WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=Zc4Pm5Z4k2Q

NOTE
MEETING SECTIONS:

Part 1 (Video ID: Zc4Pm5Z4k2Q):
- 00:00:00: Pledge of Allegiance, Sunshine Announcement, and Roll Call
- 00:01:25: Adjourned Items and Old Business: Caven Point Review
- 00:03:43: Recusal, Counsel and HOA Representation on Record
- 00:06:37: Concerns About Redevelopment Plan, Obligations from Councilman
- 00:09:52: Applicant Resting Testimony, HOA Objections Begin
- 00:12:54: Waterfront Easement Documents and Applicability Disputes
- 00:24:48: HOA: Overview of Objections; Easements; JC JCMUA
- 00:30:46: HOA First Witness: Planning Expert Michael J. Pesalano
- 00:34:35: Overall Site Design and Safety; Retaining Wall, Access
- 00:40:06: Obstruction of Views, Parking Adequacy, Wanderer Concerns
- 00:43:56: Congestion, Circulation, Emergency Access Issues: Atypical Site
- 00:55:17: Pesalano Excused, Next HOA Witness Nancy Wong, PE
- 00:57:58: Professional Engineer Wong's Scope of Work Explained
- 01:00:57: Storm Water Design Disregards 100-Year Title Flood
- 01:06:46: NJAC and Preventing Increased Flooding: Expert Opinion
- 01:15:57: Concerns About Inadequate Emergency Access and Yard Drains
- 01:26:28: Expert Opines Against Approval Without Addressing Title Flooding
- 01:34:20: Recess Over, Applicant's Counsel Begins Cross-Examination
- 02:03:52: Clarifying Storm Event Probabilities and DP's Definition
- 02:08:17: Debating the Regulation's Analysis Requirements; It Depends
- 02:12:16: Redirecting to August Report: Addressing Tidal Flooding
- 02:17:31: Ten Minute Break and Agenda Order Discussion
- 02:18:25: Carlos Rodriguez: Master Plan Amendment Jurisdiction and Legality
- 02:27:51: Master Plan Document Missing; Sunset Clause Questioned
- 02:31:16: Leanne Callahan Longo: Port Liberte Resident Testimony
- 02:34:36: Experiences During Storms; Concerns About Further Elevation
- 02:38:11: Waterfront Walkway Maintenance; Increased Traffic Concerns
- 02:42:36: Council Questions Fact Witness's Expertise; No Regulation
- 02:43:24: Brian Wazner: Rebuttal Testimony Regarding Flood Events
- 02:50:30: DP Was Aware of Stormwater Being Discharged
- 02:51:19: Presenting Email Trail: Pre-Application Meeting with DP
- 02:59:16: Board Questions D's Official Interpretation, Then Rebuttal
- 03:05:10: Sean Moransky: Site Plan Compliance with Redevelopment Plan
- 03:11:38: Visual Impact Assessment; Scenic Views; Mitigation Concerns
- 03:16:37: Council Questions View Impairment; M. Wong's Rebuttal
- 03:21:23: Can a Failure to Address Flooding Be a Basis?
- 03:24:29: Public Comment Discussion and Future Meetings
- 03:29:55: Alexandra Cameron: Longtime Port Liberte Resident and Parent
- 03:32:41: Aparna Shinasan: Consequences of Decisions Made Without Us
- 03:36:27: Michael Ehr: Transfer Agreement and Cost Sharing Dispute
- 03:40:32: Karen Donnu: Traffic and Flood Concerns; Pump House Issues
- 03:43:33: Peter Mey: It Ain't Going to Work; Prior Green Lights
- 03:47:17: Fred Miller: Government Cynicism and Community Voice
- 03:51:22: Motion to Close Public Comments; June 16th Meeting Set
- 03:53:20: Memorializing Resolutions; Zoom Meeting Discussion
- 03:56:41: Scheduling a Zoom Test Meeting; Decorum Concerns


Part: 1

1
00:00:00.080 --> 00:00:17.279
6 2026. Can we all stand for the pledge of the allegiance? >> I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

2
00:00:17.279 --> 00:00:36.399
justice for all. >> Cam sunshine announcements. >> Good evening, Madame Chair. Um, today is Tuesday, May 26th in the year 2026. This is a Jersey City Planning Board meeting with a scheduled 5:30 p.m. start time and in accordance with the Open Public

3
00:00:36.399 --> 00:00:51.600
Meetings Act. Notice of this meeting has been given to the city clerk and posted on the city bulletin and on the city website on Friday, May 22nd of this year. This meeting was also posted on the Jersey City Division of City Planning web page and all distribution materials made available to the board

4
00:00:51.600 --> 00:01:07.600
were published and made available to the public. >> Thank you. Can we do a roll call? >> Yes. Vice Chair Wick >> here. >> Commissioner Barnaby >> here. >> Commissioner Stamato >> here. >> Commissioner Kaplan >> here. >> Commissioner Patel >> here.

5
00:01:07.600 --> 00:01:25.600
>> And Madam Chair Gonkaden >> here. >> All right. We have six commissioners present. We have a quorum. >> Thank you. Can we swear to staff, please? >> Tanya, Matt, Sophia, do you guys any testimony you get tonight, the whole truth, and nothing but truth? >> Yes. Any

6
00:01:25.600 --> 00:01:39.840
correspondence? >> Yes, madam chair. Um, we have two items under new business that have uh requested to adjourn and renotice. So, starting on page 4, item 14 in new

7
00:01:39.840 --> 00:01:57.920
business. This is case P23-043. A preliminary and final major site plan with C variances. Address is 300 Communal Avenue. they have uh requested to adjourn and they will renotice for July 28th.

8
00:01:57.920 --> 00:02:14.400
And then on the last page of the agenda, page six, uh item 19 in new business, case P2024-0240 uh 240, a minor site plan with C variances addresses 916 and 918 Westside

9
00:02:14.400 --> 00:02:29.760
Avenue. They've requested to adjurnn and they will renotice for June 30th. And that concludes correspondence. And for the record, we've marked into evidence uh the sunshine announcement as B1.

10
00:02:29.760 --> 00:02:43.760
>> Thank you. >> Can we have the um for the record, Commissioner Councilwoman, um Elena Little. Thank you. So if there's anyone from the public

11
00:02:43.760 --> 00:03:03.519
here for case P2 23-043, this matter has been adjourned and it will be renoticed for July 28th. Likewise for case P204-0240 will be renoticed for June 30th. So if

12
00:03:03.519 --> 00:03:23.120
you're here, please take note. Thank you. At this time I would like to go on to all business and as our previous chair had had um promised and we need to move forward with that that we will call on

13
00:03:23.120 --> 00:03:43.680
case P2024-0229 which is the review and discussion of the master plan amendments within Caven point redevelopment plan and we will call case P20 2024-0182 which is a preliminary and final major

14
00:03:43.680 --> 00:04:00.480
site plan and interim use. Address is 200 Chapel Avenue. The petitioner is PY Homes of New Jersey. >> Madame Chair and commissioners, I'm going to have to recuse myself on those two issues.

15
00:04:00.480 --> 00:04:27.840
>> Thank you so much for >> I'll be available if you need me. >> Sure. Thank you. Good evening. >> Good evening everybody. >> Good evening everybody. >> Good evening everybody. My name is James McCann from the law office of Connell Foley in Jersey City. I'm here on behalf

16
00:04:27.840 --> 00:04:44.479
of the applicant on both matters that were just called by uh the chairwoman. Um, >> thank you councel. Uh, let's get everybody representing anybody on record. >> Good evening. Martin Cavalar, Becker,

17
00:04:44.479 --> 00:05:00.560
NEPC on behalf of Port Liberte Homeowners Association, Inc. I believe the microphone is not on. >> I believe that's correct. >> Did we get that on the record, though? >> And Miss Hagianis, >> good evening, Commissioner Cynthia. Um,

18
00:05:00.560 --> 00:05:17.759
you you have to flick the switch underneath. >> Cindy, come over here. >> Thank you, Matt. >> Okay. Good evening, Commissioner Cynthia Hajianis appearing on behalf of Port Liberte Condominium Association number

19
00:05:17.759 --> 00:05:34.080
one. Thank you. >> Hey, good evening. My name is William Rodriguez. I'm from Griffin Alexander. We're here on behalf of Port Liberte Condominium Association number three. We understand where things are procedurally. So, at this time, we're not going to be presenting any witnesses, but we are here to observe so

20
00:05:34.080 --> 00:05:49.120
we can report back to the association. >> Thank you, sir. Uh, Mr. McCann, I believe the matter was heard last at the April meeting. It was carried to the May 12th meeting and at the May 12th meeting, we set it down for this

21
00:05:49.120 --> 00:06:04.240
evening. So, uh, Cameron, if any of the commissioners were not available at any of the prior meetings, we just need to have them certify. >> Um, council, we actually have the exact

22
00:06:04.240 --> 00:06:20.400
same board that we had at the uh, April 28th meeting. So, we are prepared to proceed. >> Thank you. >> So, Mr. Cam, we had left off and you were calling a planning witness, but

23
00:06:20.400 --> 00:06:37.600
Madame Chair, I think there was one other item you wanted to address first o. >> Yes, if I may. Um, we have among us one of the elected officials here that, um, he's on a little of a time constraint.

24
00:06:37.600 --> 00:06:58.560
So, if I may, um, Commissioner um, Billy, if you may proceed to the microphone, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you extending that courtesy to me. I'll be brief. Um, as an elected official who literally goes back to the days when

25
00:06:58.560 --> 00:07:14.479
there was first a Port Liberte redevelopment plan, as a young city councilman with darker hair, um, I just want to express some concerns over over this application. I know previously you've discussed an overriding issue um

26
00:07:14.479 --> 00:07:29.280
which I leave it to the lawyers which is whether or not the redevelopment plan still exists whether or not the time period has run out. The city chose to put a time period on a redevelopment plan and one can argue that that redevelopment plan no longer exists and

27
00:07:29.280 --> 00:07:43.840
the venue to create zoning for that is a different zoning than than would be done here before today. I leave that to the lawyers but I need to put that on the record. Uh I just have some overall concerns with the project being proposed. Um but more importantly,

28
00:07:43.840 --> 00:08:00.639
additionally with what seems to be um an exemption or exclusion if a project if this project moves forward with their obligations as it relates to maintenance of things like a walkway, roadways, etc. I think that um when anyone contemplated

29
00:08:00.639 --> 00:08:15.840
that development, it was always contemplated that all phases, all phases of that development would need to contribute because all residents that would reside in that area uh benefit from walkways, benefit from roadways, benefit from the things that need to be

30
00:08:15.840 --> 00:08:31.199
done to maintain those roadways and pathways, etc. So, I have general concerns about it. I have an overriding concern about whether or not the zoning or redevelopment plan still carries. Um, but I also think you need to make sure

31
00:08:31.199 --> 00:08:47.200
that the obligation of any project that may move forward there pays and all obligations as would any other um project within the Port Liberte area. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Can I ask a question? Is that okay? >> Sure.

32
00:08:47.200 --> 00:09:02.480
>> Um, thank you so much, Commissioner. Um, I was wondering if you could specify um specifically which walkways are are under consideration here. >> I'm thinking the the I guess the walkway closest to the waterfront. My understanding is that there is no

33
00:09:02.480 --> 00:09:17.760
agreement or commitment for them to pay a a their whatever would be the proportionate share as determined by the number of units in the building for that. Uh that would be the most overriding one. But I think there may also be issues as it relates to the road maintenance, the main road that goes

34
00:09:17.760 --> 00:09:34.720
into there that's still maintained and paid and plowed by the by the people that live there. But the walkway that goes along the waterfront, which is key um because it serves not only there, but goes to Liberty State Park and other areas is is a fundamental and my understanding is that that walkway will

35
00:09:34.720 --> 00:09:52.640
sooner rather than later need some serious um serious upgrades or work done on it. >> Okay. Thank you so much. >> Thank you very much. Thank you, council. Thank you so much. Mr. McCann, you may proceed. >> So, can you hear me?

