn't just shift the cost of the h owners. It changed the risk of the
obligation at itself. A liability shared by 200 to 2,280 homes is fundamentally different from the one carried by 800. The probability of financial failure
increase and with that and with it the city longterm risk. I think that's a key. Uh so did this board ever measure that risk before approving those changes? If
that analysis exists, please produce it. If doesn't, this board should not approve another phase until it understand the consequences of concentrating millions of dollars of infrastructure liability on just 800 families.
Development should continue, but it must also be financially sustainable, legally defensible, and protect both homeowners and the city. Thank you. >> Thank you. Our next speaker, >> I am going to promote LT Hottton to be a
panelist. >> All right. And they are now panelist. Okay. >> How you doing? >> How you doing? >> I got to swear you in. Okay. >> Sure. And you swear any testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> And for the record, can you state and spell your name and give us your home address, please?
>> Sure. My name is Lawrence Totten. T h a t-n. I live in condo 3, 30 Freedom Way, apartment 103. Um, I lived there about 10 months now. >> All right. So, you have three minutes. >> Okay. Um, I want to ask a question rhetorically. Has this board ever went
to a developed site to see the real life impact of their decisions to our communities as opposed to just listening to all engineering and testing surveys? When I moved to Port Liberty, the Oliver Apartments were fully weren't fully occupied yet. So, the impact of a fully rented 400 resident complex wasn't felt.
Now, 10 months later, we are dealing with outrageous traffic issues amongst other things. Blocked entrance ways by Oliver sanitation trucks, moving trucks, delivery trucks is a constant hazard now on Chapel Avenue. Oliver service trucks are blocking the whole outgoing lane, causing unsafe conditions due to blind
spots when making right turns or left turns around these trucks while exiting or entering Port Liberty. It's an accident waiting to happen as we must drive onto the oncoming traffic lanes to get around these large trucks. I point this out because Oliver was proved with the service driveways too short for
these large trucks and they extend out into the chapel roadway and Oliver is an apartment complex. So moving forward in and out um this will be a long-term problem with no recourse to fix it. So oversight and mistakes can be made by the planning board's approvals that have
long lasting negative impact to our community causing dangerous situations that we now have to live with forever. And this is just one of them. With the new puly existing plan, we beg you to see all the pitfalls so we can avoid these types of dangerous oversightes by
flawed engineering surveys. Also, isn't it a development supposed a new developer or developer supposed to add value and benefit to the community they are entering? Yet, their lawyer, and I'm going to paraphrase now, Py's lawyer stated at the end of the last planning board meeting, PY doesn't need to worry
about blocking the Port Liberty residents scenic views. We already meet New Jersey's regulation that deals with the skyline view. So PY doesn't seem to care about the neighborhood they are building into. A new development should preserve the surrounding areas without negatively impacting the existing
community. The Puly lawyer has said it loud and clear. Their project isn't being built to benefit our community. It's just to build some houses, divert as much cost to the existing Port Liby residents to keep their bottom line down. Then create their own HOA, not
join ours, and get out. It was sickening to listen to at that at that meeting. Ask yourselves, does this py does this py plan assist or help Port Liberty and its surrounding community at all? Really, the py plan is actually taking land from our existing dog park. So, they can't claim that they they really
care. I'm not against development of this land. It'll eventually build be built on, but it should not come at the detriment of our existing community. So, this is all up to you guys now. If this outdated floor plan is approved, there's no going back. We will have to live to live with your mistakes. So, you need to
get this right for the long-term betterment of Port Liberty and our surrounding community. And I thank you for your time and thank you for listening. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker, >> I am going to promote Bess Morrison to
be a panelist. All right. And Best is now a panelist. I am here. >> Hi, Bess. I I see you turned. There we go. I can hear you and see you now. So, you're good. And I just need to swear you in. Okay. If you could raise your right hand. >> Yep. >> Do you swear any testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
>> I do. >> And for the record, can you state and spell your name and give us your home address, please? >> Bess Morrison. B is in boy. E. S is in Sam. S is in Sam. Morrison. M O R R I S O N. I live at 206 Sheerwater Court West, apartment 94.
>> Thank you. >> Best, you have three minutes. >> Thank you. Thank you for uh hearing all of us speak. Uh I've lived in Port Liberte almost 30 years. I've lived through Irene and Sandy. Um I've lived through many leaks. So I want to talk about water. Um we had eight years of
leaks in our apartment. I know that seems like how did you go through eight years? Did Did you forget to tell somebody? Did you just ignore them? No. We had experts in our apartment once a month for eight years. No one could find out where that water was coming from. We
had property management in. We had maintenance people in. Then we had Falcon Engineering, a professional accredited engineering company in I don't know how many times climbing around on the roof, climbing around inside our apartment. No one could find
where the water was coming from because water does what water wants to do. We lived through Irene. We were out of town that week and we had to have get all new floors, mold remediation. It was nightmarish. Uh a week before Sandy, we finished those renovations.
One year later and we have Sandy. Our apartment made it through, but Fort Liberte was destroyed. The restaurant at the end of the block was gone. Our gym equipment was in the middle of the road. We watched our ferry float onto the golf course. We all know how bad Sandy was
and major infrastructure was damaged. So now we're being told that the PY property is going to be raised 4 feet and that all of the runoff is going to go to the golf course. Okay. So, let's say I understand the drainage, however
they've got it set up, will all feed into the golf course, but what about the water that doesn't get into those drains? We're suddenly dealing with property that's four feet higher than us where normally all that land had been absorbing water from us as because they
were lower. Uh, Chapel Avenue, our main road that comes into Fort Libert had terrible flooding for a while. uh even to the point where cars were were uh cars died on this road because the water had gotten so deep because the
drains had backed up. Well, what happens if the drains back up in the pool property? Where is that water going to go? It's going to go to Portland. So, I know all of these engineering experts are saying the water's going to go to the golf course, but engineers
couldn't find our water. And these engineering experts are the same ones who couldn't get the name of the cross street caven point right. Not only in person but in all their documentation they had the name wrong. So I hesitate to trustlessness
involved in the reporting that's going on. So, thank you for listening. Um, hearing our concerns, hearing our concerns about water coming down the road that's going to be on angle into Port Liberte. Water is going
to come down that we know that. So, please really think hard if this is going how difficult this is going to be for the residents in Port Liberte. Thank you so much. Have a great meeting. >> Thank you, Vess.
Our next speaker, >> I am going to promote Dove Fobar to be a panelist. >> All right, Dove is a panelist now. >> Hi, Dove. I need to swear you in. Okay, if you could raise your right hand. Uh, do you swear or affirm any testimony you give tonight's going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth? >> I do. >> And for the record, can you state and spell your name and give us your home address, please? >> Dove Fobar, D O V F O B A R 30 Freedom Way, apartment 304, Jersey City. >> Thank you. >> Dove, you have three minutes. >> Thank you very much, Madame Chair,
members of the board. My wife and I have been residents of Port Liberte since 2018. I'll address evacuation from a peninsula. I end with two suggestions. I don't oppose development of the area by the PY companies. Someone will eventually develop this area. So I see
no point in opposing development in general. My concern is to make sure that whoever develops the area does so with a view to making it safe. The master plan envisioned multiple developed sections on a peninsula with a single road onto and off. Looks as though there might now
be three separate and distinct communities, each with their own organizational hierarchy. Importantly, these communities won't be required to communicate or coordinate with each other. The plan includes residential parking for 2,411
cars. It doesn't account for employees, guests, or event vehicles, which could multiply that total. It also doesn't consider people dependent on shuttle buses, fies, or Ubers to get off the peninsula. There's no coastal evacuation route designated as such, nor does it
seem to be planned. The one route off our peninsula is actually closest to the water and likely to be underwater in either type of flooding with a storm surge or tidal. Talking about flood risk in that 1% statistic previously raised,
most of the area between the Hudson and the railroad tracks is labeled zone AE, meaning it is 9 ft above sea level and has at least a 1% chance of flooding per year per FEMA. quote, "Any place with a 1% chance or higher of experiencing a
flood each year is considered to have a high risk. Those areas have at least a 1 in4 chance of flooding during a 30-year mortgage. The nearest high grounds are the golf course, especially around the first and last holes near the clubhouse. That area is protected by high stone
walls. Two, part of the PY lot already, even before elevation. Three, the cemetery and Greenville west of the railroad tracks. Let's talk about coastal evacuation by car. Just the bullet points. Evacuation capacity, that is projected volume during an emergency
should be measured by peak volume, not average volume. Flood resistance. Chapel Avenue is subject to the same flooding. Three, road width. Specifically, road shoulders. There aren't any. Chapel A and Caven point road are one lane wide.
Clearance times. Congestion planning. Five. Public notification systems. Community warning systems and sirens or other communication methods not existent. Shuttle buses for individuals who don't have access to a car. All major issues. Let's talk about
evacuation by foot over the golf course. The golf course gates at holes 13 to 15 are locked overnight. The Aurora Avenue emergency access is locked. Seat triangle shirt waist factory fire about locked exits. Two suggestions. PY
will have heavy earthmoving equipment to raise their entire property by three feet. Why not protect our mutual escape route by building >> Sorry, your time is up. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you.
Our next speaker, >> I am going to promote Diana Canelis to be a panelist. All right. And then Diana's a panelist. >> All right. Can you hear me? >> I can hear you and see you. So, I'll swear you in if you could raise your right hand. Do you swear any testimony?
>> Hang on one second. I just got to put my volume up here. >> All right. You good? >> Okay. Do you swear any testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> And for the record, can you state and spell your name and give us your home address, please? Diana Canelis, CN E L I S 201122
Sherwater Court West, Jersey City. >> Diane, you have three minutes. >> Okay. Um, we may we one of the few families that's actually original to Port Liberte were um when it was developed, it was uh won all sorts of
awards being similar to Venice and it was this gem. Um and as somebody else mentioned, it was due to have 2,280 uh people business, you know, uh paying into that boardwalk. And we
have petitioned the city over the last couple years and nothing seems to change on that. And the developers um one by one decided to sell off and make these backhand deals that uh the original owners with expectations and new buyers
over the last couple years with expectations thought others would be helping and contributing. And it seems that that burden is terribly falling on us. We don't get a lot of resources from the city. Uh we don't really get police
that come to us unless uh uh we call for it. It's not like we're we're on a route. We don't get public transportation. Everything is already on our own dime pretty much. Our shuttles are privately done. Um some other uh
areas in in the city have at least public transportation that goes by. So as other people have mentioned, we have this one peninsula that we all rely on to get in and out. Um, and when the last project was approved, we kept being told
that that roadway that winds up being narrowed, that's a major issue actually when it is inclement weather with snow. Um, and we're we're really uh concerned about somebody being so close to the roadway uh during during that and
getting run over now. And then you're talking about adding all these extra units to uh our our area. It just seems mind-boggling and I I would wonder if any one of you planning board members would actually want to come live at Port
Liberte. Uh, you know, does this look appealing to somebody? What does this do for our property values as we're um, you know, trying to come out from under some of the other issues that have arisen for our original community. So, I'm just
hoping that all of the the financial strain uh the the water levels I like many have said, we know you're going to develop somebody will come along and develop it perhaps like an egress or something with um water like a a a water
pond or something to incorporate in case we do get title surge or something like but the big thing I really think I feel sorry for a lot of the people um with their with their major um views. That's property value. That's why they bought
in there. And now we have this master plan that they're trying to change and do different heights than what was even originally and build even more units. So I'm sorry is different. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Our next speaker, >> I am promoting uh Pontage S to be a panelist. All right. And they are now a panelist. Hi Page, I can see you and maybe I can hear you. >> I can hear you. >> Great. Perfect. I need to swear in.
Okay, if you could raise your right hand. You swear any testimony you give tonight, it's going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes. >> And for the record, can you state and spell your name and give us your home address, please? >> Hi, I'm Pankerage. P A N K A J Sa S A C
H D E V A 61 Independence, Georgia City. >> Thank you. >> You have three minutes. >> Thank you. Thank you so much. Good evening everybody. I am Panka. I'm living in Port Liberte for last approximately five and a half years with my wife and two young children who are
five-year-old and uh one year old. They were both born in Port Liberty. Uh first of all, I want to start with thank you everybody, all the neighbors and consistently showing up and speaking at these meetings. This is exactly what we want to kind of support our community and I appreciate the board members as well for their time. I want to speak
today as a husband and a father. So last year my wife was pregnant with our son. Uh and my son was born right around the time um uh the Georgia City Marathon was held. And we were very worried when we saw the marathon and the rush and uh how kind of crowded it can be and how
challenging with all the door closures would be to kind of uh go out of the community and leave and go to the hospital. But thankfully my son was born just a couple of days after the marathon. So we're kind of relieved with that. But that kind of really kind of put our um kind of help uh that really
made us think about all the challenges with the construction coming in with the Oliver residents and many of the road closures and the congestions that we've seen and more concerns around the trespassing and additional strains that I kind of put in on our infrastructure that s lot lot of people have mentioned.
I no longer feel the same sense of security in Port Liberty that my family originally got attracted to live here. My concern is simple. approving another major development without first addressing these existing issues risk pushing the community beyond what it can safely support. This is not just about
traffic. It's nearly supporting it's about nearly supporting 2400 families could ultimately depend on the same limited access points emergency response route. As a parent, I think about what could happen during a fire, flooding, or an emergency medical emergency. I think about whether an ambulance can quickly
come in and help us. I think about the fire uh trucks that can come and help us. I think about whether residents can come uh can get out of the community safely. And I think about the first responders who may be able to try to reach us under these difficult conditions and and limited access. For
those who live here every day, these concerns are not theoretical. They're not on paper. We experience these bottlenecks and flooding issues and concerns and the strain we see firsthand in our community. I understand Georgia City is growing, but growth should not come at the expense of safety. emergency
access and infrastructure resilience for families who already live here. I respectfully ask the board to vote no on this proposal. Thank you. >> Thank you. Our next speaker, >> I am promoting uh John Murphy, Port
Liberte to be a panelist. there now. Pan >> and John, you can unmute and turn your video on. >> And there we go. I hear you and I see you. So, I'm going to swear you in. Okay. If you could raise your right hand. >> Yes. >> Testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> And for the record, can you state your name and give us your home address, please? >> John J O H N Murphy. M U R P H Y 30 Freedom Way, um Jersey City, New Jersey.
>> John, you have three minutes. >> Okay. I oppose the proposed PY Liberty Watch development on Chapel Road. I agree with the O andS engineering report submitted on behalf of Port Liberty Condominium Associations.
We currently have a natural flood plane and green space between the Liberty National Golf Course and the Port Liberte buildings 15 Enterprise and 30 Freedom Way as well as the recreation area of pool, tennis, and basketball
courts. According to first street.org, or Jersey City flood risk is graded major and heat risk severe. I've attended multiple J uh Jersey City planning board meetings and I've heard a lot of congratulations when developments
are approved that tout their rooftop green spaces and yet you're considering removing acres of natural wetlands, greenery and trees that help mitigate rain runoff and carbon footprint. It
makes no sense to increase these risks by developing by building any development on these lots. I'm concerned that a major storm will flood our underground garages, access to building entrances and exits
and roadways for evacuation. I believe the property in question, if developed by PY as proposed, poses a flood risk to Port Liberte. I also oppose the PY development because of my
concerns for traffic safety and emergency access for firefighting, ambulance, and police departments, especially during construction. During the Oliver construction, the contractors regularly blocked one lane
and often two without police deta details causing traffic delays and near accidents and in my case a accident when two double parked vehicles um restricted access
with the added parking on both sides of Chapel Avenue from the Oliver residence. The potential for accident or delay of emergency response is greatly increased. Now add the construction equipment and crews vehicles and Liberty Watch
residents if the PY project proceeds and we will have emergency response delays, commuting delays and school bus delays. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you John. Our next speaker Mike do let me know
when you need a break. >> Thank you. I will. >> I am going to pro uh promote Anuh Hari Haran to be a panelist. >> All right. They are now a panelist. >> Hi. >> I I need to swear in. Okay. If you could
raise your right hand. >> Sure. Do you swear any testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> And for the record, can you state and spell your name and give us your home address, please? >> Yes. My home I'm My name is Anu Kari Haran, first name is A Nu, and my last
name is H A R I H A R A N. And my address is 20 Independence Way, Jersey City. >> Thank you. >> And you have three minutes. >> Okay. I have been living in Port Liberty for about three and a half years. I
welcome development but not at the detriment of the current residents which is exactly what is going to happen if PI's current plan is allowed to go through. It's going to be a not only it's going to be both financial and safety concerns for us. PY is selling
luxury waterfront living and while the intent of the initial development was for all the properties abetting this waterfront to be able to provide for the maintenance of the boardwalk and the grounds, PY does not even want to come to the board uh drawing board to talk to
us. And so the the community of 800 units in Port Liberty, which consists of senior citizens like me living on retirement income and also families with children who want to provide a future for their children. We are supposed to subsidize a multi-billion dollar
corporation that doesn't even want to give us but wants to sell. Are they trying to build a community or are they build trying to just uh build these developments and go? And not only that, the safety concern like so many of us
have said before, we have one egress. We have one way in and out that's already blocked by all these double parked and all these vehicles. Now what's going to happen to us people old people and children like uh uh everybody here when
there is a major climate event? Can the planning board guarantee that something will not happen? Isn't it the responsibility of the city to take care of all the residents and not s you know not you know do things at our detriment
for the sake of new development coming. We request that the planning board consider all of our concerns and go to the drawing board again to see if the development can be made into a more uh responsible way and they come to the
board to compromise with us. We want to be good neighbors. We want to be building a a community and live in harmony with all of those PY residents, not be at odds end with them. Thank you so much. >> Thank you.
Our next speaker >> I am promoting uh Yarin Shector to be a panelist. Madam Chair, I think it's just appropriate to remind all the members of the public while we want to get to everybody and listen to everybody. I'm starting to hear
a lot of repeat comments. I suspect that most people are uh you know somewhat uh upset, but I think what helps the board more than anything else is if we hear new comments and not repeating what the
prior people have said. I understand those concerns, but uh you know, if we could limit the repeating of of the same thing you want to say you agree with everybody else, I think that helps move it along a little bit better. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> And Mr. Shector, I'll swear you in. Okay. If you can raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm that any testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I swear. And uh could you just state spell your name and give us your home address please?
>> Yes, my name is Yarin Shar. That is Y A R I N S H E C Ht. My home home address is 15 Enterprise Court. >> Thank you. >> You're here and you have three minutes. >> Uh okay. Thank you. Uh, so I just wanted
to say that I take my morning walks in the water walkway and a lot of times when I take my walk, I end up getting to the point where I access the water walkway and it just so happens to be the point where the Oliver
building stands. And I end up thinking to myself, how absurd it is that they have a much better access to the waterway than I have without undertaking any of the financial responsibility and liability. And I've talked to several
people about it and the responses I got were all the same. I mean, every person I told this to said that just as a matter of common sense, it's absurd. Like, it's not right. And I think what this story reflects is the broader broader pattern here. And it's a pattern
of substitution. This development was originally intended uh as a holistic plan for over 2,000 units and it was unfortunately not followed through. And the incomplete parts of the this original plan are being substituted for these
opportunistic uh you know irresponsible in my eyes and parasitic kinds of development. I will also say that, you know, when I first moved, the Oliver was not yet completed.
Uh, when they completed the Oliver and it was becoming populated, our garage started flooding with sewage. I still remember how terrible the lingering smell was in the garage. And this has happened four or five times since uh that I can remember. So the bottom line
is that if this plan gets approved in my eyes, it's not only to the detriment of the current residents of Port Lib, but also the new residents because as the infrastructure here gets strained, it's just going to become less and less livable for everybody.
Uh so I respectfully ask the committee to vote for responsible development and not for irresponsible parasitic development that's going to make life worse for everyone. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Our next speaker >> I am promoting Elio to be a panelist. right there. Now, panelist, >> how you doing? I can see you and I can probably hear you. >> Can you hear me? >> I can hear you. Perfect. All right. I just need to swear in.
Do you swear or affirm that any testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> And could you state by your name and give us your home address, please? >> Sure. My name is Alo. A Y A L N. Last name is El E L I A C H. And I own the
property at 30 Freedom Way. >> Thank you. >> You have three minutes. >> Thank you. So, first of all, I just want to thank everyone on the commission for their time, their dedication, their concern for this matter. And in light of the request before, I
don't want to repeat the things that were said. I do want to echo them and say that I agree with all the points that have been made. I just want to make a larger framing point that to me feels essential to this whole matter, which is
that if you you look at me and you see the the gray in my beard, I will note that when this development plan was made, I was I think just born if that I was in diapers. And the ways the world has changed over
these past 40 years, the way Jersey City has changed in these past 40 years are so wild, so vast, so immense that the idea that any plan that was made 40 years ago would in any
remote way be relevant to the current realities of today, that a plan made when there was no internet, when Jersey City, and I was someone who grew up in Manhattan, was a place that people didn't even think of going to and is now one of the hottest places to live. When
the there were no electric vehicles, when almost everything has shifted in profound profound ways, the fact that a plan that was made 40 years ago would still govern the decisions for development and all the attendant
concerns that have been raised today is is it's it's hard for me to even fathom that that would be considered. And so I just would request what I think is the most common sense decision that the basis of all these discussions has to be
a development plan made today in 2026 and not a development plan made 40 years ago at a time when the world was so radically different. So I please ask that you take that under advisement as you make your decisions and again I thank you for your time and your uh
dedication to this matter. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next speaker, >> I am going to promote uh Barbara Glassman to be a panelist. All right, Barbara is now a panelist.
>> Okay, good. Um, >> hi Barbara. I just need to swear you in before we start. Your video was on for one second and it's off again. If you could just turn it back on. Did I do it? >> It comes on and then it and then it blinks off. >> I don't know if there's a technical issue. If you could push it one more time and if it blinks off again, we'll
just assume there's something wrong. >> There we go. Now I see you and I hear you. Perfect. So, I just need to swear you in before we start. Okay. Uh, do you swear any testimony you get tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Absolutely. >> And for the record, can you state your name and give us your home address, please? >> It's Barbara Glassman. line of the 15
enterprise court in Jersey City. >> Thank you, >> Barbara. You have three minutes. >> Thank you. So, I wrote this speech and um a lot of it has been said before, but I do want to say that the raw sewage has been in my garage seven times, not four
or five. Um, as it stands today, Chapel Avenue is already overburdened. It services an army base, a ferry, a parking garage that serves commuters, a sports field that hosts local games and
is filled beyond belief for the big games. Um, a city bike station, Port Lib, um, Hudson House and the Oliver. And the Oliver presents a whole other host of problems. Um, street parking is
on both sides of the street. Moving trucks don't fit into their building, so they jut into and block a whole lane. Um, when fire alarms go off, excuse me, those people have to evacuate and the
only place to evacuate is the middle of Chapel Avenue. I've seen it happen several times where you can't get a person, much less a fire truck down that street. Um, then we have to talk about the MA
marathons, the running marathons and the bike marathons. When all of this stuff happens, we are cut off not from Jersey City, from the rest of the United States. We can't access any place.
So then I want to talk about weather. When the snow happened, that that narrowed the roads even further. The cars that are allowed to park were pushed more towards the middle. Um in emergency situations,
conditions deteriorate very quickly. We have to rely on emergency access. This proposed development will allow for 400 additional cars, all relying on the same congested roadway. I urge you to
consider the impact on safety and emergency response and quality of life. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker, >> there are currently no hands raised. There is one hand raised. Now I will
promote uh Karina Hayne to be a panelist. >> Hello. >> Hi Karina. Looks like you're ready to go. So do you swear any testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And for the record state your name and give us your home address, please. >> First name is Karina, K A R I N A. Last
name is H A I N. and I reside at 40 Constitution Way, apartment 207. >> Thank you. >> Great. I have three minutes. >> Thank you. Um, in light of the request, I'm not going to repeat a lot of the things, but again, I do want to echo a lot of the concerns that have been
raised. Um, I moved here to Jersey City. It's I'm about to come up on my 2-year anniversary here. I moved here with my partner and our dogs. Um, and moving here was, you know, something that we were working towards our whole life. Um, I've worked as a teacher in the New York
City uh public school system since I graduated college and my partner immigrated here from Cuba when uh he was a teenager. So, he grew up there in uh under those circumstances, I'll say. So, being able to move here and for this
place was something that was really special to us and something that meant a lot to us. it still means a lot to us and two years has flown by. But um you know when this issue was first raised to our attention about a year ago, it gave
us a lot of concerns looking towards the future. And not going to lie, there was parts of it that we heard that felt like we were going to end up getting priced out of this home that we bought, which is heartbreaking. Um, and so I'm not
going to pretend to be an expert in any of these uh things that experts came to testify about. Um, you know, we do live here and we can speak about that, but what I would request is just that the board really take into consideration um
if the plan that's in place to be approved is something that is going to be safe for the people that live here and going to allow us to keep on living here. Um, I'm not opposed to new people. I love new people. I love the energy that the Oliver has brought. So, I'm not
opposed to new construction. and I know some folks are. I just want to make sure that that new construction is going to allow us to continue to live here in a place that we work so hard for and a place that we worked our whole lives to be. And that's it. And so I'm putting my trust in you guys. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Ben, is there anyone else from the public? >> Yes, I am promoting Danielle Nicole Gordon to be a panelist. Hi Daniel. >> Hi. >> I'll swear you in. Do >> you swear any testimony you get tonight
is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I swear. >> And for the record, can you state your name and give us your home address, please? >> Danielle Gordon, Dan N I E L L E. I live uh in four Constellation Place, apartment 204.
>> Thank you. Danielle, you have three minutes. >> Thank you. Thank you um the board for allowing everyone to speak. Thank you to everyone who has already spoken. Um I hate to say that I was not able to follow um this case uh from the
beginning. Um I understand much time has been put into this and I am grateful for all of those who have uh put in that time. Um, and I'm echo everything that was already said since I'm not going to repeat it, but um, you know, out of all
of the, um, residents who live here and the other, uh, complexes that are here and facilities, um, not sure if anyone noted that there's also a daycare here, um, which if you don't have kids, that might not be a big issue for you. I have
a 2-year-old. she goes to the daycare that is also on the peninsula. Um, and that also needs to be taken into consideration that we have children, babies on this um, piece of property that can also be impacted uh, by, you
know, being able to get out um, during an emergency. Uh, and I did have one question for the board. Um, in addition to experts that have given their opinion, um, has anyone consulted with the local police or the fire department
in terms of their ability to access this area yesterday? Um, I don't know how many fire trucks were here responding to an emergency. And literally, you could see where there was people that, you know, they could not get through because
one car was blocking the area. emergency vehicles could not get through as needed. Um, and that's now and I can only imagine how that would increase with the addition of more units um, uh, where they're proposing this development. So, I just wanted to add
that little bit in addition to what everyone has already said. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker, >> there are currently no hands raised. There is now one hand raised. Uh, two
hands raised. I will promote Tarn Shant to be a panelist. >> Hey Vidia, I I think maybe now is a good time to take a break. That's all right with you. >> Right after this speaker promoted. >> Yeah, that works. Thanks. >> So, we'll do right after um the speaker
>> and Tarn is now a panelist >> and I'll swear you in sir. There we go. Do you swear any testimony you get tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but but the truth? >> Yes. And could you state and spell your name and give us your home address please? >> Yeah. Taran Shant. T A R N S H A N T for
Tango >> Independence Way. >> Thank you. >> T you have three minutes. >> Yeah. I I think u you know just for respect of time I think everybody's pretty much made the same points. Um I just want to say that you know I just
want to be on record to say that you guys should really consider legally to whatever it is. It's been 40 years when the plan was made. It truly makes no sense. At my corporate job, every 6 months I have to put up a new plan because, you know, the world is changing
at that fast pace. So, sticking to something that was built 40 years ago uh would be pretty detrimental to u overall the society and you know, Port Liberty. Uh one big thing is the financial burden that keeps on adding up to the existing
members. I moved in this place about eight years back and since then obviously the fees have gone up. Uh but with this community coming in and not taking the burden of the boardwalk that I personally feel should all almost be a legal challenge given the fact that when
all these houses and properties were sold it was one large community with five different sections and everybody was supposed to share the burden of the cost for these public walkways. So that that's broadly it. Um you know I don't want to be the one who said I told you
so. Uh but the risk that you're putting this community in if this plan is approved is going to be pretty uh huge and you know I don't want to be the one standing with banners outside city council saying I told you so. So would request you all to please be very
careful in considering the request of all the residents from Port Liberty. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. So this time we will take a 10 minutes break. It is now 7:26
and we'll be back at 7. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Thank you. I'd like to call the meeting back to order. Commissioner Little, are you there? Okay. So, we'll proceed again. Uh we'll be back to public comment.
Ben, our next speaker. >> All right. I am promoting Peggy Craft to be a panelist. >> Can you see and hear me? >> I can see and hear you perfectly. That's great. I'll just swear you in. Do you swear any testimony you get tonight? It's going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
>> I do so swear. >> And for the record, can you state and spell your name and give us your home address, please? >> My name is Peggy Craft with Craft with a K, K R A F T. My address is for Constellation Place, apartment 408,
Jersey City. I have lived in Port Liberte since 2017. >> Before you proceed, you have three minutes. >> Thank you so much. Um I will be short. I I agree with everything that all the preceding
presenters have said and I totally am opposed to the development and I strongly urge the board not to grant permission to build the poly development as it is designed. Thank you very much and I appreciate the hard work that all of you are doing.
>> Thank you. >> You're welcome. Our next speaker, >> I am promoting Abby and Vanaya to be a panelist. >> Hello. >> No worries. Do you swear in?
>> Yeah, sure. >> You swear in testimony you get tonight. It's going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> And for the record, can you state and spell your name and give us your home address, please? >> Sure. Uh, my name is Vaniah Dani. That's V I N A Y A. Last name is T as in Tom. H
A D as in David. H A N I. And I live at 15 Enterprise Court. >> Thank you. >> You have three minutes. >> Okay, no problem. Well, first off, thank you board members. I concur with all of the arguments stated today raised about the traffic, the congestion, the safety,
the storm water hazards. These are real compounding issues that permanent residents of Port Liv live with every day. But I also want to raise something that hasn't been addressed. Who is this development actually being built for? Hi has framed this as an investment in
community growth. But at its core, this is a corporation pursuing returns in one of New Jerseys most in demand markets. Lease only rental developments of the scale are structured to generate revenue for the developer. The financial
benefits flow upward while the costs which we deal with the congestion, the infrastructure strain, the emergency access pressure are absorbed by permanent homeowners in Port Liberty who have no exit option. We've already started seeing a glimpse of this after
the Oliver was constructed and it will only get worse. We've made long-term commitments to this neighborhood. We're here year after year. We're not leasing. We are homeowners. But ask the board if PE truly believes this serves Fort Liberty.
What specific binding commitments are being made to the people who will be living with the consequences of their development long term? That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other speaker? >> Yes, I am promoting Nick R to be a
panelist. >> Thank you. >> Hi, Nick. >> Hi. >> Hi. My name is Nick. >> You wearing testimony tonight. It's going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. >> For the record, can you state and spell your name and give us your home address, please?
>> Yes. Nick Roberts. N I C K R O B E R Ts. Home address, 30 Freedom Way, apartment 411. >> Thank you. >> Nick, you have three minutes. >> Thanks. I just want to say that um I support everything that has been said tonight. Uh please oppose this
development. Uh I firmly believe that PTE should share in the costs of uh the uh HOA here. Uh that's the way the community was originally designed and uh doesn't make any sense for them to share in the benefits and all the risks that have been stated and all the many
hearings um and not have to shoulder some of those costs along with the Port Liberte uh residents and owners of which I am one. That's all I have. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public?
>> There are currently no hands raised. >> I see no one else from the public. I'd like to close the public portion. >> There are a few hands raised now. >> All right. I am promoting iPhone to be a panelist. Hello.
>> Hello. You and I hear you. I'll just swear you in. Okay. If you could raise your right hand. >> Do you swear anything that you give tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And for the record, can you state and spell your name and give us your home address, please? >> Sure. Um, my name is Ka K A T I A. Last
name Cesler Pova. S U S L O P A R O B A. and I'm an owner at One Independence Way. I'll keep it short and sweet. I agree with all the concerns raised and I strongly oppose this development. I'll give the time back. >> Thank you. >> Okay, I'm going to promote Elsa J to be
a panelist. Hello. >> Hello. >> Do you swear any testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And for the record, can you state and spell your name and give us your home address, please? >> Elsa Jonson Ess.
>> And your home address? 206 sheer water court west apartment 95. >> Thank you. >> Also, you have three minutes. >> Thank you. I want to thank all the commissioners for all the time and effort on this matter. The city council
and the mayor have repeatedly stated that this redevelopment plan is outdated and expired. Yet, here we are. The planning board has no obligation to follow the law and this plan is lawless. The application was originally expected.
The applicant was originally expected to participate in the umbrella HOA part of the same community and contribute to the public walkway. Instead, they are now unwilling to honor those commitments or pay their fair share of the cost. This proposal has also been supported by
flawed analysis. The traffic study relied on counts taken beyond the athletic fields producing data that understates actual traffic volumes. Residents know that during games on Chapel Avenue carries hundreds of additional vehicles. This study does not
reflect the reality. I'm also concerned about the flooding risks. Despite repeated concerns, Balt and its attorneys have resisted having their experts run all relevant cloud models, which raises the questions, have they run the models, but it would
jeopardize this application? It is that the resistance to answer. Taking all these issues together along with all the things my neighbor said, I want to ask you to respectfully urge you to reject
this application. Thank you. >> Is there anyone else from the public? >> Yes, I am promoting Christopher Drew to be a panelist. >> Hello. >> Hello. >> Can you still hear me? >> I can. Thank you.
>> Yeah. >> He's wearing testimony tonight. It's going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> For the record, can you state by your name and give us your home address, please? >> Uh Chris, chw. Home address is for Constellation Place here at Port Liberte. >> Thank you. >> Christopher, you have three minutes.
>> Thank you. I will take a lot less time than that. Um I will say that I've been living here a couple years. Uh my background is uh active duty military service, uh focusing on art management, and air transportation logistics. I'm simply going to echo the feedback that many others have given that this place
is restricted by roadway. Uh if there was a civil emergency, weather emergency, it would be very difficult to evacuate uh with our increasing count of neighbors. Um I also want to note that I'm actually standing right here on the boardwalk that Port Liberte maintains and it is continuing to degrade. I'm not
sure if you can see the seaw wall falling apart, but all of those costs currently fall upon the community, upon our own funds, the HOA. And as we have more and more neighbors using this shared space, it sure would be nice if they could contribute in some capacity. So I asked that the uh planning board
keeps that in consideration. Um I respectfully request that the plan is not approved as presented. However, I do want to note that I am not opposed to new neighbors and new friends. I have been accused of being extroverted. So just simply saying that uh we
a little more uh help from our new neighbors and uh we do need to have some more consideration for emergency management and roadways as it is now. I do not feel it's sustainable. Thank you and I yield the rest of my time. >> Thank you.
>> Our next speaker >> there are currently no hands raised. >> I see no one else from the public. I'd like to close the public portion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> I'll second. Madam Chair,
>> thank you. Public public comment is closed at this time. I would like to ask Mr. McCann if you would like to um comment on what was the concerns of the residents. So, um, Madame Chairperson, I think that
what I would rather do, if it's okay with you, is move on with the case and I'll comment on the concerns at the resident of the residents when I give my closing argument or my summation. Um, that might be the most efficient way for
us to to proceed with the hearing. Um I think it's appropriate for the concerns to be addressed at this time seeing that this is a public comment based upon this um particular um plan on the site plan.
Okay. Um, if if we're going to do that, then I'm going to ask Rebecca uh Mayorello from my office to put a site plan um one of the exhibits from the previous
hearings up on the screen. So, what you're looking at right now is exhibit 4A from uh the August 26 25 hearing. Um Rebecca, please go to the next slide.
Not this one, the next one. Okay. Um so, I can address some of the comments um to the best of my ability at this point. Um, a lot of comments were made about the Oliver.
Uh, the Oliver is actually to the east of the Port Liberte community, which is in the center of your screen in color. Um, the Oliver, Rebecca, can you push us, show us the where the Oliver is? Um, go up
Chapel Avenue. The big building on the right right there, that's the Oliver. So, I'm not going to dispute anything that the community um is saying about the Oliver project. It was approved. It was built. Um, it may be that people are
double parking there. U, my client has no control over that. Um, it's also possible that trucks are loading there. again my client has no control over that. Um those are all issues of the existing community. But um what's really
important in relation to the PY project is that the PY project will not aggravate any of those issues because there's no parking on Chapel Avenue
outside of the PY project. um all of the parking, all of the loading, all of the refuge removal and recycling will occur fully inside the community. It has been designed not to
aggravate those kinds of pro those kinds of issues. Um as you know, there's 80 guest parking spaces all sprinkled throughout the community. Um, refues will be picked up in front of
people's homes, um, not on the public right away. There is a refuge area, um, near Chapel Avenue, but that refuge area is being built for the benefit of the existing Port Liberte community. You might
remember from one of the original hearings that the owner of lot 15, which is the PY lot, has an obligation to provide a permanent refuge facility for the existing Port Liberte homeowners.