36
00:09:52.640 --> 00:10:09.600
Uh at this time the applicant has decided to not present any further direct testimony um but reserves the right to um present rebuttal testimony based upon whatever testimony the um HOA and any other

37
00:10:09.600 --> 00:10:26.160
objectors may offer. So we're basically resting our case subject to um rebuttal testimony and a summation by me. And also on the site plan application,

38
00:10:26.160 --> 00:10:42.880
um we'll hold the presentation of the amendment to the master plan until such time as we hear the um the objector's testimony on the site plan. I don't think there's much reason to have an amendment to the

39
00:10:42.880 --> 00:10:59.200
Caven Point master plan if this board doesn't approve the site plan application that's before it. So, we're going to hold that testimony and wait until after the objectors put their case in. >> Any questions, Madam Chair, members of the board?

40
00:10:59.200 --> 00:11:16.640
>> I sorry, I I have a question based on what the commissioner just said. And um forgive me if this is not the right time to ask it. I can retract it and ask it later, but um is is contributing to a fund for the waterfront walkway andor road maintenance um a condition that you

41
00:11:16.640 --> 00:11:32.880
would be willing to consider? It's not because there are no requirements. Uh an HOA and there's three condominiums that are all under this HOA. An HOA is a homeowners association. Um they are all

42
00:11:32.880 --> 00:11:47.920
under the umbrella of the homeowners association. The controlling documents which are covenants and restrictions and master deeds, all of which are recorded in the Hudson County Register's office. None of those documents require this

43
00:11:47.920 --> 00:12:04.640
property to participate or pay any of the um dues, maintenance fees and maintain those the the amenities that the uh freeholder was discussing. So the

44
00:12:04.640 --> 00:12:22.160
reason we are not offering to join that association is they have no obligation to and this is a completely separate community. Um, I know the freeholder has his position and I know he has his concerns, but you can't find a single document anywhere that requires that.

45
00:12:22.160 --> 00:12:38.160
Um, therefore, that's not a condition that the applicant is should even have to consider. Nor is that a condition that this board that's a that's a homeowners condominium association kind of dispute. It's not a land use

46
00:12:38.160 --> 00:12:54.639
dispute. So, I respectfully request that you leave the condominium association, homeowner association disputes to the courts because that's where they would belong. >> Is that does that answer your question? Uh, Commissioner.

47
00:12:54.639 --> 00:13:12.000
>> Yes. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mrs. Um, >> Cynthia Janus. >> Yeah, I actually would would like to comment on what the applicant's attorney some of the representations he just made to the board. So, um, the the Caven

48
00:13:12.000 --> 00:13:28.320
Point redevelopment plan does not envision approving the site plan prior to approving the amendment to the master plan. And the language of the redevelopment plan is very clear.

49
00:13:28.320 --> 00:13:44.480
In section F, it states, I think it's section, there's a Roman numeral 7F, it says, in order to encourage more comprehensive multifphase developments, a master plan for all or part of the

50
00:13:44.480 --> 00:14:01.040
redevelopment plan must be presented by the developer to the planning board prior to submission of individual site plans. And I think a fair reading of that is that the application for the site plan, I mean for the master plan

51
00:14:01.040 --> 00:14:17.760
amendment should have been considered before the application for the site plan was ever submitted to this board. And I think my the planner I brought with me uh tonight can elaborate more on that, but I don't even know how they decided what the site plan application was

52
00:14:17.760 --> 00:14:32.639
supposed to be without getting an amendment to the master plan approved by this board prior. So in my view, the applicant has put the cart before the horse. Um secondly, when he's saying

53
00:14:32.639 --> 00:14:48.560
there is no filed document anywhere, that is um something I just can't say is true. I last week I found a filed waterfront development permit that dates

54
00:14:48.560 --> 00:15:03.360
back to 1984. Um it has the word easement on it. An easement is a covenant that runs with the land. It is not something that you can get out of doing because of a change

55
00:15:03.360 --> 00:15:19.279
in ownership or a a a change in the association. It doesn't have to be an association document. And there are additional modifications of this original easement document that um state

56
00:15:19.279 --> 00:15:36.639
that this easement and this waterfront development permit affects the entire um Caven point area in perpetuity. So I don't think there's any way the applicant can get out of this obligation even if they haven't put the D on notice

57
00:15:36.639 --> 00:15:51.120
and they haven't put the planning department on notice. There there are filed documents that that expressly state that the applicant is under an obligation. >> Thank you, >> council. Let's talk about it. Miss

58
00:15:51.120 --> 00:16:07.279
Hajianis, don't go anywhere with that document. Have you shown it to Mr. McCann? Is Mr. McCann aware of the document? >> Apparently, he's not. >> I'm not. >> I mean, I would think he should be. He's

59
00:16:07.279 --> 00:16:23.600
handled, I think, some of these other applications on Caven Point. >> Council, I'm just a little caught off guard because obviously this has been going on for months. >> Yeah. I mean, it was incumbent upon the applicant to draw it to the planning board's attention,

60
00:16:23.600 --> 00:16:39.680
>> but when you discovered it, you probably should have shared it, but okay. >> It's an ongoing obligation. I mean, I think you're finding out about it, >> but here we are. Right. So, >> Right. And this is the time. >> Mr. McCann,

61
00:16:39.680 --> 00:16:55.199
Miss Hajianis is waving a document around. >> Well, I don't know exactly what it is. >> Neither do I. >> I emailed the planning staff about it earlier today. I kind of assumed they would communicate with Mr. Macan about it. And I think you were CCed on the email.

62
00:16:55.199 --> 00:17:10.640
>> Miss Hajianis, we have gone over this before in the past in terms of when we need documents submitted and shared. And here we are. This is a public document that it was incumbent upon the applicant to bring it to the board's attention. The fact that

63
00:17:10.640 --> 00:17:27.679
I had to find it as the objector council is really kind of egregious and and the fact that the NGAP is a re should have been a review agent on this application and hasn't I don't believe has been um notified about this waterfront

64
00:17:27.679 --> 00:17:43.039
development. >> I don't know anything about it. We're learning about it in real time. >> Right. That's right. But I think there's planning staff. This is this could have been picked up on by any number of people. The fact that I'm the one picking up on it at the tail end of the application is problematic, but

65
00:17:43.039 --> 00:17:58.880
it's not problematic for the reason you seem to be saying it's problematic. It's >> problematic because we're all here now and nobody's prepared to address the document >> Mr. McCann. So, I have in my hand a

66
00:17:58.880 --> 00:18:12.400
jurisdictional determination from the state of New Jersey Department of Environmental Environmental Protection stating that a waterfront development permit

67
00:18:12.400 --> 00:18:30.559
for lot 15, lot 22 in block 27503 is not required. That's this I'll offer it as as an exhibit, but it clearly states that this project, this

68
00:18:30.559 --> 00:18:45.440
property is not subject to the waterfront development plan. We notified that and there was a notice to the NJD and this is what we got a jurisdictional determination. Now, I will represent to you that it was from a

69
00:18:45.440 --> 00:19:00.559
prior developer, but it was for the exact same property that we're talking about today. So, I disagree with Miss Hajinas's comments, and I think this document, which I'd like to offer as an

70
00:19:00.559 --> 00:19:18.240
exhibit um to my application, is all that's needed for this issue. I was not aware until now um or actually until this a this afternoon. I think I saw an email from um Cynthia to the planning division

71
00:19:18.240 --> 00:19:33.600
raising these issues. So this is the first time hearing of it too and this is my response to it. >> So Miss McCann, you saw that document. That's why you have a response. >> No, I saw an email from Cynthia to um to

72
00:19:33.600 --> 00:19:47.679
one of the staff members raising this issue. And that's a document. You sent it to planning staff. >> I did not. I just brought it with me tonight. There was really no time. >> So, Madam Chair, this this is what

73
00:19:47.679 --> 00:20:04.160
happens. I think that the best course of action for the board. We're going to mark both documents. Uh everything is subject to these other jurisdictions. So,

74
00:20:04.160 --> 00:20:21.520
I just for the board and for the public, it's very hard to move forward with applications when things happen like this and the board does not have the time to

75
00:20:21.520 --> 00:20:40.080
review these things. Uh but fortunately these documents deal with another jurisdiction which this board anything this board does is subject to that jurisdiction. So

76
00:20:40.080 --> 00:20:56.240
we'll mark them. We'll accept them. They'll be part of the record. We've got a difference of opinion as to what the DP's jurisdiction regarding the site is. and the D will determine that. This board's not going to determine

77
00:20:56.240 --> 00:21:12.400
that. So, Miss Hajianis, we're gonna mark yours first. Mike, I don't think we have >> O2. >> O2. That is that is correct. >> This is O2. So, Miss Hajianis, can I have that? >> Yeah, I just handed them up to Fernando.

78
00:21:12.400 --> 00:21:34.000
>> I mean, I'm sorry, Matt. Sorry, >> Miss Hajianis. Is this one document because it's clipped separately? >> Yeah. So, um the first document is the original filed easement. Um it's dated

79
00:21:34.000 --> 00:21:51.280
September 15th, 1985. And the second document are modifications to that easement document. It's kind of an assortment of documents, but the the first one is

80
00:21:51.280 --> 00:22:07.919
is uh stamped October 16th, 2007. And um >> all right, so let's do this. The document that's been marked as O2 is a document September 15th, 1986.

81
00:22:07.919 --> 00:22:52.159
It is recorded at book 4062, page 178 through 237. Miss Hajianis, this next document. So the the permit documents are appended, I guess, to an amendment

82
00:22:52.159 --> 00:23:10.840
um to the restated declaration of covenants, easements, and restrictions. So, Miss Hajianis, the second document we're going to mark as 03. This document is entitled

83
00:23:11.039 --> 00:23:27.200
ETH amendment to restated declaration of covenants, easements, and restrictions for the Port Liberte development. It's recorded at book 8353, page 134 through page

84
00:23:27.200 --> 00:23:42.240
179. That's 02 and 03. And A29 is an October 10th, 2017 coastal jurisdiction determination

85
00:23:42.240 --> 00:24:06.760
letter from the State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection addressed to a Mr. David Draper and it is a two-page letter October 10th, 2017. A29.

86
00:24:06.799 --> 00:24:48.039
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Hajianis. Mr. Caliber, may I see the document that is the is Cynthia's exhibit? You still here?

87
00:25:06.000 --> 00:25:21.520
Uh madam chair, fellow members of the planning board, um thank you first for your time this evening. I do want to just give a brief overview of what the objector's um case here is tonight. Um and it is about four main topics. Um one

88
00:25:21.520 --> 00:25:36.000
was the expiration of the redevelopment plan. I will not rehash that um out here tonight. Do not worry. uh that was already addressed at a prior hearing. Um so uh thank you for hearing us on that piece of it. The second dovetailes a little bit with the objection made by

89
00:25:36.000 --> 00:25:52.559
Port Liberte um one and that is that there are certain um easements required uh that the applicant ultimately does not have. Now I'm going to talk about that for a moment because whether or not they have the easement or their easement document is correct is probably not a is not a

90
00:25:52.559 --> 00:26:09.039
determination for you to make. Though what you can do if there was a resolution of approval is make it clear that such an easement is needed because my client objects to the easement document that was put forth. I'll talk about that just briefly in a moment. Um

91
00:26:09.039 --> 00:26:25.120
the third topic is the installation of netting that is being required uh by JC JCMU. Um that was in the applicants I think exhibit 25. Talk about that briefly. And then finally, you're gonna hear from two experts tonight on behalf of Port

92
00:26:25.120 --> 00:26:41.200
Liberte Homeowners Association. Um, we have Michael Pesilano, who's a professional planner with us. Michael, are you here somewhere? And we have Nancy Wong, who is a professional engineer in the second row back here. Okay. So, let me briefly talk

93
00:26:41.200 --> 00:26:56.159
about this easement um requirement so I can at least get it on the record. There is a suggestion from the applicant that an easement exists and they put this in their application that allows the applicant use of the uh Port Liberte

94
00:26:56.159 --> 00:27:12.240
Homeowners Association property association's position is there is no such easement. The reason I say this kind of dovetales with prior council's argument is that the easement that is being referred to in the record is a document called confirmation of easement.