That refuge facility is right off Chapel Avenue, but it has been designed in a manner where trucks will be able to exit and enter without blocking the public right away. Chapel Avenue So, I think that a lot of the issues
that that folks are genuinely concerned with uh further up on Chapel Avenue will not be aggravated in any way, shape, or form by the PY project. Um, obviously there's nothing that we can do about
emergency access except to say that this is how this community was originally designed. It was designed for um as the community said somewhere around 2,000 units uh all off Chapel Avenue and PY
Homes does not have the power to alter that. Um but PY Homes again has designed the project so that there will be no blockage of the public rightway so emergency vehicles can get in and out of
this community. they will not py homes will not aggravate that situation. Um, as far as the waterfront walkway goes, I understand that that is um an issue that folks at
the Port Liberte community have, but you have to understand how the waterfront walkway works. Um, and this is all throughout Jersey City. This is not just at Port Liberte. The developer of
property directly on the waterfront is required to build a section of the waterfront walkway. That is state law. That is a function of um a determination by the legislature
and the D to enforce it that if developers want to build along the water, they have to provide a waterfront walkway. and every developer in Jersey City has done that. Um, when you build as a developer, you're
required to give an easement to the state of New Jersey. And that easement burdens any property that the state has issued a waterfront development permit for. So if your property is subject to
that permit, you are burdened with building, maintaining, and operating the waterfront walkway for the benefit of all the general public of the state of New Jersey. So, every developer along
the Jersey City waterfront, just like Port Liberte, has an easement that requires them to build, maintain, and operate the waterfront walkway for the benefit of all the residents of Jersey City. The PY
lot, lot 15 that is the subject of this application, is not burdened by that easement. Therefore, it is not required to contribute to the maintenance of the waterfront walkway. The same way that
the golf course is not, the same way that a project in downtown Jersey City that's a block off the waterfront is not required to contribute. So, while the folks here may have some kind of a claim
against the prior developer, it has nothing to do with PY Homes. They're not. There's no document anywhere in existence, no easement mandated by the state, no agreement between the prior developer and PY homes
that requires this developer to contribute to the waterfront walkway. Um, as far as emergency access goes, we can we can talk about that maybe in the master plan component, but if you
remember from the original hearings in in August and July and September, the homes that you're seeing on the screen, the PY homes, it's 168 condominiums. So, it's not a rental
project. and my client signed a redevelopment agreement with the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency that requires them to build a condominium and PY Homes does not own rental projects. They only develop condominiums.
So the folks in Port Liberte who are looking for additional homeowners to come into their community, um that's what they're getting with PY Homes. PY Homes is going to be a condominium complex and the units are going to be sold to other people that will have a
vested interest in the community the same way that the Port Liberte folks do. The other thing about the project is that it's 168 units which which is hundreds of units less than what's
permitted to be on this site. So, this project, and I understand I'm going to become very unpopular with the community when I say this, but it's fully compatible with all the issues and mitigates the issues that these folks
are all concerned about. There will be less units and less people than what could be developed on this site if this board approves it. There will be less parking, less fewer cars on this site.
than what could be approved on this site. That's not in dispute. Um I believe somewhere around 500 units could be built and and there could be 15story buildings on this site. Instead, there's
going to be 19 buildings spread out in fourstory buildings that are about 54 feet high um with two parking spaces for every home and 80 additional spaces. So in reality,
this is exactly the kind of development that should be approved here. It reduces the density in the neighborhood. It reduces the parking. It will mitigate whatever traffic issues these folks perceive that there are by putting less
cars on Chapel Avenue. So um that's that's what I believe. I think if there are other issues, commissioners, that you would like me to discuss, but I think really um you know, I know I know the community
doesn't think this, but at least PY Homes has considered all of these issues and designed their project to accommodate them. >> Thank you, Mr. McCann. I think you answer um most of the concerns there.
I'd like now to refer to the board if the board has any comments. >> Um I I have some questions for the the board attorney if if that's okay just so I can I can be sure I have a full understanding of the legal facts of the case.
>> Thank you. Um, so your your understanding is that this redevelopment plan is 40 years old and the expiration date that was listed on it has passed. But if we were to treat it as expired, it would revert to having no zoning,
which means they could build anything they want. Is that is my understanding accurate there? >> Council person Little, can you hear me? >> Yes. Whoever is controlling the screen, can you please stop sharing?
>> Thank you. >> Okay, council person Little is the question for me. >> Yes. >> Okay. So the question as I understand it is what is the zoning if it's determined that
the current zoning under the redevelopment plan is no longer the case. >> Yeah. >> So the answer is yes. If it were determined
that there was no zoning, uh, or this zoning is expired, uh, then it would revert to there being no zoning because this is the only zoning that is on the zoning map for
this part of the city. >> Okay. Thank you. So, so we can make arguments that you know that many of the speakers did that arguably this should have been updated in the past 40 years, but it ultimately wasn't. So, this is this is what we we are working with from
a legal standpoint. Correct. >> From a legal standpoint, this is the zoning that was put in place and has not been changed or altered or moved. >> Okay. Thank you. And then um you know I
I definitely empathize with the residents who feel like both the Oliver and um this new development by PY Homes should be contributing to the waterfront walkway. But in in your opinion is there
is is that a question that the planning board could weigh in on even or is that something better resolved by the courts? So it's outside of our jurisdiction as to the obligations towards that
particular feature. Uh what Mr. McCann said is accurate in terms of waterfront development in the state of New Jersey, the state law and having to develop those portions. The thing that Mr.
McCann said that is inaccurate is that it's only for the benefit of the residents of the city of Jersey City. It is for everybody everywhere. So, uh, all the waterfront development in Newport,
if you don't live in the city of Jersey City, you're more than welcome to go down there and take advantage of those walkways and enjoy that space. Uh, that's a state law. very similar to the public beaches along the coast, right?
Uh you got to provide access to the public and the public has to go there. >> So, >> I apologize for that misstatement and I agree with council. It's this everybody in the state of New Jersey. Yes,
>> thank you for the clarifications. >> But it's possible that Mr. McCann's client does have to share in that cost. And that's something that would be between the owners of the property that's
burdened by the upkeep of that walkway and Mr. McCann's client in a civil action in the courts that has nothing to do with this board or this board's jurisdiction. Okay. So, >> I think that's very important for
everybody to understand. Thank you for clarifying our jurisdiction. I as I'm still new so I appreciate it. >> I see um Cynthia Hajianis has her hand up. >> Any other board? No, we're on board comments. Any other board comments?
>> Sorry. >> I had a comment. Can you hear me? >> Sure. >> Yes, Commissioner Capers. >> Uh yes. So just weighing in, hearing from the uh resident and actually being a resident of Jersey City all my life,
they do have some valid, you know, points, but in my opinion, I think they should share in the cost, but I know that's outside of our our control. Um, also, I think that they should go off a
uh new redevelopment plan. Don't use anything that's from the past. So that's the only comment that I have to make at the moment. >> Thank you. >> Any other board comments? If not, I will go back to Mrs. Hajanis.
>> So Madame Chair, I think before we start bouncing all around, I think uh we've got the second case that deals with the amendment to the master plan. So to maintain some order, I'm happy to
answer any of the board's questions especially pertaining to uh legal obligations of the board, jurisdiction of the board. But I think that uh if Mr. McCann has concluded his case
and chief on the site plan application and all uh public comment on that application has now been finished. I think that the appropriate thing to do is to have Mr. McCann
put his affirmative case with respect to the amendment of the Port Liberte master plan on give Miss Hajianis uh Martin and Mr. Rodriguez the opportunity to put their case on on
those points if they have a case on those points and move in that process. So I don't know, Miss Hajianis, did you I I don't know what you could possibly want at this point in the proceeding,
but >> Madam Chair, we can hear from her. >> Sure. >> Yeah. I mean, I I would like the opportunity to reply to uh the way Mr. can characterize the board's jurisdiction and I I understand
the board's entitled to rely on its own council's advice, but I I find both of their characterizations entirely objectionable. I don't know how Mr. McCann can look at the board and the public
with a straight face and continue to say that no document exists um that obligates PY to do anything. Note 13 on their own master plan amendment and this is their own document. It
states the property is subject to the waterfront development permit and O2 and 03 which are exhibits I put in at the last hearing that are waterfront development permit documents. Um
03 page nine in paragraphs 15 and 16. It mentions that obligations exist in perpetuity and bind successors um and ir irrespective of ownership. So, >> so Madam Chair, Miss Hajianis, I don't
mean to cut you off, but Madam Chair, what we're going to do is we're going to give Miss Hajianis the opportunity to raise all of these arguments in her closing. And then I will advise the board as to
my legal opinion as to what the board's jurisdiction and obligations are. and the board as it always does will determine what they want to listen to, weigh all the evidence and make the decision. So,
uh, Miss Hajianis's position is noted for purpose of the record. We will give her that opportunity before we go back to Mr. McCann at the end. Let's get all the testimony out there before we go into long- winded
legal argument and uh you know start to take our eye off the ball. Let's at least get it all out there and then if we don't cut off Ms. Hajianis and Mr. McCann, they'll argue forever. Uh that's that's
what happens with attorneys. >> All right. So, Miss Aanis, I hear your your argument there, but I would like to move on to the um master plan amendments to the master plan. So, that is case 2024-0229,
which is a review and discussion of the master plan amendments with the Cabin 3 development plan. Mr. McCann, >> so I have two witnesses for this uh portion of the case. Um, Mr. Brian Wazner and Mr. Sha Morosski. So I would
like to have them promoted promoted as presenters. >> Sure, Ben. I promoted one of them. The other one put their hand down, I believe. Okay. Thanks, Sean.
So, Mr. McCann, can you explain what the amendment to the master plan is in under 90 seconds? >> I think I can. Um, so
the Caven point redevelopment plan has a master plan component written into it.
And many many years ago when the Caven point redevelopment plan was adopted, following that um the planning board of Jersey City um adopted a master plan
under that plan that provided um a phasing uh scenario for the entire MA for the entire redevelopment. Velment plan area. And it what the master plan did
is it in a very general way laid out what each section of the Port Liberte community would have within each phase. And that master plan stayed in effect
for many many years. And in 2022 when the Oliver was uh approved, that master plan was amended and we're here now to amend that master
plan again. However, this amendment is what would be called a conforming amendment to the master plan. This project is not asking to exceed
any of the requirements of the master plan. We're not asking to increase the density beyond what it was originally conceived to be. We're not asking to increase the building coverage
for what it was originally conceived to be. In fact, we're doing the opposite. We're asking you to amend the master plan to conform to the reduced density
and reduced building coverage that is in this master plan. All of which is permitted by the redevelopment plan. This is in a sense um a clerical mission. This is a mission to conform
the unit numbers, the density, the height to what we're asking you to approve. If you don't approve the site plan, you do not have to approve this amendment to the master plan. But if you do approve the site plan, you should approve this amendment to the master
plan because what it will do is reduce the density, the building coverage and change the height of this site from potentially 15story, sevenstory, fourstory buildings sprinkled all through the site to just a straight up
fourstory uh building site all through this this phase of the project. It's also asking to combine the phases. I believe what you're going to see when my experts make their presentation is this site was
originally thought to be three phases. It's now going to be developed as one phase. But all the thresholds that that apply, we're asking simply to reduce them. We're not asking to increase anything.
>> I think that was probably 120 seconds, but that's that's my explanation. council. >> I think it's very helpful to the board, at least from your point of view. I know Miss Hajianis doesn't agree with you, but we'll hear her
>> when when it's her turn. So, who's going to testify first? And what are >> So, yes, Mr. Wazner um will testify first. >> I think I see him up in the top there. I'm waiting. Hi,
>> Brian. I'll spray you in Brian. Each one of testimony you get tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> And for the record, can you state and spell your name? >> Brian. B R Y A N Wner. W A I S N O R. >> Thank you.
>> Mr. Wner, is your license current and in good standing? >> Yes, it is. >> You're qualified. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Wazner, are you familiar with the 2022
amended master plan um that applies to this uh Caven point redevelopment plan? >> I am. >> And you've reviewed it? >> I have. And um based upon the PY site
plan application that's pending before this board, have you prepared a further amendment to this ma to the 2022 master plan? >> I have. >> Okay. And um are you ready to explain the
differences between the 2022 amended master plan and the master plan amendment that we are proposing tonight? >> I am. I have uh two drawings to share. The current master plan and the proposed amended master plan. >> Okay.
>> Can I share my screen? >> Sure. >> Yes, I believe you can. >> Great. >> Mr. McCann, we are up to A33. Do you council want to keep these as part of the site plan application or do
you want to start because they're under a different docket number um consider these to be part of the master plan application? Either way is fine with me. I'm just asking. >> I do not want to start with A1. So,
>> okay. I'd rather keep going A33 >> and it'll be reflected as the >> master plan application. >> Agreed. Santo >> and Mr. McCain, can we just for the members of the public
specifically, can we refer to this as the cabin point m something that differentiates it between uh the city's master plan
and the master plan within this redevelopment plan? >> Sure. So, I imagine we should just simply call it the Caven point master plan, and we'll try to remember to keep referring to it as that.
>> Thank you. >> So, Brian, the the plan that's on the screen, just please identify that again that again as that's A33. Um, in terms of exhibits, um, just explain to us what that is.
So this is the current approved master cavenpoint master plan. Uh it was prepared by Insight Engineering last revised in May of 2022 and it identifies the area covered by
the Caven point master plan which is all shaded here and it identifies uh all the different lots phases kinds of units keeps track of all of the items such as coverage, parking and so forth.
And Mr. Wazer, you are not the creator of that plan, correct? >> That is correct. This is the plan that is already on file as the approved plan. >> And Mr. Wazer, this board adopted this
plan in 2022 as part of the Oliver >> project application. Correct. >> That's my understanding. Yes. >> And can you just zoom in so the board can see where the Oliver is? So the Oliver is identified on this plan
as phase 4 proposed lot 16.01. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Now you use this plan as the basis for providing the amended master plan that we are requesting that
the board approve tonight. Correct. >> Correct. And when you and in addition to using this as the basis, you also used the site plan documents that we are asking the board to approve in our site plan
case. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And can you show us now the proposed amended caven point master plan? >> I can. So this is the second sheet of
the two sheets in the PDF. This is a plan prepared by Langan. It's titled Port Liberte amended residential phasing and unit identification plan dated 1212204
and last updated 718 2025. This shows the same outline of the Caven point. Brian, just one one second. So, um, council, this is A34 then, correct? >> I had it as A33 being two sheets. One
more A34. >> No, that's fine. A33 has two sheets. Got it. Okay. Sorry, Mr. Wazner. Um, can you tell us what changes you made
to this to to the 2022 Caven point master plan on this sheet? Sure. So, the PY site on this sheet, which is lot 15,
and it's called out as phase five. So, it's the shape of the property that you probably recognize from the other figures. Um, it's updated to reflect the layout that is proposed by PY for the
168 town homes. It's revised to include the driveway, the access point to Chapel Avenue. Um and it is revised to reflect that the town homes will be built in one phase as
opposed to the approved Caven point master plan that identifies this site would be developed over three separate phases. This plan also identifies in the table uh I won't go through all these numbers
in all these tables but the summation is that this amended master plan shows the proposed town homes four stories as opposed to the three to 15story buildings that the current Caven
point master plan depicts for this area of uh the CavenPoint master plan. So of for this site um it reflects that instead of 512 units,
this master plan would allow 168. So roughly onethird of the density that's permitted under the current CavenPoint master plan is what this plan asks for. So it's a reduction in that density. It reduces of
course the parking with that. It reduces the density in terms of a dwelling unit per acre from 14.1 to 11.3 dwelling units per acre. And again that's measured across the entire master plan area and it reduces the building
coverage so it's less impervious 13.7% to 12.1% in the amended condition. So these are all reductions in the height, the density, the coverage, the number of units,
etc. That's what this amended master plan proposal is for. >> Thank you. >> I have no further questions. Um if you can go back for one second and I I think you just said master plan. Is it master
plan or it's a caven point >> redevelopment plan? >> It's it's always for the transcript purposes. Any reference in this discussion to master plan means cavenpoint master plan. >> Okay. Just want to be uh correct on
that. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Question madam chair. >> Sure. Um, is there any >> um is there anything being proposed in this change to the master plan that
would modify the obligation towards uh the HOA contributions or the waterfront walkway relationship? So, I'll answer that question. Um, we did not modify anything from the previous master plan other than the
things that Mr. Wner just explained to you. >> Thank you. >> I I have a question as well. I just want to make sure that the uh changes to the master plan are completely unrelated to the application at hand. So, if we vote
yes on this, it'll be able to in the future someone will be able to build a smaller building on the site, but it's not connected to application. Is that correct? Um, Commissioner, could you just repeat the end of your question one more time? I just I didn't hear.
>> I want to make sure that these two items are not connected to each other. We're going to be voting on the change to the master plan. Uh, and that will be, you know, going forward, people won't be able to build as big of a building in here, but we're going to be voting on the applications separately. They're not
intertwined. Correct. Oh, my understanding from your council is that you're going to be voting on each of these applications separately. And to answer your question, um, substantatively, I think that if the PY
homes community were not built and a developer then wanted to increase the number of units beyond what PY proposed and what what may be approved in this Caven point
master plan, they would have to come back to the board and ask for an amendment to this Caven point master plan to then increase the number of units again. So does that answer your question commissioner? >> It does. Thank you.