95
00:27:12.240 --> 00:27:30.000
My client is not a signatory to that document. The applicant, as I understand it, is relying on language in the association's declaration. The association's declaration was crafted by the uh

96
00:27:30.000 --> 00:27:46.080
current property owner. PY being a contract uh purchaser of the property and that would have permitted an easement if the applicant was going to be part of the HOA. As you've heard, the applicant is not willing and takes the

97
00:27:46.080 --> 00:28:03.039
position that they don't have to be part of the HOA. Again, we think they do. not an issue for this board to determine, but it is still important and you should take your council's advice on this. But our request is that in the event you were to accept this

98
00:28:03.039 --> 00:28:19.200
easement document and you were to rely on it in approving it, you need to make it a condition of approval that that easement actually exists, that that easement says what it says and that it's a valid easement. Right? Pretty straightforward. If somebody needs an easement as part of an application, you do your due diligence. You don't get

99
00:28:19.200 --> 00:28:33.760
into arguing is the easement valid or not, but they need to come forward with something. They came forward with a document, yes, but my client is not a signatory to that document. They are not subject to that easement. Funny enough, they're relying on the very declaration that they say they don't need to be a

100
00:28:33.760 --> 00:28:50.799
part of saying that gives them those e easement rights. So, that's the issue on the easement. If you were to approve, there needs to be a condition of approval that they have a valid easement. We can take that up via other means at that point in time. The next topic before we get to our

101
00:28:50.799 --> 00:29:05.760
expert testimony and Miss Wong will actually test uh touch upon this just a little bit is the installation of the netting that is required for the existing pump station. Um applicant showed a letter from JCMUA and said that you know the cost is going to be borne

102
00:29:05.760 --> 00:29:22.240
33% by the applicant and the rest by the JCMA. Uh that letter itself acknowledges that there is an existing pumps station and that there's issues with that. Now I understand the Oliver building went in. That's over and done with. There were no

103
00:29:22.240 --> 00:29:39.039
issues before that building went in. That building was constructed. There are now issues. My client also doesn't take issue with the netting. You'll hear from Miss Wong about the netting. She's not going to get up here and say I have an issue with the netting. Our issue is that JCUMA is

104
00:29:39.039 --> 00:29:54.480
saying our client now has to pay for that netting. Didn't create the problem but has to pay for that netting. That is something you can require as a condition of approval. They want the application to be approved. They're coming in. They're going to worsen the condition. My expert will tell you there's a

105
00:29:54.480 --> 00:30:13.600
solution to that. They agree with their expert that it's the netting, but the netting should be a condition of approval at the cost of py. Lastly, Mr. Mr. Pesalano and Mrs. Wong. Mr. Pesalano, I'll call him first. He's going to he's a professional planner. He's going to speak to some of the site

106
00:30:13.600 --> 00:30:30.480
related issues that he has identified in his report. Then I'll call Miss Wong, who is a professional engineer. She's going to talk about grading and drainage. Um during my cross-examination, I talked a little bit about flooding and the impact of the conditions on the site um if the applicant's proposed site um is

107
00:30:30.480 --> 00:30:46.320
approved. and she'll speak to um what our concerns are and as a result why the applicant why the applicant's uh application should be denied by this board. So with that I would like to call Mr. Pesalano

108
00:30:46.320 --> 00:31:06.880
as our first witness the this evening. Do you want me to var Mr. Pesalano or I've seen it be the practice of the board that the chair does it so or maybe count >> let's get Mr. Pesalano sworn testimony tonight.

109
00:31:06.880 --> 00:31:24.720
>> I do. >> Yes. Michael J. Pesselano. That's spelled P E SS O L A N O. Licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. >> Mr. Pasalano, is your license current and in good standing? >> It is. >> Thank you. You may proceed.

110
00:31:24.720 --> 00:31:41.840
>> Okay. I have your concurrence that Mr. Pesalano is accepted as an expert in uh professional planning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Uh Mr. Pesalano, can you talk to me about um the scope of your uh

111
00:31:41.840 --> 00:31:57.440
involvement in this matter? >> Yes. I was retained by the uh HOA to uh evaluate the proposed site plan. That's the subject of this application. uh from a planning perspective uh kind of a a nuts andbolts uh how does this site plan

112
00:31:57.440 --> 00:32:12.000
look and work kind of evaluation compared against the uh redevelopment plan and uh applicable regulations otherwise the um original effort um was

113
00:32:12.000 --> 00:32:28.480
circulated the my original findings uh the applicants team responded with comments item for item which knocked out several of my uh initial questions or concerns. So, we just now have a distilled uh list of a few more items

114
00:32:28.480 --> 00:32:45.279
that um I believe have not been u adequately addressed by the plan revisions. I have reviewed the original plans and the revised plans uh reviewed the the cabin point redevelopment plan applicable city regulations visited the

115
00:32:45.279 --> 00:33:00.159
site. I want to mention that uh my core competency one of them as a professional planner I'm now in my fifth decade uh of experience as a professional planner despite my youthful appearance

116
00:33:00.159 --> 00:33:17.840
um so it's uh what I do have done a lot of I have looked at all sorts of site plans and uh consider myself uh quite competent at reviewing and critiquing site plans Mr. Pesalano, you said you issued two

117
00:33:17.840 --> 00:33:32.480
reports in this matter, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. The first that was your August 11th, 2025 report. >> That's correct. >> Uh but then you amended that report uh in February of 26. >> Yes. >> Okay. And you issued a February 3rd, 2026 report. >> I did.

118
00:33:32.480 --> 00:33:46.799
>> Okay. And the remaining issues that you have with the application, those are solely set forth in the February 3rd uh 2006 report. >> That's correct, Mr. Cavalar. >> Okay. Uh what number are we up to? Are we up to four or five? 04. Okay. So, can

119
00:33:46.799 --> 00:34:11.440
we mark this as 04, please? >> Do I need to mark it or I could mark it? >> February 3rd. Here, I'll give you a copy, Mr. This is a February 3rd, 2026 MJP Land

120
00:34:11.440 --> 00:34:35.200
Use Planning LLC planning report for the Port Liberte Homeowners Association. It is seven pages. This was uploaded to the portal prior to this evening which I have seen. So 04.

121
00:34:35.200 --> 00:34:51.839
>> Thank you. Okay. And as you stated, all of your remaining concerns, those are addressed in this report, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. Can you walk me through what your concerns are um with the project as revised by the applicant? >> Yes, gladly. Um starting with sheet

122
00:34:51.839 --> 00:35:08.560
five, the overall site plan CS 100, uh as shown on that document. Um I raised a comment about uh the height of the retaining wall only being expressed in general terms and this is a retaining wall that abuts the u phase three

123
00:35:08.560 --> 00:35:25.040
portion of my client's uh area and >> what's the concern about the height of the retaining wall? >> Uh is it is it appropriate at that height? uh is it an effective and durable barrier to avoid inappropriate

124
00:35:25.040 --> 00:35:39.920
and unsafe access between phases uh by scaling of the fence? Um >> what makes you have that concern? >> Uh they're the dimensions are are minimal. They're they're not really

125
00:35:39.920 --> 00:35:57.040
detailing uh in enough um breadth the overall height of this so-called barrier between development areas. >> And you've attended the hearings in this matter, correct? >> Yes. >> Have you heard any testimony regarding the retaining walls um to demonstrate

126
00:35:57.040 --> 00:36:13.760
the adequacy of the wall to restrict unauthorized access? >> I can't recall any focused on that particular point. And we're we're also dealing with the concern that um is compounded by the proposed elevation of this the subject property the py

127
00:36:13.760 --> 00:36:31.359
property uh the entire land area will be elevated uh behind this wall. >> What's the concern about that? >> Well, the reasoning of the property >> it it makes it easier to get from there to into phase three uh by scaling whatever is on top of the wall if there

128
00:36:31.359 --> 00:36:46.800
is even anything on it. So, the proposed site is going to be several feet higher than the existing neighboring Port Libert site. >> Yes. >> Okay. And you have a concern with access from the proposed site at a higher elevation to the lower elevation. >> Yes. And I looked specifically at that

129
00:36:46.800 --> 00:37:03.920
on the heels of my clients saying they have a concern about the um trespassing, if you will, of the the new residents that would occupy the the PY homes development coming through and utilizing the uh amenities uh that they're

130
00:37:03.920 --> 00:37:20.160
proposing to not uh take any responsibility for maintaining. >> Okay. So you have you have a a a overall concern with access of users of the proposed site based on the layout of the retaining walls, the height of the property, and then accessing the

131
00:37:20.160 --> 00:37:34.560
association's property. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And you haven't heard testimony regarding that from the applicant is your concern? >> I haven't heard testimony. The response to that comment from the applicant um was that spot elevations along the

132
00:37:34.560 --> 00:37:51.040
retaining wall are um placed on sheets CG102, the grading plan, and CG 103, GL grading plan insets. And so I I still maintain the specific testimony regarding the

133
00:37:51.040 --> 00:38:08.160
retaining wall should be provided to demonstrate the adequacy of the wall to restrict unauthorized access and effectively channel storm water to appropriate locations. I'll leave the latter part to uh Miss Wong to u explain if further questions are on that point.

134
00:38:08.160 --> 00:38:25.200
>> Okay. And then on sheet five, sticking with the same sheet, the overall site plan CS100, you had a second comment um about a proposed easement. What was the um concern there? >> Yes, that would be for an easement for uh gated emergency access uh through

135
00:38:25.200 --> 00:38:41.599
phase three. It appears to require an easement from the Port Liberte uh homeowners association, but I observe that surface finishes, maintenance, and access details should be more clearly depicted on the plants.

136
00:38:41.599 --> 00:38:57.200
We don't know what any of those are about based on the filed plants. Parking or storage on the grass paver emergency access should be prohibited as well. >> And this goes again assuming an easement exists. These are conditions that you

137
00:38:57.200 --> 00:39:12.720
think should be placed on that. >> Yes. >> Okay. And um you uh referenced the comment or response from the Jersey City or sorry from the applicant providing a confirmation of easement. Did you take a look at that document?

138
00:39:12.720 --> 00:39:29.119
>> Actually I can't speak to that. >> Okay. And but have you heard the applicant provide specific testimony regarding um the existence of an easement in the case? >> I've heard it referred to but >> and that and that was that confirmation of easement that I discussed earlier. Correct. >> Okay.

139
00:39:29.119 --> 00:39:48.720
>> Um you also had a concern with increased visitors. What was the issue there? Oh, you covered that one already. My apologies. You had uh comments about traffic circulation. That was the third comment.

140
00:39:48.720 --> 00:40:06.079
>> Well, actually uh the third comment uh was about the u obstruction of views uh by the proposed uh a portion of the proposed uh stack townhouse buildings uh relative to my client's um views that

141
00:40:06.079 --> 00:40:24.079
they now enjoy um towards the harbor. Tell me about the concern uh related to views I I assume you mean of the skyline. >> Okay. And how that relates to the redevelopment plan if it does at all. Uh the red development plan specifically

142
00:40:24.079 --> 00:40:40.880
uh asserts um in section uh Roman numeral 3D D of the redevelopment plan saying the intent is to produce a design that facilities maintaining uh scenic view sight lines from within the development toward the various scenic

143
00:40:40.880 --> 00:40:56.480
features surrounding the redevelopment area. um an exhibit of the views I suggest should be uh entered into the record along with specific testimony. Uh the initial response to my initial comment

144
00:40:56.480 --> 00:41:14.079
was that instead of building a 15story building um the the proposed buildings would be four stories. Um however uh and and they also made an argument that visual corridors also apply from outside uh the

145
00:41:14.079 --> 00:41:31.520
redevelopment area such as highway drivers. Um the the reduced uh building height um they said provides a broader public benefit of preserving view corridors. uh but without demonstrating that which led

146
00:41:31.520 --> 00:41:47.440
to my prior comment about um the view exhibit should be uh presented so the board knows whether it is or isn't um something that will u frustrate this very important uh objective in the redevelopment plan.

147
00:41:47.440 --> 00:42:03.440
So your your suggestion would be that the planning board hear testimony from the applicant uh about how its proposed development won't impact the sighteline views in accordance with the redevelopment plan. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And your understanding is this board had previously determined that they were going to apply the

148
00:42:03.440 --> 00:42:19.520
redevelopment plan. So if they're applying the redevelopment plan, this is something they would need to take into consideration. >> Yes. And then comment four u on the same sheet. Um I observed that the the parking supply appears adequate to the

149
00:42:19.520 --> 00:42:34.560
number of spaces especially the number of visitor spaces uh which will actually exceed the number of spaces required by the redevelopment plan and the redevelop and the New Jersey site uh improvement standards New Jersey RSIs as it's

150
00:42:34.560 --> 00:42:50.880
affectionately known. Um but this um additional uh set of visitors um kind of a build it and they will come kind of concept means more potential wanderers into and throughout the

151
00:42:50.880 --> 00:43:08.880
amenities uh of currently built phases. Uh the response from the applicant on that was future residents and guests of Liberty Watch development will not have access to amenities on the neighboring property. I simply respond to that by

152
00:43:08.880 --> 00:43:24.319
saying testimony as to how this access will be prevented should be provided within this hearing. >> Okay. And your understanding is that as this uh area was originally comp uh contemplated uh the PY site was going to be part of the PE HOA meaning Port

153
00:43:24.319 --> 00:43:40.319
Liberty HOA and if it was this wouldn't actually be a concern. Correct. >> Correct. >> But because they're proposing to not be part of the HOA, you're suggesting that they ought to give testimony before the planning board to detent those wanderers onto what is the HOA's neighboring propert.

154
00:43:40.319 --> 00:43:56.160
>> Exactly. >> Based on the existing site layout. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh, still on this same sheet of the site plan, I observed that um there's really not a lot of room for maneuvering and

155
00:43:56.160 --> 00:44:11.200
temporary parking um to accommodate removal and re return of v visit I'm sorry, vehicles to garage spaces within the the proposed development. This to me raises uh con

156
00:44:11.200 --> 00:44:29.040
potential congestion uh spontaneous congestion and perhaps uh emergency access concerns. >> What would you like expect to hear uh or expect the planning board to require the applicant to demonstrate to resolve those concerns? Well, I I saw that the

157
00:44:29.040 --> 00:44:46.720
the in the response from the applicant um an assertion that the project meets RSIS parking requirements throughout the development and that the driveway/g configuration is a typical design for residential communities with town houses

158
00:44:46.720 --> 00:45:02.079
and and it does not create an unsafe or inefficient condition. >> Is there something unique though about this site and what it does? >> Yes, indeed. Um the site is truly atypical of uh development in Jersey City as as I know it to be um which

159
00:45:02.079 --> 00:45:17.440
usually involves multiple points of access due to a very complex and well-developed street grid system. This project however depends on a single point of entry and exit which itself is on a single roadway in and out of the

160
00:45:17.440 --> 00:45:33.920
entire area that is Chapel Avenue. While an emergency access easement is planned between the development phases, it's a minimum measure and such access itself can easily become blocked by such as the storing of vehicles or

161
00:45:33.920 --> 00:45:50.160
materials, you know, that are about to be installed or whatever might be put there because it's a convenient available place whereas all the rest of the the site areas either buildings or parking or roadways. So it becomes even more important more important that they actually have that easement in the first

162
00:45:50.160 --> 00:46:04.880
place. Correct. >> That is certainly true. >> So while an emergency um access easement is planned, it's a minimum measure and it can become easily blocked. Tight circulation with this within this project continues to be to me a a major

163
00:46:04.880 --> 00:46:21.680
design issue and should be affirmatively addressed in a revised design. in and why do you opine that there's um tight circulation within the project? >> What is that based on? Can you explain that to the planning board? >> Yes. Uh even though there are uh 24 ft

164
00:46:21.680 --> 00:46:36.720
aisles behind uh all of the parking spaces, um there is tight maneuvering. Uh I saw in the um firetruck turning diagram that there is no room for error for a firetruck to make some of the

165
00:46:36.720 --> 00:46:53.920
curves within the center of the uh development as it's currently designed. I I think we can do better in 2026 with that kind of outcome quite frankly. So I I don't see any reason not to be able to provide um turning room and then some

166
00:46:53.920 --> 00:47:09.760
given the stakes involved the close proximity of this uh development. Should there be a wind-driven fire blowing the flames and fire to the adjoining phase that's avoidable if it was due to u a fire truck not being able to maneuver

167
00:47:09.760 --> 00:47:26.560
because a a pickup truck stuck out too far uh into into the uh driveway on >> I was going to say why is it important to have room for error? That's those are the types of scenarios you're thinking about. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um you also had concerns uh uh with respect to sheet number six uh CS

168
00:47:26.560 --> 00:47:41.359
101. What was the concern there? >> Um I saw that that driveway aisle is dimensioned to 22 feet in width whereas the conformance table says uh proposed aisles are 22 feet. I'm sorry 24 feet. I

169
00:47:41.359 --> 00:47:58.880
find that 22 for the reasons I just stated is very tight uh for backing out of individual town home driveway spaces and unduly restrictive of traffic flow while residents are shuffling their vehicles in and out of garages. Um as

170
00:47:58.880 --> 00:48:15.680
stated before the RSIS minimum is 24 ft. Uh applicant responded um by saying it complies with the redevelopment plan which uh wants 22 foot wide um driveway aisles and the spaces themselves are

171
00:48:15.680 --> 00:48:31.599
extra long at 20 ft versus the required 18 ft in length. >> So why still a concern then? Uh going back to my prior comment again, it the even with that design, it just barely

172
00:48:31.599 --> 00:48:49.119
allows room for uh piece of uh emergency equipment to maneuver through um the the travel lanes between the parking spaces. >> Okay. So, as a professional planner, in your opinion, there should be um some room for error in that regard for emergency vehicles. >> It makes logical sense.

173
00:48:49.119 --> 00:49:11.359
>> Makes good planning sense >> and good planning sense. >> Okay. Um the next sheet, sheet number seven, CS 102. Any issues there? >> Uh again, that deals with uh 22 versus uh 24 ft uh in width. And my same uh

174
00:49:11.359 --> 00:49:29.319
concerns apply in in this on this sheet. you and you you talked a little bit about um in this regard on this sheet perpendicular parking spaces. What what was your um comment about the perpendicular parking spaces along the main entrance driveways?

175
00:49:29.359 --> 00:49:45.760
>> Actually, that's the next uh comment. Um dealing with temporary vehicle parking spaces. Uh the applicant responded that there were perpendicular spaces along the main entrance driveway across from building one. My concern was that there were very few temporary spaces

176
00:49:45.760 --> 00:50:01.839
convenient to buildings 7, 8, and 9 as proposed on the plan. All of which are on 22ft aisles. Um I >> we're looking for these are >> so >> in response to >> this deals with the guest parking. Is that what this is? Okay. So there's not

177
00:50:01.839 --> 00:50:18.559
guest parking near building 8 or 7, eight, and nine. >> Uh more directly affecting building 8. uh remains a long walk via a sidewalk from any visitor parking which will of course invite direct line shortcuts uh not using sidewalks.

178
00:50:18.559 --> 00:50:34.640
>> From a professional planning perspective, what is the issue there? >> The issue is that a a conflict because somebody's taking a shortcut adds another layer of potential blockage to this already tight circulation system. >> So, this just goes back to your overall concern about tight circulation and

179
00:50:34.640 --> 00:50:50.160
maneuvering. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um, anything else on uh sheet number seven before we move to the next one? >> No, thank you for asking. >> Okay. Uh, sheet number nine I think was the next one you discussed in your report. Can you talk about that for me?

180
00:50:50.160 --> 00:51:07.440
>> Um, I observed that uh not all of the areas were fitted for turning templates for fire truck. uh the the square shaped area just north of the phase three uh five-story building on my client's property does not appear able to accommodate uh turns by such a piece of

181
00:51:07.440 --> 00:51:23.920
equipment. This is where significant congestion could appear spontaneously. Um the emergency access over grass pavers might also become ob obstructed quite easily on the phase three site resulting in significant potential for delayed response in an emergency. The

182
00:51:23.920 --> 00:51:40.240
applicant responded that the the sheet CS201 truck turning movements uh and those on sheet CS202 are depicted. Firet truck maneuvers are provided for all turns on the site. And I went back to look again. The fire

183
00:51:40.240 --> 00:51:56.000
truck movements past buildings eight and six leave no room for error despite that uh plan adjustment. So again, this just goes an additional layer into the overall what your opinion is tightness of vehicles ability to maneuver,

184
00:51:56.000 --> 00:52:12.160
particularly emergency vehicles like a large fire truck. >> It's the overall theme of of this site design. >> Okay. And are there ways that that the issues with the tight circulation could be addressed by the applicant? >> Certainly. >> Okay. And how would you go about doing

185
00:52:12.160 --> 00:52:29.040
that? Um, this is a designer issue and while I'm not charged with redesigning, the applicant certainly has to prove that its development is safe um, in all ways. But, um, this is a a green field site. There are no obstacles to where

186
00:52:29.040 --> 00:52:44.079
the roads or the buildings go or the parking spaces. So, there is no obstacle to um doing a an improved design in my opinion. >> Okay. So, no issues with making the property uh or allowing the property, designing it in a way where you don't

187
00:52:44.079 --> 00:53:05.040
have this tight maneuvering aspect. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Um you had two other comments, I believe, dealing with the driveways and hardscape on sheet number nine. What were those about? There's a an inset four that shows no

188
00:53:05.040 --> 00:53:22.240
room for uh a vehicle to overhang the rear of a parking space at building six while leaving room for the depicted uh turning maneuver of trucks. Um the the vehicles uh applicant responded that vehicles will not be allowed to overhang

189
00:53:22.240 --> 00:53:38.240
the rear of their 20 foot long driveway spaces. I simply find that you know that testimony should be provided on how individual parking positions will be continuously monitored and enforced for the above response to be true.

190
00:53:38.240 --> 00:53:53.920
>> This would be another instance where where um you haven't heard from a professional planner on the applicant side as to how these issues aren't being addressed and this is something that the planning board should require of the applicant to have a prof a professional planner of their own testify on these subjects.

191
00:53:53.920 --> 00:54:10.640
>> Yes. Okay. >> The last issue proposed hardscape. >> Yes. Um at at the site plan hearing um which was now ongoing uh landscape architect for the applicant should be uh questioned

192
00:54:10.640 --> 00:54:27.760
thoroughly regarding the planting choices and see if more shade trees can be added throughout the site to help mitigate the extensive proposed hardscape. >> The response I'm sorry, go ahead. >> I was say why that why should that be done in your opinion? um extensive hardscape um and rooftops

193
00:54:27.760 --> 00:54:44.000
all converge to provide a heat island effect and trees are one of our main lines of defense to mitigate that type of result. Again, this is 2026. We know better than to cover a site with asphalt without mitigating some of the uh

194
00:54:44.000 --> 00:55:01.440
environmental drawbacks of that. >> Okay. And after your review of the application, all the materials, the testimony that's thus that's that's been heard thus far in this matter, what is your opinion about the applicant's readiness for approval? >> I believe it needs uh to go back to the

195
00:55:01.440 --> 00:55:17.520
drawing board for revisions to the circulation uh and layout of the the site as it relates to that circulation. So, it's improved and demonstrabably safe. >> I have no more questions. Um, Madam Chairwoman, I'll turn it over over to

196
00:55:17.520 --> 00:55:34.800
you. >> Thank you, Mr. McCann. Would you like to >> reserve testimony for >> Okay. Thank you. >> Did you get that, Mike? >> Any questions from members of the board for Mr. Pelano?