>> Okay. >> And so commissioner, so we are clear they are intertwined in that respect. If the board were to vote favorably on the site plan
and then not vote favorably on the amendment to the master plan, the master plan doesn't get changed, but you've approved what could be built on that site and
it's not tracked under the master plan in the Caven Point redevelopment plan. So, it was filed as two concurrent applications,
but it's almost similar to a site plan with a subdivision situation in the sense that you really can't approve the site plan and not approve
the master plan, which memorializes and recognizes the site plan. If you were to vote to deny the site plan, obviously you're not going to change the master plan to recognize the
development you just denied, which is why we did the site plan before the master plan and why we'll vote the site plan before the master plan. So, Commissioner Barnaby,
>> I think so. Okay. Yeah. >> Any other board comments? >> Can if Go ahead. >> Go ahead. Go ahead, Commissioner. >> Oh, go ahead. >> Um I This is just a question for Santo. Um I I'll direct it there. If we approve
the site plan and we do not update the redevelopment master plan, what's the harm or early? Why why are why is it being recommended to update the master plan to reduce its allotments to the pending site plan? Why um
wouldn't we just leave it at with greater >> because it doesn't provide flexibility, right? What it does it what it does is create consistency. So the way the plan was set up there is
this and that's why it's called master, right? There's this master understanding of how to develop this area and a lot of it had to do with aotments and coverages and all of these little
nuances that was supposed to allow phasing of the project and and various things where as pieces got approved, the Caven point master plan should have
been amended. to recognize this is what was approved over here. This is what's happening over here. So in my mind's eye, I look at it as essentially almost a scorecard so that
you track all of the projects in this master plan document. And as the witness testified to, he wasn't involved in the other project. He didn't prepare that original or the amended 2022 master
plan, but he's working off of that. This way, if this is approved, here's the latest and greatest version showing all the development in that area pursuant to this map. >> Council, can I add one thing? I'm not
sure if it came through clearly in the testimony, but um and and my planner is going to testify next. But to answer, Commissioner, your question, um the density
for the Caven point master plan area is cumulative. So all the pri all the developments that you saw on that screen cannot exceed
the density threshold for the entire community. So when each individual the reason for the master plan is that when each phase gets developed it tracks the density
sitewide. So that the board or or a developer or developers would not be able to develop any developed sites
um that exceed the total density of the ma of the Caven point master plan. And the same thing goes with building coverage. That's why my witness testified that we changed
reduced the density requirement and the building requirement because we're this project is building less um individually than the density and less than the total density. Does that make sense?
>> Yes. But >> Patel, >> I have a question. The way we are asking to amend the master plan currently right now maybe in the future two three or four years down the road somebody else
can come in with a project and you know wants to increase the density. There be any kind of you know like a fix that okay you know for next so and so years or more than a decade this is the you know density or you know the current
master plan amended would be accepted or >> so yeah once if this is approved >> okay >> right both the site plan and the amendment to the caven point redevelop uh master plan
And PY for whatever reason does not develop the project. >> Okay. >> And now you know John Doe comes along and he wants to build or she wants to build something else and it's not in
accordance with the amendment that we approved. You would have to then ask this board to revert back or change it to allow what they're seeking to do in a very similar
fashion with the caveat of this total aggravate under the plan assuming everything else stays the same between now and then of course. >> Okay.
And the another question is the the burden of the cost on that broadwalk and things that currently the Port Liberty is taking paying. I know that you know PY homes is not
responsible for it but I mean we cannot can they I mean can we ask them to consider or anything or >> so it's not within our jurisdiction. >> Correct. >> Right. They have to follow the law.
>> Okay? >> If they're legally obligated, they have to do it. Mr. McCann is very convinced in his legal position.
>> I have yet to meet an attorney when we go to court that doesn't believe their own position. But like Mr. McCann, I win more than I lose. I'm sure Miss
Hajianis feels the same way. >> Okay. >> A judge will decide which one of these two fine attorneys is right. It's not going to be this board. >> Okay. >> But our condition is going to be you
follow the law and you meet your obligation and then they can go kill themselves in the courthouse over it. That's fine. That's why we built the courouses. >> If there's no Is there any other questions from the board? If not, we
move on to our next uh witness. >> My ne next witness is u Mr. Sean Moransky. He's a professional planner. He has testified before this board previously in the site plan application. Call him now. >> Mr. Is your license current and in good
standing? >> It is. >> Okay. You may proceed. >> I just need to swear I'm in. >> Yeah, sure. >> Uh, do you swear any testimony you get tonight's going to be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And for the record, can you state and spell your name? >> Sean. S E Moransky. M O R O N S K I.
>> Thank you. Sean, um, you have previously reviewed what has now been marked as A33, which consists of the 2022 CavenPoint amended master plan, as well as the master plan
that your colleague prepared, which is the um proposed Caven point amended master plan. Correct. >> Yes, I have. >> Okay. Um
so can you give us a little bit of background as to the master plan and um what you believe the important components are of it? >> Sure. Um the master plan um which speaks
to the broader um development the Caven point uh master plan it helps to track and monitor development over time. talking about a long-term perspective. You know, when you have a multi-phase development such as this, the the such a
plan helps to keep uh on track um with uh density and building coverage, which are the two prominent features that are tracked in the master plan. The individual phases themselves don't have to comply. It's the overall development
which has to comply with the master plan requirements of density and building coverage. the redevelopment plan which is more about the I'll call them the other zoning regulations that regulates the other bulk regulations and the idea
of the master plan was to create an extended period for development approvals because they anticipated a long-term horizon uh for development. So, um, Sean, the the master plan
threshold for units per acre is 20. Am I correct about that? >> Yes. >> And it was 20 in the 2022 master plan, a Caven point master plan. Correct. >> Correct.
>> Okay. And Brian talked about this, but what is happening with this community in terms of the per acre requirement?
>> Um the the this community um is less intense than what the master plan um has envisioned for the site. uh fewer dwelling units uh from up to 512 to 168 which in turn lowers the density and
then there's less building coverage. So two two key indicators that the master plan has in terms of intensity the project reduces both of those significantly. So the threshold
in the Caven point master plan currently is 20 units per acre. Correct. >> Correct. >> However, all the existing development per this Caven point master plan only
reaches 14.1 units per acre. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So the community itself is not up against the 20 units per acre threshold. Correct. >> Not at all. >> Not at all. >> Correct. No, they're not close to it.
No. >> And by developing 168 units instead of 536 units, the dwelling units per acre requirement of 20, which currently stands at 14.1,
is being reduced to what? 11.3 dwelling units per acre. >> So that's roughly a little bit more than half of the dwelling units per acre that were originally envisioned by the original drafters of this
redevelopment plan of this Caven point master plan. Correct? >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. Um let's talk about building coverage. The threshold according to the master plan is 25%. The CavenPoint master plan. Correct.
>> Correct. >> All right. And as the 2022 master plan stands, CavenPoint master plan, it stands at is it 13.7%. >> 13.7%. Yes.
>> Okay. So again, building coverage has not reached the threshold for this entire community of 25%. It's more than it's about 12% less. Correct. >> Yes.
>> And if and when the py community is constru is is approved, it will reduce it even further. >> Correct. >> Yes. It would reduce it to 12.1%. Okay. So, where 25% building coverage
would be allowed communitywide, this will this will only this will reduce the coverage to 12.1%. >> That's correct. >> All right. I have no further questions for this witness.
Madame Chair, we didn't give the other attorneys the opportunity to question the first witness. So, I think since Mr. Veronsky is on the screen. Uh we should allow that. Obviously, if the board has any questions, they should be
heard, but I just want to make sure that we also give them the opportunity to ask. >> Yes. So, I'll I'll go towards uh board comments first and then I will um engage the attorneys on the opposition side. >> Any board comments?
>> No. >> Okay. Hearing none, I'll engage the attorney on the opposition side. Um, Miss Hajianis and, um, Martin Colliver, >> who would like to go first? >> I don't have any questions, but if Miss
Hajanis goes, >> Mr. Kavalar, just for either of the two witnesses presented by Mr. McCain. >> Correct. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Rodriguez as well. I think he's still with us.
>> Okay. So, we'll start with Miss um Hajian. >> Okay. Um thank thank you very much, Madam Chair. Uh so, I do have some questions for Mr. Moranski, but if if Mr. Wazner's feels he wants to answer them, he can
too. So, um good evening, Mr. Moransky. Um I'm representing Port Liberte Condo Association number one. >> Okay, first question. Um, so your your client PY Homes is applying for an amendment to a master plan. And when you
use the term master plan in the context of this application, you're not referring to Jersey City's master plan, are you? >> No, we're referring to the Caven Point master plan, which guides the development, the entirety of the area
that was outlined on exhibit A33 that Mr. Wasner showed earlier. This is not directly related to the city's master plan documents. >> Okay. Thank you. And um and and and the
master plan referred to in the Caven Point redevelopment plan is not a master plan within the meaning of the municipal land use law, is it? Well, if there this this master plan
this master plan is specific to um development much like for example and it's it's kind of analogous but you know a general development plan which is in the municipal land use law out lays out what a development can be over a period
of time. I would say this is akin to that, but it has specific thresholds having to do with density and building coverage and defers the rest of the requirements to the Caven point redevelopment plan. >> Okay. Now, um have you ever seen a
redevelopment plan with a provision that requires a separate master plan? Well, again again um I I have seen um redevelopment plans that have had phasing over a period of time. It may
have not been called a master plan. Um but it certainly had the same intent where it governed development. I've seen general development plans. Um I don't think what is on the screen, what we're talking about here is is out of the
ordinary. A was noted in my testimony. The idea is to keep track on a project bypro basis so that we meet the the density and building coverage thresholds for the entirety of the master plan area.
>> Okay. Um so would it be fair to say the ca the caven point redevelopment plan in includes a plan to make a plan? No, I think you're the the Caven point redevelopment plan has the goals and
objectives and the other the regulations that govern each of the particular phases of development. Whereas this master plan is the broad cover say the the density and the building coverage
how was as it was originally laid out. I I'll say it's more like the big picture and then you get into the little picture when you're talking about the the details of the of the redevelopment plan. >> Okay. Um I I think Mr. McCann had
referred to an original redevelopment plan. Um do you have a copy of any original redevelopment I mean I'm sorry excuse me m Mr. McCann referred to an original master plan. Um, do you have a
copy of any original master plan dating back to the time that Port Liberte, the Port Liberte development was first started? >> Uh, the only the only master plan copies I have were the ones that were shown in
A33 this evening. >> Okay. Um, I mean, doesn't the board need the original master plan in order to evaluate the amendment? I don't believe so. Uh it was in 2022 that it was it was
amended assumed by by the board and you know from time to time these plans uh do get amended and each board based on the evidence that's presented before them would make a judgment as to the merits of that particular master plan
amendment. >> Okay. Um, and just drilling down on the master plan provision in uh Roman numeral section F of the redevelopment plan. Um, >> okay. Now, just to you're referring to
the Caven point redevelopment plan. >> Yes, I am. >> Okay. Could you um tell me the specific section, please? >> Yeah, it's um Roman numeral 7 uh F and it's on page nine of the redevelopment
plan. 7 F >> and that would be that would be the master plan provision section. >> That's right. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, so the the first in the first paragraph
um the redevelopment plan of of that particular provision the redevelopment plan says in order to encourage more comprehensive multi-phase development a master plan for all or part of the redevelopment area must be presented by the developer to the planning board
prior to submission of individual site plans. what what how do you interpret the word comprehensive in this context? >> Well, I think that again as this is a phased plan over a period of time and um
when you look at the map, this is really the the last phase of of this plan. Um so comprehensive has dealt over the period of years um that has come and you know really th this particular um
amendment that we're seeking because it's conforming we would essentially be closing out the comprehensive development of the overall site. >> So so I think the the this provision
enumerates the elements that can be included in the master plan. I just uh in one of them um number B it talk or element that's given letter B it's the traffic it talks about a traffic impact
circulation analysis is that on the amendment >> well as part of our as part of our testimony with regards to the site plan which as is noted is direct is related to the amendment um both Miss Panky and
Mr. Pinky following her um did provide a report and they did uh do a a substantial traffic uh impact analysis for this application. >> Okay. But it's it's there's nothing I'm taking your answer to mean that there's
no comprehensive traffic impact circulation analysis on this amendment to the master plan. No, I I I I would disagree because even though they're it's two separate applications, there are connections uh to them and our my
client was required to submit a traffic impact analysis which um obviously was reviewed by the board and its professionals and would be given due consideration um in both these applications. >> Okay. in it. Um,
letter G, it talks about the master plan um, uh, must include or shall at a minimum include provisions to accommodate the Hudson River walkway. Is is that on this amendment?
>> Um, my my understanding um that there is no part of the walkway that is on this site. I know that has been a contentious issue throughout uh these hearings for for many in the public, but um my
position is that this particular phase because it does not involve any part of the Hudson River walkway um that that is not an issue for this phase. >> Okay. But then that wouldn't be comprehensive, would it? Well, it would
be comprehensive and you in comprehensive you talk about the entirety of the site, but in looking at the entirety al of the site, you also acknowledge that each of the different phases um have their um unique qualities as well.
>> When you say entirety of the site, do you mean the entirety of PY site or do you mean the entirety of Caven Point? >> The site the the site that's the Caven point master plan area. >> Okay. Um >> yeah, >> now this language about provision the
master plan shall at a minimum include provisions to accommodate the Hudson River walkway. Could this provision be relied upon to um obligate PY to share in the maintenance
of the waterfront walkway? >> I I don't know anything about any particular um agreements. I defer to our council um regarding those matters. >> Okay. Um so just having having looked at a couple
of these elements that shall at a minimum be required in the master plan. One the traffic impacts letter B traffic impact circulation analysis. Letter G provisions to accommodate the Hudson River walkway. Um,
Mr. McCann described the master plan as as merely clerical. Do you think that that's a still a fair description having looked at this master plan provision? >> Well, well, I I think my interpretation of that, you use the word clerical and
maybe Mr. did too. But but I would say this that what we're doing is this theoretically could this project is well below the thresholds for density and for building coverage. Um essentially it's
clerical in the sense that we are having the plan the master plan conform to what's being proposed on the site. um you know the idea that what's being proposed is appropriate and it should be part of the overall master plan of the
site that that phase five combination of uh phases 5 through 7 would be for 168 townhouse units. >> Okay. Now turning to the redevelopment plan itself when when was the Caven
point redevelopment plan first adopted? Uh there were when it was originally adopted was November 7th, 1984. >> Okay. And and prior uh to the adoption of the Caven point
redevelopment plan, do you know whether there was a preliminary investigation to determine whether Caven Point is an area in need of redevelopment? >> Well, a couple of things. One is um th this redevelopment plan predated the
existing local housing and redevelopment law and two uh I was in high school at the time so I don't know. >> Okay. Um so so you've never reviewed any investigation recommending Haven Point be designated
as an area in need of redevelopment? Uh it was not part of my task to um investigate um the merits or demerits of whether Caven Point should be a redevelopment area. I think at this point that would be moot. >> Okay. Have you looked at the notes on
the amendment to the redevelopment plan being that that was drawn up by Langan? >> Yes, I have. >> Okay. Could do do you know what not note 13 says? >> I do. And if if it's helpful for the members of the board, I could share the
screen. >> Yeah, if you could, that would be great. >> Okay. >> Sure, you can. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Okay. Do you all see my screen? >> Yes. >> Okay. I'm going to zoom in a bit. So, we
have um Miss Hajianis uh and I'm I hope I pronounced that correctly. >> Yeah. Perfectly. Thank you. Uh yes, I see uh 13 which I had heard you had referred to
earlier in questioning. Uh it was about an existing approved waterfront development permit. >> That's right. Um so this this note 13 says the site is subject to existing approved waterfront development permit
for the Port Liberte project. Um, and then it gives some permit numbers and and dates of amendments. Why do you know why is this note on this plan if if Mr. McCann's taken the position that the site's not subject to
any waterfront development permit? I can only say that um my firm when we do plans we are as thorough as possible in terms of tracking um the approvals of permits and other relevant approvals on
the on the uh master plan of the history. >> Sean, this is Brian Wazner. If I could chime in, >> please do. Again, the the CavenPoint master plan governs a larger area than just the applicant site,
>> right? >> Um, so there are portions of the master plan, the Cavenpoint master plan that are under that permit. >> Is is this site under the permit?
>> I don't have a copy of that permit handy to look up the exact lot and blocks. Okay. Um I have no further questions. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> John. If you can um not sure. Thank you.
>> I have a I have some redirect. >> Um Miss Hadis, your questions were answered there. So I'll move on to Mr. Rodriguez. >> Oh, >> thank you. I don't have any questions for this witness. >> Neither of the
>> Mr. Rodriguez, did you have any questions for Mr. Wazner. >> Uh, neither witness. >> Thank you, Miss Hajianis. Did you have any questions for Mr. Wazner? >> I I believe he answered the only question I had for him. >> Thank you,
Mr. McCann, your witness. Brian, regarding the waterfront development permit, at the last hearing, did you produce a document that indicated that the project is not this
lot is not subject to the waterfront development permit? >> Yes, >> I believe I did. >> That was a jurisdictional determination by the NJ. Correct. >> That's correct.
And that determination was made after 2020. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Um, Rebecca, is it possible for you to put that document up on the screen for us?
I know. I know it was an exhibit that went into evidence. So, sorry, Jim. Which exhibit are we on that you want me to show? >> I'm sorry, Rebecca. It was at the very la the last hearing on May 26th. >> It's 8:29.
Okay. Give me one second. I'm just pull that up. >> 829 is the D letter from 2017. We also had A31, which were emails. I I believe it's the emails that you're
referring to, Mr. McCann. I have it. My computer is just loading. I apologize. Okay. I think we want exit 31. I believe that's it. >> Okay. Um, Rebecca, can you that can you tell us what exhibit that is?
>> This was A31. This was marked at the May >> 26. >> May 26 hearing. >> Brian, can you elaborate on on this
email? >> We zoom in. >> Sure. So, this is an email exchange between uh Michael Sheihan at DP uh and Langan Engineers and Scientists that were working on the permitting of the project. Um we had a pre-application
meeting to walk through how the DP would permit and approve uh such a project and what permits were already existing and how we would manage storm water and so forth. Uh so in this email uh from Michael Shehan Tuesday,
June 11th, 2024, um he's commenting that he was able to track down the approval for the most recent project and it appears the reason you're able to permit the use of wet cons for water quality is because the permit was issued prior to the effective date, etc., etc.
He says the permit was modified under waterfront development permit 2201 on 10252022. However, the new mod modification alone is not subject to the new rule revisions. If you scroll further up in the email
train, that email, if we can get to the top of it, uh my colleague Lauren Bolardo on Friday, June 28th, 2024, sent a follow-up to our pre-application with a number of questions, a summary and update. The I think it's
the last bullet point is the one that we asked for a coastal jurisdictional determination letter was provided from DP for this project stating that a waterfront development permit a caffer permit and a coastal wetland permit is not required.
We ask, would you please please confirm if you agree with the summary approach above and if you go to a follow-up email, keep scrolling up. Michael Shihan on July 9th, 2024 comments on the easement language
regarding water quality, but his last second to last statement says the remainder of the items in your email appear to be consistent with what was discussed at our meeting. So what we discussed is that this project, the PY project, would not be subject to a waterfront development
permit. So Brian, when you drafted the amendment to the Caven Point master plan, you left the reference in to the waterfront development permit because it
applies to other portions of the master plan area. Is that correct? >> Correct. And at the time that you drafted that amendment, you already had this email from the DP. Would that be correct?
>> Correct. >> So our position continues to be that the PY site is not subject to the waterfront development permit and we have that position because of your correspondence
with the D. Correct. >> Correct. Thank you. >> I have no further questions for Mr. Wazer. >> Sis, did that conclude your >> um I just have uh one question for
redirect or one or two questions for redirect for Mr. Wisner. Um, so Mr. Wner, um, the the email chain in the email chain that you just showed us, an engineer from Langan
made a statement that there's no uh, that this parcel is not subject to uh, D jurisdiction for a host of different types of permits. Is that correct? Based on our discussion with the D, we summarized that meeting that
we had. Yes. >> Okay. And then the D responded in a general way um con confirming that they thought the items in the email looked okay.
>> Well, I think they confirmed that that was what we discussed and that was their approach and how they would treat it. Um, we subsequently then made an application to the DP following that guidance and that's what they issued their permit on. I can tell you from experience if the D disagrees with your
approach, they're going to not approve your permit and they're going to ask you to apply for all these other permits that you would require. >> Okay. And would you consider this email chain to be a formal jurisdictional determination?
I would say we the fact that we got a permit for the project without that uh other permit without the waterfront development because we didn't need it because we discussed that the pre-application would be a pretty firm commitment from DP that it's not required.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Rebecca, if you can stop sharing your screen. And madame chair, members of the board, and to everybody else, I just want it to be crystal clear that in the event that there is an approval of the application, it is going
to be subject to all other jurisdiction and permitting requirements. So, if the applicant is wrong and the DP does not sign off and insists on a waterfront permit,
that's going to have to happen. And if it turns out that there's litigation that ensues as to the obligations of those permits and contributions based on those permits, that's beyond the board, but that there is a form for all
those things. Yes, you're absolutely correct. Any other concerns from the board? If not, um Mr. Mcken, does that conclude your presentation? >> Um Madame Chair, yes, it does.
I I just reserve the right to um a closing statement which I think um council said we would do I guess after public comment on this. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> So if there's no other questions from the board or concerns from the board, I would like to open for public comment.
And public comment must be specific to the review and discussion of the master plan amendments within the Caven point redevelopment plan. And it's okay not to have questions or comments.
>> Any members of the public? >> Yes, I'm promoting Diana Canelis to be a panelist. >> Thank you. >> Mike, are you okay or are you going to need a break? Um, I'm doing all right. I guess after this speaker, we'll see
where we're at and if it's an appropriate time to take a break. Thank you. >> Just let me know. >> Thank you, Vidia. And, uh, Diana, you are sworn in from earlier. If you would just confirm that you are still under oath. >> Yes, I am. >> Thank you. >> Dian, you have three minutes. >> Yeah. Um, I I just as an observer here.
um the attorney, the council for the planning board seems already to be in a biased state on some of the comments um that I'm observing and I'm wondering if the planning board is noting that as
well. Um, I I I she has documents that clearly show that that parcel of land was supposed to contribute. And again, we are original owners at Port Liberte
when it was built. We actually used to own three units. We're down to one. We bought with the expectation that every parcel of land there was going to pay into it. that has not changed.
You can you can argue that we're going to go to court and I I I'm amazed that the the lawyer for taxpayers, our taxpayers attorney for the planning board would
it's almost comical to you. This is people's livelihood. What do you think happens to Jersey City if you put condo one and two and the HOA of Port Liberte out of business? What taxes are you going to collect from the from there?
You're going to have foreclosures. What happens if that wall collapses? This should not be an optional thing. And you know, we we did these calls early on with PTZ about these situations about Caven Point. And you know, Mr.
McCann, with all due respect, you completely ignored us and you were emphatic about this is what we're doing and you're still doing that. And I'm sorry if I'm passionate about this, but I don't know that any of you have even
lived in Jersey City as long as we've even owned there, including Mr. McCann and Mr. P who's just going to make money and take off. And one of the biggest issues we have is yes, they might be saying different floor heights uh uh
sorry different floors they can they can go uh you know four or five levels but the height of what they're proposing is actually higher than had they just done the average height of four including the
two stories on the bottom that they're going to be putting in. So that's a little sneaky sneaky. Why aren't you telling them about the actual height, Mr. McCann, and what what was originally proposed in the original C docks there? I want to talk about
that. Let's talk about the master plan and what the height was on it and what you're now proposing and all the people that bought there that are not going to be blocked by your units that you're looking to put in. Let's talk about >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Your time is up,
my dear. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Our next speaker, >> Mike, just let me know when you want to take a break. >> Thanks. You know what? If we're going to have more speakers, I think maybe now's a good time for just 5 minutes.
>> Okay. >> Thanks. >> All right. So, it is 9:18, 9:19. We'll be back at um let's take a 10 minutes break. We'll be back at um 9:30. >> Thanks. I'd like to call the meeting back to
order and continue on public comments specifically to the review and discussion of the master plan amendments with within the given point redevelopment plan. Our next speaker is there any is there anyone from the
public? I am promoting David Rosenberg to be a panelist. >> Hello again. David, have you just confirmed that you remain on our oath from earlier? >> Confirmed. >> Thank you. >> You have three minutes, David. >> Yeah. Thanks. I I I just want to keep
I'm not an attorney, but just want to keep this like back to practical and highlight some of the points that a lot of community members have made and experience is this is dangerous. We live in a dangerous environment where what it was essentially four lanes went to two
lanes, one lane each way. There's often cars double parked pointing out that someone commented and this is true, the garbage trucks often can't really pull in. So when the garbage trucks are there, that's a blockage and the cars go around. This is highly dangerous. Same
thing with the delivery trucks that don't use the Oliver space. They all go in the the street and block a lane. When it snows, someone else made the point when it snows, all of that's going to come in the middle. It's going to be more dangerous. So whatever the
assessment was that was done 40 years ago or whatever time, it wasn't anticipating the conditions today. It wasn't anticipating a lane of traffic where people just double park and people's behavior. The environment we're in where thousands of people live, whatever the community is, it's
dangerous. So, I hope the council is practical. I hope people come here, visit it, see that this is a dangerous community. When there is an emergency and there are fire trucks coming, it is more dangerous. When we have a the hundred-year storm that happens now, it seems to be every 10 years. It is
dangerous when you hear people talking about sewer smells and how water is supposed to run off and doesn't actually run off. It's disgusting. So, we live in a really bad environment. The Oliver has made it much much worse where people are
considering like me moving. And now, if you're going to double that, you're going to make it double as worse. So, don't make our lives more dangerous. If you vote to approve this, you're making the residents here lives more dangerous. You're making the community more dangerous. You're making the community
less livable. So, all the legal stuff aside, I hope people just have a practical view of this. Come here, visited it. Make sure there's unbiased professionals that come in and give an objective view because anyone that just
spends hours sitting here looking at it has to come up to the conclusion that this doesn't work. This is making lives worse and more dangerous. Please do the right thing. Thank you. >> Thank you. I just want to reiterate
again this set of the public comments is towards the review and discussion of the master plan amendments within the caven 3 development plan. Our next speaker,
>> I am promoting Bess Morrison to be a panelist. Hi Bess. >> Hi. >> And if you would just confirm that you will remain under oath from earlier. >> I would like to confirm that. >> Thank you. >> You have three minutes. >> Great. Um I would love to know I have a
question. When Mr. McCann and the PY organization put in the application to the D Um, did they offer the information that this land was originally supposed to be part of Port Liberte? Yes, I'm sure that if you just look at this this
piece of land, you say, "Oh, no. That doesn't actually attach to the waterfront." But it was all when we moved here 30 years ago, that was all supposed to be part of one thing. You were also financially incredibly hurting people.
the um when people bought here and were given a perspectus, it was always that all of this was supposed to be one condominium. So, it feels like we're in a bait and
switch. We purchase going, okay, there's phase one, phase two, phase three, phase four, phase five. Well, we got through three phases and then all of a sudden, no more phases. The Oliver went up. They also are saying, "Oh, we're not waterfront." Yet, do you know what the
main advertising is for the Oliver? The Oliver, Jersey City's waterfront community at Port Liberte. So, I can't I doubt that PTE or I'm sure that PTE will also call themselves a waterfront community. And for them to
get to the waterfront, they are going to walk through Port Liberte because that's the only way for them to get there. So, they are on top of us. Um, it's incredible how much Oliver has encroached. I don't think anyone understood because it was empty. The lot was empty for so long how present the
Oliver would Oliver would be and how it is in the middle of our community. It is it is we have lost light. That's fine. There were always going to be buildings there. But these places are saying they're water they want it both ways. We're a waterfront community. We're a waterfront community, but they're not
willing to pay to be a waterfront community. So, please when you're making your your decision on the master plan, please take that bait and switch into consideration. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else from the public? >> I am promoting Michael Man to be a
panelist. Can you hear me now? >> I can hear you, Michael, but I can't see you. >> I don't know what's uh going on with not seeing me. Can I speak? Just >> uh Are you able to turn your video on?
Can you hit the little camera button that says start video? >> Okay. Uh just just a minute. Um Anel, let's >> There we go. Perfect. I see you and I hear you. So, let me just swear you in. Okay. If you could raise your right
hand. >> Do you swear any testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And for the record, can you state and explain your name and give us your home address, please? >> Michael, 15 Enterprise Court here in Jersey City. >> Thank you.
>> Michael, you have three minutes. Thank you. Let's talk first about that master plan. Uh there's been a lot of discussion tonight and and and whatever in which the planning board is a is is asked to to effectively praise PY
because it's only doing 180 units and it could do 550. You know that that plan with those towers and all of that that you hear about all a lot in this hearing. You know when that was put together? It was put together 30, 40 years ago. And you
know what? No one ever did anything under that plan. So what you're asking to do be to to do here is you're be asking to approve a smaller version of a of a master plan that was never real
that was put put on table by planners long time ago. Just sat there. And now rather than defending uh this proposal on its own merits, the major argument that has been used along the way has
been well look we can do this because no one got rid of that master plan. And by the way, this is the argument of why the Caven point redevelopment plan and all others should be allowed to expire because they carry around a lot of old garbage. And in this case, it's being
used against us in in in trying to you praise what PY is trying to do on the waterfront permit. Let's go back for a minute. That waterfront permit as best said was was taken out when the proposal was for a unitary development of Port
Liberte in which the assumption was that every piece of land that in the Caven point redevelopment was going to be developed subject to that waterfront permit and um
subject to being part of Port Liberte. What we have now is a situation where there's an attempt made to sidestep that and and Bess is right. The questions that were asked to DP were not the right ones. It was does this separate uh uh
development need a new waterfront development. They didn't ask well is this development still subject to the initial agreement that was made? Uh that's a whole different issue. And the
fact is that it applied to the entire redevelopment area. And the land developer, my last point, the land developer proved this. So when the land developer proposed uh condo 4, which never went through because of financing,
he didn't say that they wouldn't be uh develop 4 was the exact same land that is now the PY development. So even the land developer admitted that that original agreement applied to this piece of land.
Thank you very much. >> You're muted video. >> Sorry. Anyone else from the public? >> Yes, I am promoting Fred Miller to panelist. Hello, Fred. >> Uh, you need to swear me unless my last
>> Yeah, please do. I'm happy to be sworn. >> Sure. Right hand. >> Test testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> I do. And for the record, can you state and spell your name and give us your home address, please? >> Fred Miller, 206 West Sherwater Court, Department 94, Jersey City, New Jersey.
So, I I've been sitting here >> You have three minutes. >> Thank you. Uh, thank you for the time. I've been sitting here trying very hard to sympathize with Mr. McCann and and I'm thinking he's making a very powerful argument. We we have a master plan
created in 1985. It's the master plan. Let's live with it. So let's take that to its logical conclusion. What I'd like to propose to Mr. McCann is let's agree if unfortunately a member of our family got sick, why don't we agree to use 1985
diagnostic and medical technology? Because after all 1985 plans are really good. Why don't we end this meeting now? Because in 1985 we'd have no internet. So let's go back to face to face. In fact, let's stop posting all these documents we use online because that's
1985 and that's certainly good enough for us. Let's take all the safety features that are in our cars today and get rid of them because 1985 was good enough. This board would never accept 1985 vehicles, 1985 technology, or 1985
medicine. And yet, Mr. McCann says, "Let's live with a 1985 real estate plan built in a very different Jersey City." I think that's an extremely weak argument, but then again, Mr. McCann might be happy with 1985 medicine. That might be part of vigorously defending
his client. I can't speak for him. Maybe he'll speak to that for me. So, thank you for listening. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? I am promoting uh Michaela Almeita to be a panelist.
And Michaela, if you could just confirm that you remain under oath from earlier. >> I do. >> Thanks. And will it just be you or will your husband be going as well? >> Um are you going to speak also? >> If I if I can. >> Yeah, he'll speak after me. >> Just so we know. Thank you very much. >> All right. 30 minutes.
>> Okay. As the city cons considers amendments to the Cabin Point re redevelopment plan, I would like to raise an issue that extends beyond density and land use classifications. While portions of this area may have originally been designated for future
residential developments decades ago, the reality on the ground today is very different. Over the years, many of these undeveloped parcels have evolved into functioning watersheds and wildlife habitats. Nature does not wait for zoning maps. Land that may have once
been viewed as vacant or unused, has become part of a living ecosystem that absorbs storm water, supports migratory birds, and provides habitat for wildlife. If the city is willing to amend the redevelopment plan to reflect changing housing needs and community
priorities, then it must also acknowledge changing environmental realities. The question should not be what was the land intended for 40 years ago. The question should be what has the land become today? The natural areas are converted into roads, buildings, parking
lots and other hardcape surfaces. We lose more than open space. We'd lose storm water absorption capacity, wildlife habitat, and environmental protections that have developed over decades. These functions are especially important in a waterfront community
already facing increasing flooding and more intense weather events. Therefore, any amendments to the redevelopment plan should include a comprehensive assessment of the current ecological value of these lands. If existing wersheds or habitats are being removed, the plan should require equivalent
accommodations elsewhere. The city should not demonstrate how lost habitat will be replaced, how storm water capacity will be maintained, and how wildlife that has established itself in these areas will be protected. A redevelopment plan should not be based solely on what the land has intended to
be decades ago. It should also reflect what the land has become and the role it now plays in protecting our community and environment. If we are updating the plan to meet today's developmental goals, then we must also update it to recognize today's environment realities.
Thank you for listening. >> Thank you. >> Your husband is the next speaker. >> Oh, Ed. >> Yeah, >> excuse me. I'm sorry. Um, so >> no problem. Just real quick. Uh, Edward Wigner, correct? >> Yes, Wner. And if you'd confirm that you
remain under oath from earlier. >> Yes, sir. >> You have three minutes. >> So I I don't need three minutes. I've been trying to send a document uh to about this meeting to the board so they would just review it and look at it. It's a little wordy. It talks about a
rule that is in place that lets the board have a engineer overview the whole process. dot the eyes, cross the tees, get the real data and what's actually going on. And I sent
that in a document. I sent it to Tanya. I sent it to the board's email. I tried to send it through chat, but I use Meet all the time. I don't know what the story is, why it's not working on my device. Um, but I appreciate you guys. I know you have a tough job. Anything I
can do to help you, just give us a call. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. I just want to reiterate again >> public comments is for review and discussion of the master uh review and discussion of the master plan amendments
with the Caven point redevelopment plan. Our next speaker >> I am promoting Ed to be a panelist. Hello, Ed. >> I can see you. And you're ready to be sworn in? >> Yep. >> You swear in testimony you get tonight
is going to be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> I do. Yes. >> And for the record, can you state and spell your name and give us your home address, please? >> Yes. My name is Edmund Rudius and I live at 21 Independence Way, uh, Jersey City, New Jersey. >> Can you state and spell your name for me one more time?
>> Ed DM. Yes, Edmund Rubius. E D M U N D O and my last name is Rudius. R U B I E S. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Rubius. You have three minutes. >> Thank you. Uh well, the attorney for PE is making a case that the new
development will be less dense than uh what it was originally planned for that lot. And while that might be true, I I I urge you not to consider this without the context. And the context is that the original higher density project would be
part of port liberty and not a fully independent unit. Uh this matters because issues deriving from that development would be as per the original plan be commonly addressed by all port liberty boards in conjunction. So to say
that this will be a a lower density project than than the original one does not have a very good meaning when you take it out of the context. uh I for and I just speaking for myself would prefer a higher density project that is part of
that would be part of Port Liberty rather than a lower density project that is not part of Port Liberty. So I I'm just urging uh everyone to consider that uh when making your decision. Thank you very much. That's all I got. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker
I am promoting Ayalon Elok to be a panelist. Hello. If you would just confirm that you remain under oath from earlier. >> I remain under oath. >> Thank you. >> Are they on your three minutes? >> Thank you. First of all, I just want to thank all of you for this marathon and
staying up so late. I know you are working hard and re just really appreciate it. Um, I want to start this by just noting I am a lawyer by training. I've practiced at some of the top law firms in the country, arguably in the world, and I'm listening to the
legal questions being raised. I'm listening to the answers that are being offered both by uh PY's lawyer and by board's counsel. And I will just say that based on my legal training, based on the firms I worked at, I am deeply
uncertain as to the answers being given. and the certainty with which they're being given is pretty surprising to me given my review of the legal documents, given my review of the information that is for the board. And I want to draw your attention to two particular legal
questions that I think are at the heart of the matter. The first is the question of what exactly happens, and this was asked already by one of the board members. What exactly happens if the 40-year-old development that has an expiration date actually does expire?
Now, it's been said with certainty by Py's lawyer that basically all bets are off and that anything can be developed. That is not at all a clear analysis of what happens. It is equally possible that it reverts back to the pre-development zoning and perhaps no
zoning at all. Now that is an uncertain question and I strongly advise the board to get independent legal analysis of what exactly happens if you allow the 40year with an expiration date plan to lapse because I don't think it is nearly
as certain as has as has been presented. The second legal question that I think needs to be addressed with much more rigorous legal analysis is whether or not PY would be considered a legal successor as a waterfront developer. And if they are a legal successor as a
waterfront developer, whether they are legally bound to share in all the responsibilities of the waterfront development, including the boardwalk. That is a deeply complicated legal answer. I know PY seems to think and present as though it is clear and cut and dried. What they presented from the
department of um the environment has nothing to do with that question. And again, I would strongly advise at the very least getting a memo, getting a rigorous legal analysis so that not only the board, but all residents of the city of Jersey City can know that they are
being represented by a board that has been informed adequately about these deeply complicated legal issues. um that a few word answers by literally two lawyers on this call I think is is far from adequate. So I hope that is taken under advisement before this board makes
any decision. Thank you again for your time um and for your consideration of this. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker >> I am promoting Aparna to be a panelist. Good evening. Are you driving a vehicle right now?