197
00:55:34.800 --> 00:55:52.799
>> Any questions from the board? >> Wait. I'm curious um what do they have currently in place to ensure that the res their residents are not coming onto the property of Fort Liberte? I don't know if that's a question for you or should we addressing Macan? >> Yeah, I think Mr. Pesalano's testimony

198
00:55:52.799 --> 00:56:08.240
was that they haven't presented anything in that regard. I know Mr. McCann said he reserved, but >> yeah, what what Mr. Cavalar just said is is consistent with how I see it. Um very little has been done uh to focus on that particular is there a fence? Is it just

199
00:56:08.240 --> 00:56:25.839
a three-foot elevation that they can down? >> Okay. >> Period. >> Gotcha. I'll I'll ask them later. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Aanis. >> Thank you. You have a next witness? >> Yes, Miss Nancy Wong, PE of ONS

200
00:56:25.839 --> 00:56:40.640
Association. >> Um, I need to get to another hearing. Uh, will there be any other questions of me uh at this time? >> Madam Chair, the board had no questions of Mr. Pesalano council. I'm going to excuse Mr.

201
00:56:40.640 --> 00:57:07.359
Pesalano as a courtesy to him. You have no questions. You're okay with Okay. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Mr. Pan. Appreciate. >> Thank you all very much. Have a pleasant evening. >> Miss Wong, if you could come up.

202
00:57:16.799 --> 00:57:42.240
Yes, I do. >> I think so. >> Miss Wong, is your professional license um current and in good standing? >> Yes. Okay, you may proceed. >> Yes. Oh,

203
00:57:42.240 --> 00:57:58.079
>> Nancy Wong asing WG. >> Uh, Miss Wong, you're a professional engineer, correct? And you work with ONS Associates? >> Correct. >> Okay. And um as a professional engineer, did you review the application in this

204
00:57:58.079 --> 00:58:16.359
matter? Yes, I re I reviewed the uh site plan joins storm water management report to the microphone. >> I don't think we're picking you up. >> I'm going to try to do this without breaking it. >> Okay.

205
00:58:17.760 --> 00:58:34.319
>> Oh, okay. Do you want to switch? Miss, why don't you come up here? >> Okay. >> And I will hold my handy dandy laptop. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Council, you could take that out if it makes it easier for you. >> Yeah, that's okay. Okay. Raise it up a

206
00:58:34.319 --> 00:58:50.079
little bit. Okay. Um, Miss Wong, did you uh and I'll I'll state the question again. Did you review the application in this matter? >> Yes, I did review site plan joints and storm water management report the initial report and the revised report on joints.

207
00:58:50.079 --> 00:59:07.760
>> Okay. And you issued a number of reports, correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. There was an August 8th, 2025 report. Correct. >> A September 5th, 2025 report. >> Correct. >> And a January 30th, 2026 report. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And why did you issue multiple

208
00:59:07.760 --> 00:59:23.599
reports? >> Um because the applicant address certain comments and then issued a revised report. After we rei reviewed the revised report, we uh accordingly revised our report. >> Okay. Okay. So, if the applicant

209
00:59:23.599 --> 00:59:39.760
addressed your concerns, you revised your report to take that out of it. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And so, the January 30th, 2026 report, that's your most recent report. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And that report contains all of the issues that you have with respect to the application as a professional

210
00:59:39.760 --> 01:00:07.799
engineer. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Um, just like to mark that as 05. Council, this is the ONS Associates January 30th, 2026 updated engineering review of proposed Liberty Watch development.

211
01:00:09.119 --> 01:00:24.400
It is a five-page letter. It is addressed to you council and it is signed by Miss Wong who just testified that she authored the report 05. >> Okay. And Miss Wong, in that report you

212
01:00:24.400 --> 01:00:42.240
list a number of materials um that you reviewed in connection with issuing your report. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And I won't go through each of them one by one. Um but can you describe for me what the purpose of this report was? um summary of the um review of the uh

213
01:00:42.240 --> 01:00:57.280
revised site plan and storm water management report that applicant revised. >> Okay. And as I understand it, when I read the report, it looks like you still take issue with three items from the application. Is that correct? >> Correct.

214
01:00:57.280 --> 01:01:14.720
>> Okay. What are the three issues that you have? Let's go through them one by one for the planning board. >> Okay. Um the first one is the uh the Liberty Watch storm water design does not address storm water discharge on the 100year title flood conditions.

215
01:01:14.720 --> 01:01:30.960
>> Okay. Now as part of the project the applicant is required to raise their site by several feet. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And that several feet is going to be higher than the Port Liberte Homeowners Association site. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And you have a concern about that?

216
01:01:30.960 --> 01:01:46.079
>> Yes. >> Okay. Can you explain for the board why you have a concern about that? What did the applicant fail to address in their submission uh associated with their raising of the site? >> Okay. Um

217
01:01:46.079 --> 01:02:01.200
so um this is all goes with the uh potential impact of the development onto the existing Port Liberty site on existing conditions. the Port of Liberty site. Uh

218
01:02:01.200 --> 01:02:18.559
the existing ground elevations are generally or slightly above FEMA flood uh elevation of 12 feet and then the site is currently outside mapped FEMA flood hazard area and the Port Liberty

219
01:02:18.559 --> 01:02:36.319
property is presently at a higher elevation than the adjacent Port Liberties and Port um Liberty Watch site. Let me just stop you right there. >> As it currently exists, the Port Liberte HOA site is actually higher than the

220
01:02:36.319 --> 01:02:50.400
proposed development site. >> Correct. Okay. The uh Liberty Watch site, the surface elevation uh of the ground is approximately 9 to 10 ft. The site is located within FEMA flood hazard

221
01:02:50.400 --> 01:03:07.839
area and the site is currently functions as a low lane area relative to surrounding properties. >> Okay. And and what do you mean it functions as a lowlying area relative to the surrounding properties? What does what does that hap what happens there with the Port Liberty HOA site? because

222
01:03:07.839 --> 01:03:25.599
um the poor liberty side is higher, the uh liberty watch side is low and surrounding the liberty watch side along the golf course is also higher. So that ground is you know relatively low compared to surrounding area.

223
01:03:25.599 --> 01:03:40.000
>> Okay. And >> so >> how go ahead go ahead. So under existing conditions during tidal uh coastal flooding events um because the uh storm

224
01:03:40.000 --> 01:03:56.960
uh rainfall event up to 100year uh storm that uh applicants engineer has modeled evaluated conditions. So here I'm talking about is the uh title flood conditions. Can you just tell me the

225
01:03:56.960 --> 01:04:13.839
difference between those two things or describe for the planning board the difference between those two things rather? >> Okay, so this side is in um title flood zone as the uh applicants testified last time. Um the um the tidal flood by D

226
01:04:13.839 --> 01:04:29.680
definition uh states that the title flood hazard area is an area where the flood hazard area designed flood elevation is governed primarily by tidal flooding from the Atlantic Ocean. So

227
01:04:29.680 --> 01:04:47.599
that means um the flood evolution is primarily uh controlled by storm surge from the ocean. Um so the tidal influences generate generate flooding that exceeds the flow

228
01:04:47.599 --> 01:05:03.599
view flooding sources. Um but still inland storm water runoff also contributes to the flood conditions. That means um without tidal influence it's just rainfall storm

229
01:05:03.599 --> 01:05:21.760
rainfall but uh under tidal conditions the storm rainfall still occurs um for this site the base flood elevation of 12 feet is derived from FEMA coastal tidal flood analysis

230
01:05:21.760 --> 01:05:37.039
associated with Hudson River and the New York Harbor title system. The controlling flood mechanism to this type of events is associate is a coastal uh storm surge and elevated title condition

231
01:05:37.039 --> 01:05:53.119
resulting from events such as hurricanes, tropical storms, norers or severe coastal low pressure systems. These coastal storm events are also

232
01:05:53.119 --> 01:06:09.680
commonly accompanied by significant rainfall. Um so although the flood elevation is governed by tidal flooding, the concurrent rainfall and

233
01:06:09.680 --> 01:06:28.319
inland runoff frequent frequently occur during the same storm events and contribute to overall flood conditions. So in a sense uh during these storm title events rainfall storm occurs

234
01:06:28.319 --> 01:06:46.160
um most of the time concurrently. So this is the condition that we didn't see in the uh storm water management report and >> so you didn't see >> did not see. >> Okay. The storm water management report address the one 100year storm event.

235
01:06:46.160 --> 01:07:02.240
Correct. >> Correct. It did not address the 100year title flood event. >> Correct. >> Okay. The engineer for PY, you were here when he testified. >> Yes. >> Okay. And he testified that the D does

236
01:07:02.240 --> 01:07:17.680
not require 100-year title flood event storage displacement. Do you recall that testimony? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, what's the issue? Why do you have an issue as a professional engineer? there some standard that while the D doesn't require it, is there some

237
01:07:17.680 --> 01:07:32.720
other standard that does require it that this planning board needs to know about? >> Um, so the uh applicants engineer categorize that uh condition like runoff from development side onto the poor

238
01:07:32.720 --> 01:07:48.240
liberty side as a uh drop in a bucket and that may be true in regional scale. That means you know if you consider Hudson River, New York Bay,

239
01:07:48.240 --> 01:08:04.960
these all flooded with the uh flood elevation 12 and that is uh regional flooding scale and then the runoff generated from the development site

240
01:08:04.960 --> 01:08:21.520
is relatively small in that regional scale. But in our opinion, the um the local front, you know, the localized condition that still needs to be

241
01:08:21.520 --> 01:08:39.279
evaluated because for 100year future uh runoff that is based on applicants engineers evaluation that is 10.11 in over the development side which is 9.5 acres.

242
01:08:39.279 --> 01:08:54.480
that is significantly um big amount of volume. If all come down to poor liberty site that is not drop in the bucket to the HOA people. So

243
01:08:54.480 --> 01:09:12.159
I certainly believe that needs to be looked into um carefully um to evaluate the um um the performance this the drainage conditions

244
01:09:12.159 --> 01:09:32.400
on 100year flood condition. >> Okay. in during the applicant's engineer's testimony, he referred to NJAC78-5.6. I see you also have that same citation in your report. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And he cited to that section as a

245
01:09:32.400 --> 01:09:48.319
requirement that must be met by the applicant. Correct. >> Correct. >> And you agree with that. Correct. That that must be met. Mhm. >> And in your report, um, you note that that section requires any major developments must be designed, quote, to prevent an increase in flooding,

246
01:09:48.319 --> 01:10:05.040
unquote, on and off site. >> Correct. >> What is the concern here that the applicant has failed to meet in terms of not designing to prevent an increase in flooding to the Port Liberte HOA site?

247
01:10:05.040 --> 01:10:21.280
Um, one case is what we what I I just described. Okay. >> Meaning the applicant provided modeling for the 100year future event under fluial conditions. Correct. >> Correct. >> But they didn't do a comput a computation rather to reflect high tail

248
01:10:21.280 --> 01:10:37.199
water under the 100red-year title flood condition. >> Correct. Okay. Um the importance is this under flow condition the applicant's design use the uh >> this one if I may can you speak into the microphone please? >> Oh I'm sorry. >> Thank you.