>> I I am pulling over as we speak. >> Give me a two seconds. Okay. >> All right. I mean, you're still actively driving. I can see it. >> I am done. Pulled over. >> All right. Um All right. I need to swear you in then. Okay. If you could raise
your right hand, you swear any testimony you get tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> And for the record, can you state and spell your name and give us your home address, please? >> Yeah, that might take three minutes. Aparten, A P A R N A. Last name, Shini
Vasan. S is in Sam, R, I, N is in Nancy, I, V is in Victor A, S is in Sam, A, N is in Nancy. I'm an owner at 30 Constitution Way, Unit 102, Jersey City, New Jersey. Um, you have three minutes. >> Okay. This time I won't go over like I
did last time, but again, I want to thank the board uh for all your um hard work and allowing us uh as a community come to come speak in front of you. Um, I'm going to just, you know, reiterate everything that I uh all the other speakers, not just tonight, but the
previous night have said, but I really want you guys to consider something. Are you willing to have Jersey City be on the hook for anything that happens at Port Liberte emergency wise if there's a flood because of this redevelopment
plan? If you approve it, Jersey City is going to be on the hook for all of it. Our homeowners um you know that are affected by this, if there's a catastrophe, a lot of us could go into bankruptcy.
what are going to be the uh the the the property values of Jersey City at that point. So, it's not just about, hey, are we going to approve this plan just to let somebody build? It's a bigger Jersey City issue and you guys really need to
consider what is really impacted here financially. uh you know, of course the emergency traffic, but it all comes back down to are you willing to get leave Jersey City on the hook for this? Again, I thank you for your time and thank you for giving
us a time. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker, >> I am promoting Barbara Glassman to be a panelist. Good evening again and oh it disappeared. There we go. Good evening
again and if you would just confirm that you remain under oath from earlier tonight. >> Still under oath. Thank you. >> You have three minutes. Barbara, >> thank you. I won't need those. Um, I just wanted to address that memo from the DP that we spoke about earlier that
said that the PDE property didn't have to contribute to the public walkway because it's not waterfront. Phases two and three are also not waterfront and we do pay for the
walkway. So, um, just wanted to point out that Got it. >> That's your That's your comment. >> What was it? That we're not waterfront and we Yeah, that is I mean I thought it was more important than you seem to, but
we're not waterfront and we kick in our fair share. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker, >> I am promoting Nancy Shaines to be a panelist. Hi, Nancy. I'll swear you in. If you
could unmute. >> Thank you. Do you swear any testimony you give tonight? It's going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes. >> And for the record, can you state your name and give us your home address, please? Nancy Sheainus, uh, 30 Constitution Way, Apartment 208, Port Liberty, Jersey City, New Jersey.
>> Thank you, >> Nancy. You have three minutes. >> Thank you. Um, my comment is to the board members who are faced with I can't even begin to understand the amount of detail you guys must look at. And I have
a lot of respect for anybody who sits on a board and gives their time. I think counterly um I think uh earlier people being concerned about the legal speak on this call which really is critical
because you have three representatives here everybody feels that they have the right points and that's their job and they're getting paid to do so but you as individuals are not paying for the legal counsel that you get. So, I agree with
my former neighbor who spoke a few minutes ago who is an attorney who asks you as board members to get legal counsel on the broader questions because quite honestly when your your council on
the P on the planning board, he wasn't meaning to be flippant but but it came across as such that well this will just he he basically was saying well this will just end up in court if if if it goes goes that way, it goes that way. Well, lawyers say that. However, in our
case, as owners here, we pay for everything. We pay when the insurance company didn't pay enough for Sandy and we had to pay out of our pockets. We pay when when the city doesn't provide services for busing and they make those decisions and we have to pay for a
shuttle bus. we pay every time we turn around and then our wonderful property taxes go up because we're quote waterfront and so wonderful because the whole market went up and we went up proportionally. However, if this has to go to the weight of a lawsuit, we have
to be able to afford to take on a city or take on a py and it's inconceivable what it could cost us. So, think of yourselves as board members who weren't insured. It didn't have a DNO policy in place to protect you as board members
and enabled you to have to pay your bill for the advice you're you're seeking to make decisions on behalf of the city. We will not we will not be able to go up against people who have more money than us. put yourselves as individuals who
are on this board who are also, I would assume, residents of Jersey City and homeowners that what if this was you and you were being asked to live by rules that that were mispresented to you as being written in stone and you would
have a 30,000 com person community to pay for everything and we're only 800 owners and I'm a retiree. I don't have any extra money coming in and everybody's taking my money. How would you feel in that position? Maybe I need to get a board seat so I
have another income coming in. However, that's not the case here. So, think of it from our perspective. Seek out more counsel. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Our next speaker, >> can we mention we're volunteers?
>> Thank you. Uh, I forget I uh apologize for forgetting this person's actual name, but I'm promoting the American Society of Jewelry Historians to be a panelist. >> That's Diane Singer. >> Diana Singer. Yes. Do I need to be sworn in again?
>> You do not, but if you just confirm that you remain under oath from earlier. >> Yes, I do remain under oath. Happy to do so. >> Thank you. >> Um, the You have three minutes. >> Yes, ma'am. The CavenPoint redevelopment plan was a document written in the 1980s that no longer reflects the realities of our neighborhood, our infrastructure, or
our environment. As many people have discussed in prior testimonies, this plan has been amended repeatedly without formal city council review. It was designed for a different Jersey City before FEMA flood maps, before Liberty National Golf Course, and before Port
Liberte was fully built as envisioned. Since the Toll Brothers proposal in 2019, every parcel within the plan area has either been developed or assigned. By any reasonable standard, the plan should have been vacated years ago. The Toll Brothers plan for 69 town homes was
broadly accepted by our community. It respected our scale, preserved waterfront views, and included a financial agreement with our HOA. But PY's proposal is a major departure. 168 stacked town homes 4.3 stories tall due to elevated grading and 200 more parking
spaces than toll proposed. This is not a continuation of the original vision. It's a standalone highdensity enclave that does not integrate with our community in form, function, or responsibility. PY argues that height limits of 150 to 200 feet apply across
the entire site. That's a mischaracterization. The redevelopment plan subdivides the area into zones with distinct height and use restrictions. Many of PY's buildings are planned for areas designated for three-story town homes. They are not in conformance. This
proposal is not supported by the existing redevelopment plan. It places excessive burdens on our infrastructure, our environment, and our community. I urge the board to reject the proposal in its current form and call for a full city council review of the redevelopment
plan itself. Thank you so much for your time. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker, >> I do not see any other hands raised currently. >> Okay, a motion. I >> see no one else from the public. I'd like to close the public portion.
>> I second that. Uh >> there is a hand raised now actually. >> Yeah. All right, I will promote uh Nita Kohley to be a panelist. >> Hi, good evening and appreciate >> I got to swear you in real quick. I apologize if you could raise your right
hand. Do you swear any testimony you get tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Sure. Yes. >> And for the record, can you state and spell your name and give us your home address, please? Nita Kohley, NITA, Kohli, owner of 12 Constitution Way, Jersey City.
>> Thank you, >> Miss Coley. You have three minutes. >> Appreciate it. I appreciate your time um for all these planning meetings, listening to us as residents. I just have one thing to say. Um, I appreciate you're going to re you're reviewing all
the evidence and my pride panelists have talked about seeking additional um, testimony evidence from other expert opinions. The only thing I'd ask you that you do as board members is think
about some scenario analysis about the impact of your decisions should this plan get approved. The concern I have having been resident of Port Lib since about 2006 is the disruption, the detriment we've
suffered through crisis, um limitations in transportation, the impact of approving this plan will be, as some of my predecessors have said, people leaving Jersey City, the
reputational risk from the board approving a plan that has no viable standing against a developer that has no focus or no concern for the safety and soundness
of the community. These are the values that we live by. Obviously, I'm not a native of America. You can hear that in my voice, but that's the reason I came here for opportunity and equitability. And I think that's the ethos of Jersey
City. And I just question how listening to the arguments that some of or the challenges that my fellows have raised that anyone could review this this plan and the amendments. So if you can take
this into consideration and think longer term for the strategic Jersey City and what you're expecting to get out of appro a potential approving of this plan, I do think that your decision will tell you otherwise that it's going to
cause more more disruption than benefit in the future. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Ben, is there anyone else? I do not see any hands raised. >> See no one else from the public. I like to close the public portion.
>> I second that. >> Public is closed. Miss Hajianis. Would you like to wrap up in about five minutes? >> I would. Thank you. Um, so I'm going to defer to Mr. Cabalar and some of the
issues that he covered during his presentation having to do with safety and engineering and flooding and I really am focused mainly on the application for the amendment to the master plan. So what is this master plan
provision within the the Caven point redevelopment plan? And at first when I when I read the provision I didn't really understand it. It's very idiosyncratic. I've never seen anything like it in any Jersey City redevelopment
plan or in any other redevelopment plan. But now that I've seen the waterfront development permit um paperwork dating back to 1985 and this plan dates back to 1984,
you can see that that what was happening like the Caven Point was a little city within a city and the waterfront development permit contains 37 conditions. This is O exhibit O2 that
was submitted at the last hearing on May 26. And a lot of those conditions they talk about habitat, they talk about bulkheading, they talk about public access, they talk about uh transportation, moni ongoing monitoring of wildlife,
shuttle bus service, public transportation, waterfront walkway based construction, um storm water management, um de demonstrating adequacy of water
supply and sewer system, Um and the master plan provision also conceivably could cover a lot of this same ground. Um because they talk about the elements that can be included in the
master plan according to the redevelopment plan or overall site development, traffic impact circulation analysis, parking and vehic vehicular access plan, utility storm system layout, phasing plan, timing schedule,
and provisions to accommodate the Hudson River Hudson River waterfront walkway. and that and the and the language of the redevelopment plan says add a minimum and it's really up to this board to determine what kind of master plan do you need for caven point it's really not
up to you know the developers given you something minimal they said it's clerical they said it's ministerial it's kind of an afterthought that's not what this redevelopment plan sets this redevelopment plan really dovetales nicely with the waterfront development
permit and it gives this board concurrent jurisdiction over a master plan that's supposed to be comprehensive. Um so when your board attorney kind of
tries to say don't wor you know minimize the importance of this provision as does the redevelopers attorney and they say you know what somebody else is going to make all the important decisions. It could be the court. It could be the D. But this board uh has no jurisdiction.
This board has no business um talking about a comprehensive master plan. You have to kind of just rubber stamp this this this very minimal site plan that they're characterizing as a master plan. Um I don't think that's a fair reading
of this redevelopment plan. And I think if you read it in tandem with the waterfront development permit, they both go back to the same time period, the mid 80s, you can see there's a role for this planning board as well as the DP in this
comprehensive master plan for Caven Point. So, you know, you've got the public who live in Port Liberte telling you they are suffering from the failure of comprehensive planning in Caven Point. It's a peninsula. Everybody's
sort of stuck in this situation together. And I think you have an opportunity here to do something. You can require a more comprehensive master plan and your redevelopment
uh plan. And I and I think you know even it's it's the only zoning we've got. I do uh kind of agree with the board attorney on that. Um it gives you the freedom to do that. So you are not hamstrung, you are not deprived of
jurisdiction over seeking a real comprehensive master plan for all of Caven Point. Um now just going back to this jurisdictional determination. Um
I you know it's sort of interesting because the applicants changed they've shifted their position on that. Last hearing Mr. McCann presented a a jurisdictional determination dating back to 2017 that was entitled jurisdictional
determination, but it was issued for a different applicant for a different project. Um, now he's say now they seem to be saying some vague email chain is a is a a jurisdictional determination. That language is really it's it's
nothing the DP seems to be saying. It's nothing we would have gotten public notice of. So I would request that as a condition of approval that the applicant be required at this point in time to get
its its own current jurisdictional determination in a formal way from the NJDP and I think that would prevent a big court battle. it would prevent um you know shifting the onus to the objector which it is puts a burden on
them that is really unfair. It should be the applicant's burden to definitively prove that they aren't subject to the waterfront development permit. I think the best form for that is the DP, but it should be done in a formal way, not in a meeting where I don't know who said
what. I don't know what happened. There's no real record of anything and then in a kind of a vague email chain. So if the applicant's asking you to rely on that, I think that that's to me that's not evidence of anything. Um
so but I but I do think that this board does have um authority to require a better master plan, a more comprehensive master plan that addresses the concerns that were raised by the public. and they are the redevelopment plan actually
requires it. Uh so I think and and I would and I would say you know any comments made by your attorney or by the applicant's attorney that tries to persuade the board that its role is marginal that it has no real
authority to uh you know impose a real condition about the waterfront development permit that it has no real authority to require a comprehensive master plan. I I would just um ask the board to please take those statements at
as a with a grain of salt. Um and I want to thank you for your time and attention. >> Thank you, Miss Hianis. Um I would like to ask um Martin Caliber. Uh >> Madam Chair, did you want me to make a closing statement on the plan application because that's primarily
what I'm going to be speaking to. >> Yes. Okay, great. Um, Madame Chair, council members, we have gone through a number of issues in the objector's case and for purposes of our closing statement, I want to
highlight three of those for you. While I understand that the board's planner and attorney has advised that there is uh no authority that permitted the city council to put an expiration date on the
redevelopment plan. Um if any board member individually who votes on this believes that the redevelopment plan has expired, it is your right as a board member to deny the application for that purpose.
So, while I understand you have received certain opinions um from your professionals um and you may choose to rely on them, you also may choose not to rely on them. And I think that's important to just keep in mind. Councilman Solomon came testified during
the hearing on this point. He wrote a July 15, 2020 25 letter, which I think you should re-review um in advance of making your um decision in this matter as to what the council uh the city
council believes um is an expired redevelopment plan. You heard from Miss Hajianis' professional planner who advised that while he believed incorrectly applied the time of application of rule to the site plan application that does not apply to the
master plan amendment meaning the redevelopment plan and the runaround of time of application rule does not apply for the expiration. So in his opinion, he testified it has expired um at least with respect to the uh amendment
um to the master plan. Something that is critically important here and I spoke about this during my opening statement in this matter is that an easement in this matter is required. Everyone agrees
including the applicant that they need an easement. One of their submissions in their application is a document that I'm showing on the screen now and it is entitled confirmation of
easement. Now, you can speak to your legal counsel about what a confirmation of easement is or if that is a document that legally exists, but the applicant does not deny that it needs easements in connection
with this application in order to construct the project, meaning easements over Port Liberte HOA's property. It does not deny that it wants two different permanent easements and that it claims it has two different permanent easements. The document that it relies
on is this confirmation of easement document. Speak to your legal counsel about this. An easement is an agreement between two parties. Let's look at the confirmation of easement on the screen. The signature
page of the confirmation of easement easement is signed by one party, New Liberty Residential Urban Renewal Company LLC. My client, Port Liberte Homeowners
Association, is not a party to this confirmation of easement document that was recorded in 2024. It's a standalone document prepared by the current owner of the project which
purports to give them an easement or confirm an easement that they believe they have. That is not proof of an easement. You are required to require them to submit proofs of their easement and that is a basis to deny the application. Let's take a look
at the confirmation of easement. The confirmation of easement. What does it rely on to say that an easement exists? It relies on Port Liberty HOA's restated declaration. It says there, "The developer's easement rights include, but are not limited to a
right of ingress and egress over the homeowner common areas and facilities, for construction of roads, and for tying in and installation of utilities of the additional property." That is their interpretation of what the restated declaration for the HOA states.
If we go down in the easement document itself, they're asking or stating that they have three types of easement via a confirmation of easement document that is not signed by my client. One, a temporary construction easement.
Two, they allege to have a permanent emergency ingress and egress easement over the HOA's property. They also alleged to have a permanent utility connection easement. A document that the applicant did not
put into the record is Port Liberte's HOA declaration that they confirm this easement is based on. Why? because that document does not say that they're entitled to any permanent emergency ingress and egress easement and it does
not say that they're entitled to any permanent utility connections. So putting aside the arguments that your council has said can be fought out by and between and among whether they have some easement. There is no question
it is a matter of fact that they do not have permanent easements. If you look at and I'm showing on the screen now the declaration of the association section 14.3 which they rely on in their
quote unquote confirmation of easement. They rely on section C 3. And I'll go back to the confirmation of easement to show you that that is the section that they are relying on to say that they have an easement.
On page one of their purported confirmation of easement, they say pursuant to section 14.3 C3 of the declaration, they have easements. That is what 14.3 or 14.3 C3 says. An easement over the homeowner common areas and facilities
for the purposes of enjoyment, use, access, and development of additional property. This easement includes but is not limited to a right of ingress and e eress over the homeowner common areas and facilities for construction of roads and for tying in and installation of
utilities of the additional property. There's no permanent use here in this document. This purported easement, this confirmation of easement that's being referred to and relied on as the basis
to come across the HOA's property is not signed by Port Libert HOA. That is extremely important. PY has argued that it is not burdened by the requirements to contribute to the waterfront walkway because it is not
bound by the HOA's declaration. How then can PY claim that the very same HOA declaration which PY says does not apply to them somehow then supplies them with a permanent easement. While I understand at the last hearing
we spoke a lot about and council joked about two truths and two things can be true at the same time. This is literally an example where more than one thing cannot be true. You cannot on the one hand claim to have a permanent easement
pursuant to the declaration or that declaration doesn't say there's a permanent easement for anything and on the other hand claim you're not bound by the declaration. To have a permanent easement, you'd have to be bound by the declaration. But again, the confirmation of easement
document is a singleparty document. The application should be denied on that basis alone. It's a condition of approval. Everyone agrees they need to have an easement. So, first issue, redevelopment, plan expiration. Second issue, no easement.
Everyone agrees they need an easement. There has been no evidence put in the record that they have an actual easement. The third and final issue that I will focus on is the HOA's expert testimony. That was Michael Pesalano, the professional planner, Nancy Wong, the
professional engineer. Mr. Pesalano spoke about the fact that he had concerns about needing of an easement and that that easement did not exist. Please also though remember his testimony that was primarily focused on the tightness of the site from a
circulation perspective. He cited to several items in his report. I won't go through them all by one. I know you have read those items, but go through them because some of those can be easily addressed. The planning board should require them
to address these concerns. Now, I'm not saying the planning board should approve, but again, in the unlikely event that you decide to do so, you can take certain things into consideration and put them in that approval. Then, I want to talk about Mrs. Nancy
Wong, our professional engineer, who testified primarily about flooding on the site. Everyone agrees you can't just let water overflow the edge of the New Liberty site. And I want to just
highlight for you very simply because Miss Wong spoke at length and I know the engineering testimony can get confusing. There's a lot of calculations. There's a lot of details. There's a lot of citations that go into this. Miss Wong's and I'm showing you on the
screen her January 30th, 2026 report uh that was marked in the record and that each of you have. And I want to go through three key aspects of this. First is what does this site look like today? Well, that's the first paragraph on page two. Port Liberte
is above the elevation of the Liberty Watch site. That site lies within the title flood hazard area. During title flooding today, right now, runoff originating from Port Liberte would not be able to
discharge through the existing storm water system. However, it would instead flow toward the lowerlying Liberty Watch site. So, what's going to happen now post construction? That's what's happening now. What'll happen post construction? According to Miss Wong and her testimony, everyone agrees that this
first part, Liberty Watch site would be elevated approximately 3 to 4 feet above Port Liberte. Right. We're going to come up 3 or 4 feet above it. She testified during the 100-year title flood event, runoff generated on the Liberty Watch site would be unable to
discharge due to high tail water conditions at the wet pond. Storm water would pond on the Liberty Watch site and flow towards Fort Liberte. That is what will happen. That will significantly worsen flooding conditions from the way they exist
today. and everyone agrees you cannot as part of a development application increase flood risk for a neighboring site. The applicant has failed to consider and account for the 100
title surge event. They said they haven't done it. That is going to likely increase flooding. While there was this bluster about her original report not being specific enough for the applicant to understand what her testimony was going to be,
while again it spoke to the title flooding in the original report. And I went through the several instances where that happened. They had her updated January report for more than 5 months before the last hearing, for more than 6 months before this hearing. Meaning they had plenty of
time to do the calculations to do the analysis. They chose not to. Now, it's their burden. They did. They chose not to speak to the title surge flood concern. Now, here's the truth of the matter. PY
does not want to do the calculations. Why? Perhaps it's because they fear what Miss Wong fears and what those calculations will show. It's very simple. The board should just require them to do the calculations.
If they come back acceptable, great. Everyone can sleep that much easier at night. This is Py's burden to demonstrate. It's the planning board's obligation to ensure PY has demonstrated that their
application will not increase flooding on neighboring property. That has not occurred here because PY has told you they have not done the calculations on the title surge flooding. you as the planning board are
empowered to make sure that happens. I'll leave you with this and that is probably the most important piece of testimony from Mrs. Wong which I've highlighted in green which is what is the correct approach? The correct approach is rather than
connecting the proposed development to the existing storm water system that conveys runoff from Port Liberte, the Liberty Watch development could utilize a separate storm source system to independently convey runoff generated on site.
It's that simple. Why don't they want to do that? I can only assume I can only assume that that will cost more and that is probably why they don't want to do that. But why not provide the calculations? It's their burden to show they're not going to flood the neighboring site. The planning
board should require them to provide those calculations. You'll be able to sleep easier at night. PY will be able to sleep easier at night. Maybe, maybe not. But more importantly, the residents of Port Liberte HOA will be able to sleep easier
at night, knowing that this development, according to engineering studies, is not going to increase flooding on their site during the 100-year title storm surge event. So for those three primary reasons, one, the expiration of the development plan,
two, they have no easement and they know an easement is required, they admit an easement is required. And three, the failure to provide any documentation, calculation or assessment of a title surge flood event. Those are all basis
for the planning board to reasonably deny the application. And when you look at the easement requirement and the title surge flooding and the lack of calculations, those are high burdens. They haven't met those burdens. Those
are not an objector burden. Those are the applicant's burd burden. So with that, Madame Chair, council members, uh I I respectfully request u that you or sorry, commissioners, I I I respectfully request that you deny the
application um on those grounds. I'm happy to answer any questions um if you should have any follow-ups. But thank you so much for your time. I know that these hearings have gone long into the night each and every time we've been here, but it's an very important issue. You saw from the amount of homeowners who came out tonight. Uh there were more
than 130 people on this call at one point in time. That's a lot of taxpayer dollars. This is a very important matter to them. They take it seriously and you saw at each hearing how many people have come out over the past, I don't know, more than a year now that um the case has been going on. So, thank you so much
for your time. I really appreciate it. >> Mr. Kala, if you can stop sharing your screen, please. Um, Mr. Rodriguez, would you like to um make your comment? >> Yes. Thank you.
>> For the record. So on behalf of Port Liberte 3, the question they have is the goal to approve plans that just meet the minimum legal requirements or does the board also have to consider that they're
looking to promote good neighborhoods and good neighbors? The the benefit of having a citizen board is that you're because you're from the community, you're looking to promote the public interest and not the developer's interest. So that's the
reason why a lot of the homeowners came out to express their concerns about this project and how it's going to impact them. You heard residents express deep concerns about the existing traffic issues and what happened when the Oliver came online. And so just adding more traffic to that is not going to make the
situation better. It's only going to make it worse, right? Um, I'm sure everyone has had the fun experience of getting stuck behind an Amazon delivery driver and because they're double parked and you're wondering, do I just wait it out for this guy? It looks like he's almost done with the delivery or they
just take a chance and hopefully no one's coming any other direction. I don't get hit. That's one of the concerns they have now. So when we add 400 vehicles and all those Amazon deliveries and all the Uber drivers and all the food deliveries and all the other impacts to an already congested
roadway, that is the reason why uh the the owners at Port Liberty 3 have some serious concerns about this project. There's also concerns with all that congestion, our emergency vehicles are struggling to get through now. And so they asked the board to consider is one
additional means of access even if it's dedicated enough. What happens if that gets blocked? You know, now we're just using the regular congested roadways. You've heard owners discuss concerns they have right now with flooding and drainage issues and sewage backups,
right? We understand that a lot of this was due to the Superstorm Standing, but unfortunately those types of storms are no longer the exception, but they're becoming the rules. And so that's why Mr. Calibar asked the board to consider the impacts of the flooding situation
and how this plan is set up because the types of intense storms that we're having are are not going to be few and far between. There's a good reason to believe that they're going to continue on in the future. So if we're already struggling to deal with water and flooding issues now, what's going to happen when a new project comes online?
Now a lot of the concerns regarding the congestion and all these issues are are as a result of the Oliver and I know Mr. Macan has stated, "Well, that's a rental." Um, we're going to have 168 uh condominiums. These are going, this is going to be a different situation, but I
didn't hear any mention of restrictions that will be part of any master deed to prevent any of the 168 owners from renting out those units. So, without that, there's no guarantee that this is not going to turn into the Oliver 2. You could have a mixture of some home
homeowners and renters, right? So, um, without those types of promises being made, there's no guarantee it's not going to turn into that. But the main concern that I want to highlight on behalf of Port Liberty 3 is the financial impacts that this is going to have. The original plan regarding the
waterfront walkway was that it was going to be supported by over 2,200 homes. They were all going to contribute towards the uh maintenance of that walkway. We're now down to 800. And based upon the presentations, uh, PY has no desire to voluntarily contribute or
do anything else. Um, it would be wonderful if they did join the homeowners association because when everyone acts together, not only do all the residents have a greater ability to plan for their neighborhoods and then be able to enact the things that um, they were dreaming about when they're first brought into these communities, but they
all know that they're sharing the financial burdens as well. So if we don't have a contribution, this is going to create what's already a significant hardship on the homeowners association is just going to make it worse. And this is not about whether the
public should benefit and whether there's an easement for for public access. That's not the issue. The issue is that we have a walkway that was originally designed and planned for 2,200 people to finance. Now we're down to 800. Right? So that is the concern
that they have and that's the concern that they want the board to act on. Now to say that litigation is a form to address those hardships is the way to go. That's not a real solution. Right? Litigation is great for lawyers, not good for litigants. As as uh one of the
owners has expressed tonight, that's a real cost. So, we're taking uh folks who already have significant financial hardships from having to keep up their homes and and pay for all the common elements and we're going to increase that by the cost of litigation. Now, I don't believe that the board is
completely without any equitable powers whatsoever to address this situation. You can deviate from from just the exercise of making sure a plan meets the the minimum legal requirements. You do this all the time when you issue variances. The law says you have to do one thing, but you deviate from that
because to not do so would potentially create a hardship. Well, you can create fix that hardship now by conditioning any type of approval on an agreement between the developer and the HOA to make sure there's something in place to
maintain the waterfront walkway and to contribute towards those costs. Now, if the board is uncomfortable with that type of solution because I know that um there's concerns about your jurisdiction, I have an alternative plan, you can vote no. There is nothing before you to indicate that this
developer is going to contribute to that walkway. So, we're already taking a stressed out community and making it worse. And this has to deal with the need to not just worry about minimum requirements, but making sure that we're creating good neighbors and good neighborhoods.
you can say you're not ready to vote because there's nothing in place and you would feel a lot better about considering this project if there was an agreement in place. None of those go to any jurisdictional issues and and acting beyond your power. You're just saying this is something that's important to
the community. This is not fair that they have to foot the bill for these other developments when the original plan was everyone was going to pay. And so we can write that wrong by just saying no, by saying you're not ready yet and you want to see a plan in place
first to address those concerns before you're ready to act or conditioning approval on having something in place. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. At this time, Mr. McKen, would you like to
um respond and wrap up on this? >> You're muted. >> Unimpressive start there. Yes. There's no evidence in the record anywhere that the original plan for this community was all 2200 units were
supposed to contribute to the upkeep of the waterfront walkway. Every lawyer keeps saying that. Some of the residents say it, but there's nothing in evidence that says that. Number one. Number two, um let's get back to some of the basics
here, right? Um, this is the planning board of the city of Jersey City. Not yet, Rebecca. Not yet. So, what is the role of the planning board when a site plan application comes
before it? The role of the planning board is to determine whether or not the project complies with the requirements of the re relevant legislation. That would be the redevelopment plan and the Jersey City
land development ordinance and the municipal land use law. Um, that's really what this board is constituted for and is empowered to determine.
And we've gotten way far a field of that in this hearing. And that's okay. I understand that the community has attorneys and the community is concerned about some of the things that have happened to them and to
their community over the past 20 years. But if we look at the pure zoning for this, it's undisputed that the project that's being proposed complies with all of the requirements of the redevelopment
plan itself. It complies with the uses. It complies with accessory parking. It complies with parking space requirements. It complies with height. Um, it's below the density limitations. It's below building coverage requirement. Complies with setbacks,
fencing, green area ratio, and landscaping requirements. There's it's really undisputed. That makes it what's called an as of right project. Now, I'm not going to tell you you have
to you should oppose the pro uh uh in vote in favor of the project on that basis, but I'm not going to tell you that's the reason why you should. The reason why you should approve this despite all the controversy are some of the things that I said during the public
session. Um, as designed, this project takes into consideration all of the community's concerns to the extent that it's possible and still develop a site. The
community really wants nothing to be built there. But my client has the right to build a project on that site. Um, the project has been designed to push everything off the public rightway,
pushes the parking off the public public right away, pushes loading off the public right away. These are things I already covered when I answered those questions, but I'd like you to keep the mind keep them in mind because it's really important. None of the co pro none of the problems
that the Oliver is creating are going to be created by this community. I get that people are frustrated with the Oliver, but this is not the Oliver. This project is designed to avoid all of those concerns. If there's a concern that there should
be some regulations um from the home from the PY homeowners association that people can't park on the public rideway, we'll stipulate that that will be in the public in the public offering statement. If there's a concern
that people in this in the PY community will not use the common area facilities of Port Liberte, my client will stipulate to those requirements being in its public offering statement. As I mentioned, this is a town home
community. There's not there and the attorney who pointed out that people can rent is correct. people could rent out and and PY is not going to put anything in their in their documents that say that people can't buy a unit and rent out but assure
it it's assure assuredly true that the initial people will purchase their units here um to live in them the same way that people in Port Liberte primarily live in their units and many of these people uh have told you how long they live there so there's no reason to think
this community will be any different than the Port Liberte community, which makes it a good fit here. As I've stressed, people have said that the density doesn't matter. Of course, it matters. This project was intended to decrease
the density, decrease the building pro uh coverage, which is a benefit to the overall community and a benefit to the city of Jersey City. Um, guest parking is the same thing. All pushed off the public rightway. Those
are all benefits that will enhance the community. Um, once the project is built, my client has complied with all of the requirements of review agents. Um,
this this board has an agency that um assists it with circulation requirements and safety requirements on the site. We've addressed all the comments of the Jersey City Department of Infrastructure and traffic. Um, that's a factor here
that's very important. Also, there have been concerns about um the infrastructure, water and sewer and sanitary sewer. Uh, my client has agreed that they will pay to upgrade the pump
station that provides sanitary pumping for this site. They've agreed to to pay their fair share of any upgrades that are required. That is a benefit to this community. That pump station needs to be updated anyway and it's now going to be
updated primarily if this project is approved at PY homes cost and expense and the JCR the JCMUA will hire the contractor to do that. So it's not PY that will do it. it will be the JC who
will take um all of the community's concerns in when it does when it does the construction and the design. The same thing for the netting chamber that the MUA has required. This is not a situation that's um caused by PY homes. People have told you that their parking
garage is flooding. That's not a PY homes problem. That's a problem that may have been created by the Oliver. But in any event, PY Homes has agreed to allow a netting chamber to be installed on the on the property as part um on the
property to treat to create to treat this problem and correct it and they've agreed to pay in part for that installation. Um I beg to differ with the community and the attorneys um for the objectors
that PY has not taken their this community's concerns into consideration. There were many, many comment letters that were issued between August and October of 2025. PY has taken every single one of those, handed them to the
their professionals and said, "Add address the comments that can be addressed." And over the course of three or four months, which is part of the reason why this project has been before this board so many times, PY has redone
their plans at least twice to accommodate the concerns of the PY expert of of the uh HOA experts. So there he has been at all times a desire to be become a member of the community
and make changes to the plans that address community concerns as put forth by the HOA experts. Let's talk about the flood hazard permit. Um,
and this and this would also in a sense apply to the waterfront walkway concerns. Um, you know, it's and I say this with the utmost respect to this board.
It's really not this board's mandate or jurisdiction to secondguess permits and approvals that have been issued by other agencies that have a greater level of expertise on a
particular issue than this board does. And that would apply to the flood hazard permit. is a D specialized permit with a specialized set of requirements and a specialized set of regulations. The same
goes for the waterfront development permit. Um, Miss Hajaeus um inferred that the applicant is changing their story about the waterfront development permit. We're not. The email supplemented another
exhibit um that was entered into evidence at the at the previous hearing on May 26th that was an actual jurisdictional determination regarding the waterfront development permit. Rebecca, can you put
that up on the screen for us? >> Yep. This is A29, Jim. >> Yes, >> it's a D letter. This document is A29. It was it was offered into evidence at the last
hearing. It specifically applies to lot 15. So the email strand that my ex that my colleague uh Mr. Ways Wainser uh referenced before at this hearing was
um was referring to this jurisdictional permit which is an official document from the D that applies to lot 15 which is the lot that we are all talking about tonight. So to say that the email chain or that we're changing our our story,
that's just not true. This is a formal determination um by the DP that this this site does not require a waterfront development permit. um which means it does not need to contribute to the waterfront walkway
unless unless there is some other agreement between the owner of this lot and the HOA and I would stipulate to you that if the association at some future proceeding can show that there is a
document where a a predecessor in title agreed to contribute to the waterfront walkway way they would have to but there is no such document in existence and this deter uh jurisdictional determination means it
is not a requirement for this project. Thank you Rebecca. The next issue is the flood hazard permit. Um, we have met our burden
of showing everything that could possibly be showed in terms of preventing storm water runoff from affecting
the HOA community. We have given you extensive testimony and showed you regulations that require only because of the location of the site
that the site be raised to the current flood elevation of 12. um which protects against the tidal flood um 100red-year title flood situation.
But because of the HOA's concerns, because of Miss Wang's concerns, my client has also showed through modeling that the project will protect the association from the 25-year storm
event, the future 25-year storm event, the 100red-year storm event, and the future hundred-year storm event that is not required by the D permit.
That was done to address the concerns of the community. Um this this concept that Mr. Cavalar keeps talking about that my client has not performed the calculations
required to show that the 100year title flood combined with the 100red-year storm flood will not affect this community is a fundamental misunderstanding or a fundamental misrepresentation
of what is required and what can be shown because We have shown through testimony and exhibits that all that matters in the event of the 1
in 10,000 chance that those two things happen at the same time is that the the title flood the property be protected from the title flood situation because the storm water just doesn't matter. It
is irrelevant. There's no calculation. As we mentioned during the hearing, it's like it's the ocean against the rain. If the Hudson Bay overflows, it doesn't matter how hard it's raining. It doesn't
matter if it's raining a little. It doesn't matter if it rains a lot. That's why there's no burden for my experts to show you the combination of things. The D doesn't recognize it. It's not
recognized as a standard. And that's why in Miss Wang's initial letter, which I pointed out to you on August 8th, it doesn't even reference the title flood
situation. It only requires or asks my client or suggests that my client deal with storm water runoff, which we've done. Once we did it, Miss Wang, and I'm this is not personal and I'm sure she's a fine engineer and
she's doing her job, changed the story to then require analysis on the title flood, which doesn't make sense. It's not required by the D. And we have in fact showed you um and
Rebecca, could you put the next exhibit up, please? Exhibit 30. A30. >> Yeah. >> No, I was looking for the um >> 828. I'm sorry, Rebecca. A28. This is the modeling that we did to show
you that because the Port Liberte site is below the now required flood plane, it's at elevations lower, any any tidal flood would not come from the PY site. It would in fact
come directly from the Hudson Bay. So we've met the burden of showing that there will be no impact to the p to the HOA community under any tidal flood or
storm water flood situation. Miss Wang testified that she didn't even read the end the the D permit. She testified to that. She said she hadn't read it. She admitted that the permit was issued.