249
01:10:37.199 --> 01:10:56.640
uh use the uh water surface elevation at the wet pond in the golf course as the tail water for the storm water system because the storm water proposed system in the um development site

250
01:10:56.640 --> 01:11:12.560
uh discharges runoff into the existing storm sewer system originated from Port Liberty site and all discharge into the white pond. found in golf course. So during that calculation the water

251
01:11:12.560 --> 01:11:31.280
surface elevation was determined to be 8.04t uh for two systems and one was 5.22 feet. Um this is under storm water driven I mean

252
01:11:31.280 --> 01:11:48.560
rainfall driven events but under tidal events title flood condition events the backwater the tail water the water surface at the wet pond will be raised

253
01:11:48.560 --> 01:12:06.480
to approximately 12 ft as the uh base file elevation indicated. ated in the FEMA map. So under this condition, the tail water condition, the storm water sewer, um definitely it's not going to perform

254
01:12:06.480 --> 01:12:23.120
as intended to be. But we did not see the um modeling to that and how the storm water sewer is going to perform. Uh is it going to have a ponding?

255
01:12:23.120 --> 01:12:39.440
uh how deep the pond pound p pounding is going to be at the development side is the ponding is going to overflow down to point liberty side that is something we wanted to see >> so this is something you think the planning board should require of the

256
01:12:39.440 --> 01:12:54.880
applicant >> correct >> because again your concern is that NJAC 7 col 8-5.6 Six requires the applicant to demonstrate that they are going to prevent an increase in flooding and you don't believe the applicant has done

257
01:12:54.880 --> 01:13:11.920
that. >> Correct. In if the storm sewer is not going able to discharge storm water to the wet pond as intended during this 100year tidal flood condition. Then these water is going to pond at the

258
01:13:11.920 --> 01:13:28.480
development site. It could over topping overflow and overland flow down to Port Liberty site. Therefore, it's going to increase the flooding onto the Port Liberty site. >> Okay. So, the applicant has to raise

259
01:13:28.480 --> 01:13:45.840
their site to meet FEMA standards. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, there's no question that they have to do that. And as a result of them raising the site, while you're okay with their opinion and the calculations on the 100-year storm event, you have real

260
01:13:45.840 --> 01:14:02.719
concern about the 100-year title flood event and the impact that that could have on the Port Liberte HOA property? >> Yes. >> Okay. Is there a way that they could address that concern before the planning board?

261
01:14:02.719 --> 01:14:19.679
>> Yes. Um so they needed to do um incorporate uh one thing suggestion is they could incorporate separate storm source system to in independently conveying runoff to the proposed weapon

262
01:14:19.679 --> 01:14:36.080
not adding hydraulic load to the existing system. >> Meaning instead of using the existing system create their own system for their own site. >> Correct. and also through comprehensive uh grading and hydraulic analysis that

263
01:14:36.080 --> 01:14:51.280
uh neither surface flow or subsurface storm infrastructure will direct runoff towards the port of Liberty site. >> Okay. So they could either um present the analysis, compute the

264
01:14:51.280 --> 01:15:09.199
analysis for the storm surge event, 100-year storm surge event, and maybe that does or does not satisfy the requirement, but they could do that. They haven't done that. Correct. >> Correct. >> Or they could design a storm water system independently on their own site,

265
01:15:09.199 --> 01:15:24.880
not use what's existing. >> Yes. >> Okay. That's may solve portion of the problem. It's not going to be solving all the problem. The bottom line is >> they haven't done either of those things though. Correct. >> The runoff generated on the development

266
01:15:24.880 --> 01:15:41.600
side should be contained on their side should not be end up in poor liberty site no matter what situation that is. And and that's the NJAC standard you're talking about there that they have to contain the flood uh runoff on their own site, not allow it to run off onto other

267
01:15:41.600 --> 01:15:57.120
sites. >> Correct. >> As it currently is planned, it will run off during a storm surge event to other sites. >> Maybe. >> Maybe. Okay. But they haven't showed the calculations to show that it won't. >> Correct. >> And that's your concern. >> Okay.

268
01:15:57.120 --> 01:16:14.480
Um you had two other issues. Uh, one was inadequate freeboard at emergency access entrance and the other was over topping yard drains. Let's start with the freeboard. Um, can you tell the planning board what the concern there is and and what that even is because I'm not sure I know either, but if you can explain

269
01:16:14.480 --> 01:16:30.880
that. >> Okay. So, there is an um emergency access that connects the proposed the uh development to Port Liberty site. Uh uh currently um the uh surface elevation

270
01:16:30.880 --> 01:16:47.840
at the property line adjoining property line is 11.39 ft. Under existing conditions the ground surface slopes downwards from the port liberty side towards the liberty watch development because the existing development site is

271
01:16:47.840 --> 01:17:03.920
at a lower elevation. Um however on the proposed development plan the Liberty watch site would be raised significantly uh resulting in surface grade sloping

272
01:17:03.920 --> 01:17:21.600
upwards from Port Liberty property towards the development site >> meaning water it would promote water runoff towards Port Liberte HOA >> the grading slopes down >> grading slopes down >> so there's a proposed storm drain inlet identified as CB-4 408

273
01:17:21.600 --> 01:17:39.920
located near the property line uh and it's intended to capture runoff from the tributary area. The proposed great elevation of the structure uh is 11.24. >> What's the concern there? So based on

274
01:17:39.920 --> 01:17:57.040
the applicant's drainage calculation for the 100year rainfall event condition approximately one inch of ponding is anticipated at the inlet grade to capture and drain the peak design flow

275
01:17:57.040 --> 01:18:12.880
that leaves only8 inch of freeboard before ponded water reaches the property line. um which uh provides very limited margin of safety.

276
01:18:12.880 --> 01:18:28.719
>> So you're concerned about storm water conveyance runoff back onto the HOA property. >> Correct. >> Again, >> so this concern becomes more significant during 100year title flood conditions >> and that's what they haven't designed or

277
01:18:28.719 --> 01:18:44.719
calculated for, >> right? Yeah. Because under elevated tidal tailwater condition, storm discharge from development side may become restricted due to sirch charged downstream system and high receiving

278
01:18:44.719 --> 01:19:02.880
water elevation. In that scenario, storm water may not effectively discharge through storm sewer system. On-site pounding may increase um substantially and the overflow conditions could uh

279
01:19:02.880 --> 01:19:19.600
occur through the emergency access uh connection towards the uh lower port liberty site. So this connection between the two site could act as a um overland

280
01:19:19.600 --> 01:19:36.560
flow pathway during tidal flood condition. Uh imagine that the water run up storm water coming down to the development site. The storm sewer cannot drain because the

281
01:19:36.560 --> 01:19:54.239
tail water at wet pond is so high. So they cannot drain. So they pounds at the side. They pounds up up and the they will migrate to lower ground where they they're going to go probably down to the Port of

282
01:19:54.239 --> 01:20:10.239
Liberty site. >> And the Port Liberty site as it currently exists is actually higher than the neighboring site. >> Yes. currently it's the other way around. So that is our concern. Um

283
01:20:10.239 --> 01:20:26.400
>> and then the third concern you had was over topping of yard drains. Can you talk to me about that or talk to the planning board rather about that? >> Yes. Okay. So there's a um um some yard drains that's proposed along the joining

284
01:20:26.400 --> 01:20:44.000
property line between the um I believe it's the freedom way and uh the new development um based on the uh applicant storm water convenience calculations the drainage structure YD

285
01:20:44.000 --> 01:21:00.640
um 301 and YD303 three uh predicted to searchcharge and over top during the model the 100year storm rainfall event. These strains are located uh at this

286
01:21:00.640 --> 01:21:15.840
property line and then the calculation indicated the pounding would extend onto the freedom way within the port uh liberty property. Um this indicates under the design storm

287
01:21:15.840 --> 01:21:31.040
condition. This is under normal rainfall design condition >> storm >> right >> event. >> Yeah. The proposed storm source system exceeds its convenience capacity resulting in scharged structural and

288
01:21:31.040 --> 01:21:46.239
surface overflow conditions. As a result, runoff from the tributary area would not fully drain through the storm sewer system and would instead pawn at property line and uh potentially into

289
01:21:46.239 --> 01:22:02.159
adjacent roadway area. So compared to the existing conditions because this area in Port Liberty side is relatively high. So this is not going to be a situation

290
01:22:02.159 --> 01:22:19.840
um because any runoff is going to go to the lower ground into the development site. Um so compared to the existing condition the proposed grading and drainage configuration will would create localized flooding condition along the

291
01:22:19.840 --> 01:22:34.960
shared property line. Um this concern also becomes more significant during um concurrent 100redyear tidal flood uh event. >> When you say concurrent, you're talking

292
01:22:34.960 --> 01:22:51.920
about you have a storm flood event that happens concurrently with a title surge. >> Correct. >> Okay. So it's actively raining storm flood event plus title surge event from the ocean. Title surge meaning from the ocean. Correct. >> Right. During this condition then storm

293
01:22:51.920 --> 01:23:09.600
sewer. It's not going to function as intended. >> And this this area uh in Jersey City is known to have been impacted by both of those types of events before. >> Uh uh probably. I mean, yeah, but I don't know if this uh area was flooded

294
01:23:09.600 --> 01:23:25.520
>> during the last title surge event. You don't know yourself if it was flooded. Understood. >> But it's definitely subject to the uh the uh the storm surge. >> The storm surge. And that's why you have to design for it as part of the application because the area is subject to it.

295
01:23:25.520 --> 01:23:40.320
>> Yes. >> Um so um under the title flood conditions the increased search charge within the storm source system. So think about the tail water for this system is 5.22

296
01:23:40.320 --> 01:23:58.639
and uh the tidal flood elevation is 12. So even it doesn't get to 12 the tail water condition increases to say 10 or 11 that could you know um uh reduce the

297
01:23:58.639 --> 01:24:13.840
storm sewer discharge capacity and create pounding depths and prolonged drainage times and increased potential for surface overflow towards the lower grounding area which is adjacent

298
01:24:13.840 --> 01:24:30.400
property. So FEMA says that this area is uh subject to um storm flooding. Correct. >> Correct. >> And it also says this area is subject to title flooding. >> Correct. >> And the applicant hasn't taken into account the title flooding. The 100year um

299
01:24:30.400 --> 01:24:46.880
>> title flood the Oh, the storm shore design. >> The storm sorry the storm shore design has not taken into consideration. >> Right. Storm design does not count for the tail water influenced by tidal flood.