Um, she admitted that the project was going to discharge storm water into the Hudson Bay. She agreed with just about everything that Holt's expert have shown you other than this
madeup concept about combining the two types of flooding together. Um, and I would respectfully submit to you that under questioning, she really was reduced to saying in in terms of the regulations that it was her
interpretation of the regulations, but admitted that it wasn't the DP's interpretation of its own regulations in terms of the easement that Mr. Cabalor has shown you which was not and
never entered into evidence. It is on the portal. Um there's no requirement in the MLUL that we have every easement that we need to have. You you could not deny this project based upon the fact
that it doesn't have an easement. However, it does have an easement. That is a recorded document. Mr. Cavalar can try to make you second guessess it. He can try to throw doubt on it. But that document is recorded in the public right
away. It's signed by the developer of the community because developers have certain rights to make changes to the community through the declaration or the other documents that that regulate the community. That's what was done here.
that easement is of record and it will provide the emergency access and the construction access and the permanent utility access that's needed. And unfortunately, if Mr. Cavalar doubts that, that is something that would
require a lawsuit. That is not something that should be second-guessed or determined by this board. They the HOA keeps up bringing these keeps bringing up these private agreements
allegedly that do not allow the PY home project to be built, but they're just not relevant to a site plan hearing. We've showed you everything we need to show you for an affirmative positive
approval for this project. Um, I'm not Oh, the final thing, and I'll be very brief. Um, Miss Hoggynous's comments about the master plan might be appropriate
if there were still three or four phases of this community to build out, but this community is built out except for the PY site. And the py site is in fact reducing all of the thresholds that are
already in the master plan as we've pointed out in detail. So, none of those other provisions are applicable, but we did provide a traffic study that shows fewer cars and there's going to be less traffic as a result of this project than
what was originally envisioned, which is again a community benefit here that I hope you can recognize. I think I've talked enough. It's really late. I'm going to rest my case and and request that you vote affirmatively for both of
the applications before you tonight and thank you so much for hearing everybody out. Much appreciated. >> Thank you, Mr. McCann. Um I think Mike needed five minutes, so we'll take a five minutes. We'll be back at the 11:05. Try to find a light switch.
I'd like to call the meeting back to order. Miss Commissioner Kaplan and Councilwoman commission. All right. At this time, I would like to have staff comments on um P2024-0182
and on case P2024-0229. So, Matt, is that yours? And Sophia? Yeah, that's both our applications. >> Sophia, why don't you go first because you have the site plan. Yeah. So I was
the review planner for the site plan application of the site which is under case number P 2024 0182 and it is staff's responsibility to review the
proposed development for the compliance with the CPoint redevelopment plan and applicable standards from the Jersey City land development ordinance. So, I'll discuss this and the review process in general. Throughout the review
process, it was apparent that the developer intended to put forth a fully compliant development before the planning board and they did respond promptly to our comments concerning any zoning standards. I do want to however
take some time to briefly discuss another angle of a review process which concern the overall design of the development. It was recommended by staff that the development also be aligned with the design objectives of the
redevelopment plan. One specific design objective discussed was design objective A, which includes that all buildings in the area must be located with proper consideration of their relationship to other buildings.
And it's staff's opinion that this design objective isn't achieved since the orientation of the buildings are autoentric with streets and parking located interior of the development of the site and many of the front of the buildings
oriented outwards towards the site boundaries. We did recommend that the development reorient the streets, parking, and buildings to create a more neighborhood feel and encourage sense of community. But at the end of the day, there is no
specific standard in the redevelopment plan to enforce that would allow us to require the design of the development and the developer to keep the uh sorry that would allow um
us to require the developer to redevelop the site. and the developer ultimately chose to keep the site designed as it is now before the board today. Another design choice made throughout the review process was to remove the roof decks on
each of the town homes which to my understanding was done due to the requirement that when any roof deck is proposed, green infrastructure on any unused unmenitized portion of the roof must also be proposed. Again, with the
removal of the roof decks, there was no longer a specific standard that required green infrastructure on the roof and therefore nothing to require the redesign of the town homes in the development. In summary, despite the design choices,
the proposed development as it stands now complies with all applicable standards and there are no variances associated with the site plan uh portion of this uh application.
Furthermore, the applicant also worked with the Jersey City Municipal Utilities Authority and the Department of Infrastructure to address their comments and concerns. And so, with all this being said, staff
will ask that the applicant agree to the conditions listed in the staff report originally dated May 2025. Mcken. >> Yeah. So the Thank you. So the the applicant does agree to the conditions
in the staff report. Um I would just also like to point out that the application does request an interim use approval for a sales trailer. Um, and that I believe Sophie, you can
remind me, but I believe that was an interim use for to keep the the sales trailer that on the site with signage for three years or um end it when the project sells all the units.
>> Yes, that is correct. >> Okay. minor thing but just to remind you u madam chair that that is also a request for relief. >> Okay. >> Thank you >> Sophia that concludes your um presentation.
>> Yeah. I have nothing further. >> Okay. And your recommendation Matt? >> Um thank you Madam Chair. Um so I was the review planner responsible for the master plan amendment portion of this dual application. Um this is a bit of an
unusual application and that um this as has been acknowledged the redevelopment plan is set up um in an unusual manner. You have a set of st of specific development standards. Um but then you also have um this master
plan document. And the way the master plan document works is that it's essentially an accounting for the distribution of the density and the building coverage across the site. Um as um the
applicant's planner, Mr. Moransky testified. Um both of those items unlike the other development standards are accounted for on a cumulative basis and that master plan is a sort of a descriptive accounting of that
um so to say. Um it is staff's opinion that should um the site plan application approval that it would be wise for the board to also approve the master plan amendment. Um that being said, if the board chooses
not to approve the site plan, the master plan amendment um in and of itself is a sort a moot matter. Um that doesn't necessarily have relevance without a valid site plan application here. um
you know to to vote to amend the master plan, the Caven point master plan within the redevelopment plan is to um properly record um the evolution of the development of
the land within the plan per the terms of the site plan that as Sophia testified meets all applicable development standards. Um, as staff reads the plan, um, I'm open for any
questions if members of the board have any. >> So, I'd like to refer to the board if they have any questions for, um, Sophia or Matt. >> Um, yeah, I I had some questions about the
argument surrounding the easement that Mr. Cavalar brought up and um, then Mr. McCann said we do have an easement and even if we didn't an easement is not required.
So I I I apologize it's late and I was a little confused about the whole easement scenario. So I would love to get your opinions on that. So I can speak to that within the review process. Uh there was a survey submitted
along with this application as well as uh descriptions of previous easements that were associated with the plan. as I reviewed and
understood it there the applicant worked with the existing easements that uh they currently have on the site and I do believe that they are respecting those easements
and so you believe those easements to be valid. I guess I guess the argument was the easement was signed by the de the developer of um or the owner. Um but the HOA was not a party on the
easement for Port Liberte and and so you believe that to be valid like from a a legal perspective in the realm of planning? >> Madam Chair, may I request that or suggest council person we direct that question towards Santo?
I would also believe Santa would be perhaps more equipped. >> All right. Thank you. >> Sorry to put you on the phone. >> I was waiting for someone to say that. >> I wanted to give Sophia a fair chance to answer the question as well.
>> So, nobody's going to like the answer, but the answer is Mr. McCann's position is that they have an easement.
Shavlar's position is they don't have an ease. Cavalar's position is they recorded and it's a little convoluted as to who the
they is, but Mr. Cavalar's position is clear that it is not his client, but the developer or predecessor developer recorded this document in the county
registars's office stating that there's the confirmation of an easement found in another document. from a legal perspective as it pertains to this board and this board's jurisdiction.
If that easement is necessary for the applicant to construct the project and they don't have it, they can't construct the project. If they have it and the board approves the
project, then they can construct the project. Mr. McCann's position is it was reserved on to us and we have it and it's enforcable. So while I respect everybody's opinions,
that is not a legal determination that can be made by anybody other than a judge. uh we're just not in a position to be able
to say whether or not it's enforcable. What we can do is require as a condition of an approval that that easement exist.
But that then may potentially require litigation in the future between the parties or it could be resolved. >> Thank you. So um as I understand it both as it pertains to my question now and my
question earlier neither neither the easement nor the responsibility to pay for the waterfront walkway in your opinion are matters under the board's jurisdiction but
the easement we could make a condition of approval. Would it be lawful for us to do something similar with the waterfront walkway issue or or would that not be something we could add as a condition? So, the condition would also apply to
the waterfront walkway permit in the sense of all necessary D approvals have to be secured by the developer. What Miss Hajianis had requested was
the applicant should have to go down to the D and get a jurisdictional determination with respect to the waterfront permit. The applicant went down to the D and the Determined
that the project does not need a new waterfront permit. whether or not this applicant is required to contribute to that waterfront upkeep because of the waterfront permit
does not fall within this board's jurisdiction. I don't know the answer to that question. I don't have evidence to suggest one way or the other the
responsibilities of Mr. McCann's client with respect to that waterfront permit that was issued and required to develop the boardwalk along
the waterfront. But it this board will absolutely require that all of the necessary D approvals be in place and followed. So
if it is required and I understand that everybody is upset that they feel the documents say this or that. They feel that it was supposed to
be this way that there was a perspective or none of this is lost on me. I understand all of these things. I understand the concepts and the legal issues.
Unfortunately, the hard part about this job for all of you is what's our jurisdiction and what do we have to figure out and what is in our jurisdiction.
So, Mr. Cavalar is absolutely right that we can't or should not be approving something that is directly harming somebody else. But as we've all seen over time, yes, you can't trespass on
another property to develop your property. You can't damage a neighboring property while developing your property. All of those things are true, but we also can't
make sure that an accident doesn't happen that causes damage to a neighboring property. So there are certain things that are beyond our ability to control. We can put some
safeguards in place, but we can't control them because they're outside of our control. So we have to be and balance these interests. And of course, we're going to put a
condition that you can't harm the Port Liberty property, but you have to weigh and decide based on what was presented to you and what you heard, do you believe that the engineering
proposed by the applicant is going to discharge surface water onto the neighboring property? You have the evidence that was presented. You have to wait. And it is not an easy job. And to the members of the public,
all of these commissioners are not compensated. This is all volunteer time. So they all live in the city and they are all volunteers and they have put in a lot of work listening to all of this
like all of you have. Thank you. Any other board comments? >> Um, so Sanento, just to get a finer point on it, from a legal perspective, is it within your opinion that the board
could add a condition of approval to the site plan regarding a contribution to the waterfront walkway, or is that outside of our jurisdiction to do as a condition of approval? I don't think that you can make it a
condition to contribute to the walkway. I think you can make it a condition that the applicant follow all necessary DP permitting requirements. And if that requirement of
the D permit that required the walkway to be built and maintained extends to the applicant, then the applicant has to do that. If you want to make the condition that the
applicant uh verify or get a letter out of the DP that says they are not required to
follow that permit. I think that that condition would be acceptable to the board in the board's jurisdiction to attach to the application. I don't know that Mr.
McCann is able to get such a uh documentation, but I don't think that that would be an unreasonable condition and that's the standard for the board when attaching conditions to
applications. Reasons. >> Yeah, I I personally think that is fair and um I'll refer to my commissioners as well. I think it's a fair condition to add >> if there is an approval. >> Yeah, I would like to make that a
condition um that the applicant would need to receive a confirmation letter and writing um from the D to confirm the contribution status and um what that details >> and also the ement exist.
>> Correct. Agree. and that the easement exists and and that all applicable D permits are followed. >> Correct. Agree. >> Second. >> Okay. Are there any other board comments
before we go on for a vote? >> Yeah, ma madam chair, I did have one other >> Okay. >> question or clarification. you know, following um staff's comment about the site plan, um understanding that they're not seeking a variance, and this is really directed towards you,
understanding they're not seeking a variance, but they're also not really following um some of the best, you know, recommended design considerations for the site. Um is that something that can be discussed or commented on? didn't really come up during the hearings, but you know, now that staff's brought it
up, I I do understand those concerns and um don't know the best way to address them. >> So, of course, it wasn't brought up until after the case was closed and Mr. McCann has not had the opportunity to to
even discuss the point. Uh it is not a requirement of the redevelopment plan. It's aesthetic in nature, it sounds like to me. So, uh, that's that's really all I can can say
about it. It's not a requirement. I'm not 100% clear on potentially what was being looked at or discussed during the review process. >> Certainly. And I I I also have no knowledge of that history um that's that
Sophia brought up, but you know certainly the idea of it being a vehicular centric site plan with the buildings facing out um certainly is is visible was presented but I also understand it's as of right so so I don't know is you know as we
review site plans are we without variances what are the criteria that are appropriate for us to consider? So, had the board brought it up during the hearing and flagged it as a concern or an issue in terms of the
site layout, flow, traffic, circulation. Uh, I think it's appropriate if we're talking about orientation of the building. I think during the hearing it
would have been able to have been discussed and fleshed out and the site plan review process and the site plan review ordinance always gives the board the
jurisdiction and the discretion to improve site plan applications. So if the board had felt we don't like this, we think you should do X Y and Z,
you have that discretion in terms of site plan review, but I don't know what the proposal was or the request was that was not achieved. Staff is recommending the approval of
the site plan. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> Any other board questions or comments? >> No. >> No. All right. So I'll hearing none I'll
entertain a motion for case 2024-0182 which is the preliminary and final major site plan interim use 200 Chapel Avenue. I'd like to make a motion to approve case P2024-0182
as presented to the board with all conditions stated this evening and staff recommendations. >> Second that. >> Hey, Vice Chair Wick. Yeah, I know this has all been so
ongoing and I'm um very empathetic with the public and thank you to um the large attendees tonight. We appreciated listening to all of your concerns and all of that is not lost on
me. That is for sure. Um, but with again the jurisdiction of my role on this board and the testimony that I've listened to for now about the last year, taking into all of that and the
considerations, um, I am going to vote I tonight. >> Commissioner Patel, >> I agree with Miss Wick. uh you know it's been long and you know um
you know a lot of sympathetic towards the public we learned a lot but I think it's a I would I it's densely densely populated and I think it's a good project would I
>> Commissioner Barnaby >> uh I think conditions relating to the boardwalk contribution and the D requirements uh is a good start. Um but I think a lot more needs to be done in order to ensure that the community uh the Portland
community is not harmed. Um and I'm not sold that this is enough. So I'm going to vote no. >> Commissioner Caper, >> he's ineligible to vote. >> Uh uh council person Little.
Um, I obviously have a number of concerns with this project. Um, I definitely empathize with the residents who spoke and I thank you all for coming and staying very late into
the night. Uh, multiple nights. I think in a just scenario, I think in a fair scenario, um, PY would be contributing to the waterfront walkway. Um,
but I have based on our board attorney's interpretation of this board's jurisdiction, it sounds like this is a matter for a judge and not the planning board and the project
is as of right. And um I I I do not see evidence that they have not met the requirements for approval at the planning board level. On a personal level, I hope that um
residents can achieve some of the changes they're looking to see um through other venues. Um, but I I need to stick to the jurisdiction of the planning board and uh this is an as of right project and
I am going to vote I >> Commissioner Kaplan >> wanting to just echo what I think a number of our other commissioners said that you know I think there are some challenges and and you know decisions that were made as part of this project that I I don't know that I personally
agree with that I I think have been brought up by the public, you know, whether they're financial contributions to the waterfront walkway. Um, things that I don't necessarily reflect the intent of some of these planning documents as as I may think of them. But
I also recognize that as written and and kind of as of right, um, you know, a lot of these concerns are not within the jurisdiction of the planning board. Um I believe they're going to be in the jurisdiction of of other entities to make those decisions and the questions
directly before the planning board. Um you know I do think this application uh meets those requirements. Um sometimes uh what's the saying? It's the law is unfortunate when it gets in the way of my opinions. Um but I do think uh to
follow the law and and our role as a commissioner um and my judgment of the application on its merits from a planning perspective. Um I believe this application meets those. Um and so with that I'll vote I >> and Madame Chair Gangaden.
>> So I want to thank the public for your comments in person and virtually. This has been going on for since last July to present. So, it's been a long time and I really really want to thank the public.
You've spent many nights out in person and um that speaks volume to what we do. We value your concerns very much. Um unfortunately, we are bound by the MLUL and we can only vote on what's presented
to us. Um, while I understand the waterfront walkway expense, which is a state regulation, we don't have any jurisdiction to that. I'm happy that we are able to include that as part of the condition and together with the easement
as well. Um, this project complies with all the standards and no variances are required and and this is a rightaway project. Um, so my vote is I and again, thank you all for coming out and voicing your concerns. I'm sure Mr. McCann
somehow um will work with the community as well in moving this forward and keeping it as transparent as possible. >> Motion carries. Five in favor, one opposed.
>> Thank you. I'd like to entertain a motion on case P2024-0229. >> I'd like to make a motion to approve KP2024-0229 as presented to the board um for the review and discussion of the master plan
amendment with Caven point redevelopment plan. >> Second of Vice Chair Wick. I >> Commissioner Patel. >> I >> Commissioner Barnaby.
>> No. >> Commissioner Kaplan. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Little. >> Hi. >> And Madame Chair Gangaden. >> Yes. So again, thank the public for
coming out and voicing your concerns regarding the amendment. um with professional testimony and staff recommendation, the amendments will definitely benefit the community with the reduced density, the height coverage, the building coverage. I think
um it puts some safety measures in place um for building within the area as well. So my vote is I >> Okay, motion carries with five in favor and one opposed. >> Okay.
Commissioners, >> I'm sorry. >> I I just want to thank you all for sticking it out tonight, um, scheduling the special meeting and taking the time to listen to all of this and make a decision tonight. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Do we need an executive session? Madam Chair, I don't know that we I executive session, but I I did want to just welcome Commissioner Capers and Conway. >> Sure. It's a time to do so now. >> This was one heck of a a first meeting,
>> but look forward to meeting you gentlemen uh in the future when we come back from remote and appreciate your service in advance. We're sorry that the two of you had to sit out on a um project of this magnitude, but it's a learning stage, right? So,
you've learned quite a bit there. Um but we appreciate you coming on and um as a team. >> Thank you so much. Thanks for having me. I learned a lot. I really wanted to vote, but I know that there's standards in place and I respect that. And with
that being said, have a good night and I see you all in person. >> Thank you. And we we will be learning from you as well. >> All right. >> Thank you. Um any executive session? No. >> No, I don't think it's needed on my end. >> Okay. All right. Motion to adjurnn.
>> Yeah. >> Second. >> Yes. Second. >> Uh can I I'll make a motion to adjourn this meeting. >> And we have a second. >> Good night, guys. >> Good night. >> Good night. And thank you all so much.