300
01:24:46.880 --> 01:25:03.360
>> Understood. >> And so overall, I take it your opinion then about the application's readiness for approval is that because of those things, it's not ready for approval. >> I don't think so. Um, >> let me let me ask you this. As a professional engineer, would you be

301
01:25:03.360 --> 01:25:19.920
comfortable with not calculating the 100-year title flood or otherwise designing to address that type of event in this location? >> No, I'm not. >> Okay. And is that because uh the the design engineer is required to account for and prevent flooding on neighboring

302
01:25:19.920 --> 01:25:39.440
properties as you cited in your report pursuant to that NJAC standard uh 7 col 8-5.6. >> Correct. >> Okay. And in in your opinion again, you've testified that the applicant um hasn't

303
01:25:39.440 --> 01:25:53.760
provided the design or the calculations for that and hasn't independently um designed for that on its own site. Correct. >> Correct. say uh I wanted to point it out that um the calculations also includes

304
01:25:53.760 --> 01:26:11.199
some um indicates some of the uh drainage structurals within their own site that's over topped. I did not mention that because it's not at the boundary that's going to affect the Port Liberty site but those

305
01:26:11.199 --> 01:26:28.880
>> meaning their own site might flood more. >> Yeah. may pond it there as long as they are holding the storm water runoff on their own site does not you know end up in Port Liberty side um that's your

306
01:26:28.880 --> 01:26:46.960
decision not you know the best interest from the HOA thank you I have no further questions >> so Miss Wong in your personal um opinion, your professional opinion

307
01:26:46.960 --> 01:27:05.520
um based upon what was presented and um you strongly believe that without the um 100-year title flooding um addressing the situation, it will be more detriment to the um Port Liberte uh condominium

308
01:27:05.520 --> 01:27:20.719
association. >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. Any board comments before I go to Mr. McKinnon? >> I have a question. So, what would you suggest in order to mitigate this issue

309
01:27:20.719 --> 01:27:36.000
compared to what they have in place currently? >> So, first of all, you do through hydraulic calculations, hydraologic hydraulic calculations to see um if the tail water at the discharging point is

310
01:27:36.000 --> 01:27:52.719
raised up, what is going to happen? how the uh storm sewer is going to perform and if the uh storm water will not be able to discharge uh how it's going to pound it on the site you know what what's the depth of the ponding and it's

311
01:27:52.719 --> 01:28:08.639
going to pounding extended and overflow to adjacent low ground area um if um that happens it definitely we wish it's not going to be poor liberty side. It

312
01:28:08.639 --> 01:28:25.440
could go to some other site where there's no residents, no um um uh you know occupancies of uh uh traffic you know it's just our concern is not on to

313
01:28:25.440 --> 01:28:39.199
poor liberty side >> but what measures would be let's say they do these calculations what measures would they be able to build in order to prevent that from happening do you have any ideas on that >> they may needed to create create a low

314
01:28:39.199 --> 01:28:57.520
points um so that can hold water more on site or create some kind of pathway so the water pound of the water uh going other places rather than going to Port Liberty site >> and thank you

315
01:28:57.520 --> 01:29:13.760
>> just to follow up on that Miss Wong it's the applicant's burden to demonstrate that their application their proposed development will not uh increase flooding and it's their obligation to prevent flooding on neighboring property sites as part of the application. >> That's correct. >> And and your concern is they haven't shown that because they haven't done

316
01:29:13.760 --> 01:29:29.360
those calculations about the title flood event. >> Correct. >> And that is something they could do. >> Yes. >> And present to the board. >> Yes. >> And it's something that perhaps maybe would show no concern, but perhaps your opinion is that it likely would show a concern that would then need to be

317
01:29:29.360 --> 01:29:46.960
designed for, but because it's their burden, they haven't done that. And that's why you have an issue with the application. >> That's right. Any out of board comments? >> Swang, is it something that you can calculate? >> Yes, but um of course I was just

318
01:29:46.960 --> 01:30:04.800
reviewing the report, >> but you have the data and you're able to do the calculation based on the data provided by the applicant. >> Yes, I would say so. >> But you did not do that calculation because it's not your job. >> Correct.

319
01:30:04.800 --> 01:30:20.080
>> Okay. Madam Chair, if I could just out of curiosity for your background, I'm an engineer but not a stormwater engineer. So, um my my question is I guess during a simultaneous event where there's both tidal flooding and you're concerned

320
01:30:20.080 --> 01:30:35.679
about the runoff. Um how would runoff typically be handled in that type of scenario? Right? If it goes into our storm water sewer, those may back up because they're also discharging into the environment that is

321
01:30:35.679 --> 01:30:53.360
experiencing the storm surge. >> Yes, that's um that's why we experience lots of problems. Uh >> for sure. >> Yeah, for sure. So, if we can um think about it ahead of time and that definitely reduce some of the potential

322
01:30:53.360 --> 01:31:13.360
floodings. Um so in general the um the these kind of uh uh extreme flooding condition the storm sore probably will not be able to handle the runoff and then tends to pond somewhere and then if

323
01:31:13.360 --> 01:31:30.400
it's parking lot if it's uh some area that's uh not building it's not going to uh um result in property damage. or um um personal injuries. that's you know

324
01:31:30.400 --> 01:31:46.960
something that um based on you know each municipality's uh regulations or standard um but since the adjacent side of port liberty

325
01:31:46.960 --> 01:32:02.159
uh raises so high so that's a main concern if it's their uh site is pretty similar to the port of liberty side elevation may not have a great concern So the runoff pounds at polar libert

326
01:32:02.159 --> 01:32:19.040
side it also pounds at their side but in this case since they raised up so high the water runoff generated on their side is going to go to lower side. >> I see >> naturally. >> Um could you just kind of clarify the volume of water between the runoff

327
01:32:19.040 --> 01:32:36.639
versus a title surge? Are they comparable? Are they relatively of concern? the the Port Liberty site right now is not in the map has uh you know in FEMA

328
01:32:36.639 --> 01:32:54.960
mapped flood hazard area. Um so the FEMA flood elevation is 12. Okay. Now um we saw a uh applicants engineer provided a exhibit showing the

329
01:32:54.960 --> 01:33:13.120
you know um area where the ground surface elevation is below 12. There's a exhibit where he highlight those area. So um so that means during this extreme 100 year title flood events

330
01:33:13.120 --> 01:33:29.120
all the elevations uh below 12 is going to be flooded. Okay that that may be true. Okay. But we also needed to think about localized flooding. Meaning um

331
01:33:29.120 --> 01:33:46.000
for instance if the title search does not reach 12 for instance what if it's 11. Okay. Then these areas all above the tidal water. Okay. Then at the site of

332
01:33:46.000 --> 01:34:00.960
development the storm water does not drain as intended and it will pond at their side and will migrate to lower ground and could end up in poor liberty side and

333
01:34:00.960 --> 01:34:20.480
then do we call that is it flood? Of course it's flood. Thank you, Miss. >> Thank you, Mr. McCanna. >> So, I request five minutes because I'd like to put some things up on the screen to ask um

334
01:34:20.480 --> 01:34:41.520
questions with. So, just to set up a computer, request a five minute recess >> or I'll do it right now without the recess, but it's going to take me five minutes to do it. >> It will take you five minutes to set up or five minutes to respond. >> Put up a Oh, just

335
01:34:41.520 --> 01:35:20.320
>> to do the setup, I think. >> Bring the setup. Bring the computer up because I want to ask >> I'm going to time you. I don't think it takes five minutes. >> Let's go. Do you need a computer, Mr. McCann? >> I don't want to let everybody run away. Let's see where we go here.

336
01:35:20.320 --> 01:36:24.520
Where's everybody going? >> It's a bad idea. exiting that way. >> We're starting Are we counting the minutes? >> We're only a minute and a half in. >> Cream and one sugar.

337
01:36:27.120 --> 01:37:21.360
>> Medium. Can I refill my water? >> No, we don't have I don't even know what the hell she was saying. >> I thought you might back up. >> Couldn't understand. >> Something's

338
01:37:21.360 --> 01:37:37.040
>> I think. Let's see what has to say. We need all of us. >> Yeah. What do we know? >> But um >> this is serious engineering, right? >> This is it's a bummer for um great

339
01:37:37.040 --> 01:37:53.040
letter. >> Well, planning can't do this. We used to have engineers that did this. >> If he comes up and said it's not >> we can always get our own expert. >> I think we need to. This is serious

340
01:37:53.040 --> 01:38:16.719
issues. >> I think so. You should state that you're not comfortable engineering as the city engineering. >> But I would ask say okay well I'm not comfortable with this.

341
01:38:16.719 --> 01:38:33.520
>> Yeah. >> How are we supposed to make this decision? because it's part of the development plan, right? >> It's always it's always relevant. >> Mr. McCann, are you ready? >> Yes.

342
01:38:33.520 --> 01:39:10.040
>> Oh, I was waiting for you. >> Three and a half minutes. Okay. Mr. McCann, do we have to mark what you're about to put on the screen? >> Uh, yes. I think we probably should. >> A30

343
01:39:15.920 --> 01:39:32.080
Uh, good evening everybody. Good evening, Miss Wong. Um, I'm obviously the applicant's attorney, so I'm going to ask you a couple of questions. I don't really know a lot about storm water and and tidal flood, so if I if I'm off base a little bit, just let me

344
01:39:32.080 --> 01:39:49.880
know. Um, but I'd like you to take a look at your um at your January 30th report, which I put up on the screen, and I just like you to identify it for me first as actually your January 30th report.

345
01:39:50.320 --> 01:40:06.880
>> So, Mr. McCann, let's let's do this in a very orderly fashion. The January 30th report I marked as 05 at the request of councel and it was the fivepage

346
01:40:06.880 --> 01:40:22.639
letter prepared by the witness. This slide deck is 22 pages. >> So right but the first five pages are the January 30th report. >> Okay. the other >> uh

347
01:40:22.639 --> 01:40:39.440
>> pages are >> other documents that have been marked already. >> Um no, the next one is the um is the experts August 8th 25 report which is the first report that was offered.

348
01:40:39.440 --> 01:40:54.159
>> Okay. >> And then the last set of exhibits would be the uh D regulations that apply to storm water quantity runoff standards. >> Okay. So

349
01:40:54.159 --> 01:41:13.920
A30 is going to be a 22page slide consisting of the January 30th, 2026 ONS Associates comment letter which was five pages and

350
01:41:13.920 --> 01:41:31.679
marked as05. the August 8th, 2025 ONS comment letter and the storm water quality regulations

351
01:41:31.679 --> 01:41:46.800
NJAC 7 col 8-5.6 Six. >> Correct. And thank you. >> And that exhibit has been annotated by you or just highlighted?

352
01:41:46.800 --> 01:42:08.320
>> Highlighted. Not annotated. >> Okay. A30, your witness. So, Miss Wong, can you identify that report as your January 30th um report? Rebecca, scroll. Just scroll through it.

353
01:42:08.320 --> 01:42:26.560
>> Yes. >> Okay. And I'll I'll offer that I highlighted some parts of it in yellow for ease of presentation. Um so let's go um to the conclusion in that

354
01:42:26.560 --> 01:42:47.760
report. So this is your final report in connection with this case. Correct. >> Correct. >> All right. And I think you agree that um through the back and forth process, the applicant has addressed your concerns

355
01:42:47.760 --> 01:43:03.119
um regarding whether the storm water water conveyance system will um keep runoff, storm water runoff off the property in the event of the 25-year storm event. >> That's correct.

356
01:43:03.119 --> 01:43:20.320
>> You agree? >> Yes. And do you also agree that um the the system is designed to keep the uh future 25-year storm event any uh storm water runoff off the property?

357
01:43:20.320 --> 01:43:37.360
>> Yes. Okay. >> It's all runoff rainfall driven event. >> Yes. Storm event. Rainfall driven. Yes. And you also agree that the system is designed to um in connection with the 100year storm water let's call it

358
01:43:37.360 --> 01:43:55.520
rainoff runoff event that the system is designed to keep water off the HOA property. Correct? >> Yes. And also same question as it pertains to the future hundred-year storm event

359
01:43:55.520 --> 01:44:15.440
>> except what I pointed out at the uh over topping um yard drain locations >> and in the summary of your report and I think the main subject or conclusion that you've made

360
01:44:15.440 --> 01:44:32.280
is that in the event of the 100red-year tidal flood event combined with is it a 100redyear rainfall event? >> Could be. >> Could be that the

361
01:44:32.639 --> 01:44:48.639
runoff will the the rain water runoff will affect the HOA property >> likely. >> Likely but you haven't done any study that actually shows that. That's why it your conclusion is just likely. Correct. >> Correct.

362
01:44:48.639 --> 01:45:04.679
>> Okay. You haven't done any modeling. >> We didn't we did not see applicants report showing there have done modeling. >> Right. So you don't really know if it will or not. >> Correct.

363
01:45:06.480 --> 01:45:31.199
So let's take a look at your um your first report which is oh let let's go back to the conclusion >> you've identified >> summary. Yes.

364
01:45:31.199 --> 01:45:48.320
>> January 30th. You said first report. >> I'm sorry. Let's let's go back to the January 30th >> 2026 report. The last report >> first report in this document. The last report, >> right? And so you've in your in your summary, which is I guess your

365
01:45:48.320 --> 01:46:05.040
conclusion, do you agree that you've identified it as a critical concern? >> That's correct. >> Okay. All right. Now, let's take a look at the August 8th report. Okay. And again, I'm going to ask you,

366
01:46:05.040 --> 01:46:19.040
um, Miss Wong, if you would just politely just identify this report as your this was your first report written, I believe, correct, in connection with this case. >> Correct. Okay.

367
01:46:19.040 --> 01:46:57.600
And um let's go to the conclusion or summary in this report. Okay. Thank you. Uh, do you agree that's the conclusion in your August 8th report, Miss Wang? >> Yes. >> All right. There's nothing there.

368
01:46:57.600 --> 01:47:12.960
There's nothing anywhere in this report that makes reference to the 100redyear tidal event. Your conclusion there speaks solely to the hundred-year storm event. I went through this whole report.

369
01:47:12.960 --> 01:47:27.280
I can't find a single reference to a concern about a tidal flood event. Why is it that's a critical concern on January 30th, but on August 8th it wasn't? Because

370
01:47:27.280 --> 01:47:44.080
we were hoping that the revised storm water management will take you know the tail water elevation into effect that it is tidal driven

371
01:47:44.080 --> 01:48:02.320
condition. So, you just thought it wasn't important to mention the most important thing based upon your half hour of testimony, which was the 100red-year title flood event. >> Just know my objection. It's not what she said. >> Noted for the record. You can answer.

372
01:48:02.320 --> 01:48:20.560
>> Okay. So normally when you evaluate the storm water system especially in tidal water um area or title flood area um the tidal surge typically is a consideration

373
01:48:20.560 --> 01:48:36.480
and uh pretty standard uh procedure. So that's why I we did not think that was that important to have to mention that 100year tidal flood.

374
01:48:36.480 --> 01:48:53.679
>> But but it's a tidal flood area, correct? >> Yes. But I didn't say 100year fluial area either. No, but you said a critical concern was in your last report, the 100red-year

375
01:48:53.679 --> 01:49:10.239
title flood event, and you didn't even think to mention it in your August 8th. Is that because we've addressed the applicants addressed all the concerns regarding the 25-y year and the 100red-year um fall flood events. So, your your last

376
01:49:10.239 --> 01:49:25.679
report kind of moves the goalpost to the next, which is the title flood. >> I don't think That's the case because in this report I just mentioned 100year storm events but I didn't say it's

377
01:49:25.679 --> 01:49:44.639
100year flow storm events or tidal events. So I didn't further define what that is but this area is in tidal flood hazard area. So I I just assumed uh when you address the

378
01:49:44.639 --> 01:50:01.840
comments that's going to be addressed, >> but they're two entitled entirely different things. Correct. Fuvial and title. >> The uh modeling is different but they

379
01:50:01.840 --> 01:50:38.440
are not um happening separately. Uh in most cases they're are concurrent especially in the uh development area. Um let's advance to the regulation.

380
01:50:51.119 --> 01:51:07.360
So, and I'll give you a minute if you would like, uh, Miss Wong, but what I've put up on the screen is the storm water runoff quality standards from the D. You recognize that regulation? And it's cited in your report many times.

381
01:51:07.360 --> 01:51:33.920
>> Yes. >> Um so let's scroll to the uh to the next page of this. So I believe this is the section of the regulation that is in question. Correct?

382
01:51:33.920 --> 01:51:56.960
That may apply. >> Which section? >> Section four. Council, for the record, can we go through the whole citation? It's 7 colon 78 uh-56

383
01:51:56.960 --> 01:52:14.320
entitled storm water runoff quantity standards. We could mark it as A31 if you'd like. Council, >> you're talking about B4 though, right? Section B4. I think >> I am talking about B4. >> So, we've marked this as a document in

384
01:52:14.320 --> 01:52:37.679
A30. >> And >> the question to the witness was >> does NJAC78-5.6 Six B sub paragraph 4 control. The answer was >> it could apply but

385
01:52:37.679 --> 01:52:53.040
>> could apply. >> We cited paragraph C. >> So before we go to paragraph C, you need to explain to the board why B4

386
01:52:53.040 --> 01:53:10.880
could apply. That's D requirement. >> I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. >> That is a D requirement. That's what they typically do for a title flood uh area. Their their requirement for the

387
01:53:10.880 --> 01:54:01.639
calculation. >> Miss Wong, help me help you. >> I can read that clearly. Can I switch glasses? Sure. >> Yes. >> Thank you. There's no reason to be placed. completely unbiased.

388
01:54:21.119 --> 01:54:39.360
Yeah, I'm ready. >> Yeah, I'll apply to the site. >> So, it does apply. >> Does apply. >> Okay. So, that regulation applies. So, Miss Wong, I'd like you to focus on

389
01:54:39.360 --> 01:54:54.719
the green highlighted section with which we highlighted for so the board could easily understand what we're focusing on here for questioning. Can you read that section to me? >> No analysis is required. If the storm

390
01:54:54.719 --> 01:55:12.800
water is discharged directly into any ocean bay, inlet or the reach of any water course between its confl with an ocean bay or inlet and the downstream of first water control

391
01:55:12.800 --> 01:55:28.320
structure. >> And do you agree that this project is discharging directly into an ocean bay inlet or other water course? Not in 100year title flood condition. >> Excuse me. I'm sorry. I didn't understand that.

392
01:55:28.320 --> 01:55:44.480
>> Not on 100year title flood condition. >> Because >> so when it's not a 100redyear tidal flood. >> No. So it says if directly discharges into

393
01:55:44.480 --> 01:56:01.840
the ocean bay, right? um it does not directly discharge into the ocean or bay because the storm system may not work as intended >> because of tidal flooding.

394
01:56:01.840 --> 01:56:24.239
>> Because of title flooding >> okay so I I need please explain that further. Okay. So without tidal flooding it rains say for instance 25 year storm you have

395
01:56:24.239 --> 01:56:41.119
storm sewer system that discharge into the white pond >> in the golf course. >> It's close to the microphone. Sorry I can hear you >> in the golf course. So that golf course white pond is connected with the bay or ocean.

396
01:56:41.119 --> 01:56:57.199
>> I see. >> Okay. But under tidal flood condition, the runoff generated on site cannot discharge through that storm sewer system. At least you haven't demonstrated that it could. Therefore, this does not apply.

397
01:56:57.199 --> 01:57:12.560
>> So, you're saying that the D issued a a flood hazard area permit for this? Are you saying that D was wrong in issuing the permit? Well, the I cannot say what D was thinking or not

398
01:57:12.560 --> 01:57:30.639
thinking. By my interpretation is what I just said. >> Miss Wong, do you disagree that there is a D flood hazard permit issued for the development site? >> I'm aware of that. >> Have you reviewed that? >> I No, I didn't not. I just know that

399
01:57:30.639 --> 01:57:46.800
>> you didn't review it. There's there's there's I didn't have the package that they submitted to D. I only have the uh uh permit permit, >> but you have the permit. >> Yes. >> And the permit was issued

400
01:57:46.800 --> 01:58:00.800
>> by D by D. >> That's in the storm water management report. >> And is it your position that that was wrongly issued by D?

401
01:58:00.800 --> 01:58:18.639
I cannot say uh say for D but if we had known the application we probably will uh send our comments to D. >> If you had known what application the application for the permit down at D. >> Yes. When the applicant submitted

402
01:58:18.639 --> 01:58:34.480
and we could uh send our comments to D. >> But you are aware that the permit was issued. >> Yes. And do you have a professional opinion as to whether or not that permit controls development at the subject site

403
01:58:34.480 --> 01:58:51.760
specifically with respect to the storm water? >> D has jurisdiction uh for the development in flood hazard area uh >> superior to this board.

404
01:58:51.760 --> 01:59:09.119
um that I'm not sure. Um I will say yes if you tell me so. >> I I think Mr. Lampy, this really gets into legal questions as to who has authority, but she's given her opinion on how the regulation is interpreted, how it applies, and what was and was not

405
01:59:09.119 --> 01:59:33.199
considered. Two things can be true at the same time. >> Not in Jersey City. >> Did you get that on the record? Mr. McCann. And so I want to understand a little

406
01:59:33.199 --> 01:59:59.239
more what's your basis for saying that the regulation does not app doesn't is not applicable here. >> Uh it it is >> it is applicable. It is applicable.

407
01:59:59.599 --> 02:00:15.840
>> And so it what what's your basis for saying that the green part no analysis is required if storm water is discharged directly into the ocean bay or inlet? Are you saying the applicant's not discharging directly

408
02:00:15.840 --> 02:00:31.119
into one of those water courses? >> Yes. under the uh 400 year title flood condition because the storm sewer it's not going to be function as proposed

409
02:00:31.119 --> 02:00:48.800
>> but but they are discharging directly into the Hudson Bay correct >> they're connected to the white pond which is uh connected to the bay however during tidal flood condition because of

410
02:00:48.800 --> 02:01:05.760
the tail Clear water is so high the storm water generated on the development site may not be able to discharge into that white pond >> again may but you haven't done any modeling or calculations correct >> no I didn't

411
02:01:05.760 --> 02:01:22.880
>> so you're speculating >> uh it's very likely >> no my objection it's not her burden but >> you can answer the question >> literally model >> yeah it's it's very likely. >> Do you know if the D

412
02:01:22.880 --> 02:01:40.320
made a determination that the wet ponds were appropriate to qualify for the exception outlined in gr uh highlighted in green above. >> I read that language in the storm water

413
02:01:40.320 --> 02:02:00.880
management report. But does not >> so so >> resolve our concern as the enabling property HOA. So but you're aware of the fact that the D agreed

414
02:02:00.880 --> 02:02:18.159
or made a determination that the applicant is discharging directly into the ocean or in this case the Hudson Bay. Correct. You saw that in my client's stormwater management

415
02:02:18.159 --> 02:02:35.360
report. You just said that I think correct. >> Yes. The D did not require uh further analysis. >> So the D interpreted the regulation and determined that for this site that analysis was not required. Is that

416
02:02:35.360 --> 02:02:51.159
accurate >> or it wasn't brought to their attention? One of the two. Again, two things. It's an objection. Sorry. >> It's an objection. Sorry. But >> again, the two things could be true thing. >> Well, but she could say she doesn't know. >> Sure.

417
02:02:55.920 --> 02:03:29.040
>> See what he did there, council. You just let him do it. So, can >> I'm sorry. Can we have the record read back a little bit? I kind of lost my train of thought there with >> you asked. So, but you're aware of the fact that D agreed or made a

418
02:03:29.040 --> 02:03:47.400
determination that the applicant is discharging directly into the ocean or in this case the Hudson Bay. Correct. You saw that in my client's storm water management report. You said you just said that I think correct and she answered yes. The D did not require further analysis. Okay.

419
02:03:52.480 --> 02:04:13.520
Um, the 100year storm water rainfall runoff event has a 1% chance of occurring every year. Is that correct? >> Correct.

420
02:04:13.520 --> 02:04:28.800
and the storm water and and the tidal flood storm the title flood event sorry get my words correct here um the 100red-year title flood event has

421
02:04:28.800 --> 02:04:46.159
a 1% chance of occurring every year correct >> yes >> so hypothetically what you're requesting the analysis that you're requesting that my client are stating they should have done

422
02:04:46.159 --> 02:05:04.480
is something that there's a 1 in 10,000 chance of it occurring each year. >> I don't know if that's uh the probability that uh you're saying um

423
02:05:04.480 --> 02:05:22.760
what I'm trying to say is >> but that's the math correct? >> Yeah. Well, the DP says >> Whoa. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. We're not going to have people shouting from the public. >> She's an engineer. She can determine if the math is correct or not.

424
02:05:22.800 --> 02:05:35.520
So DP's definition is saying that the flood hazard area uh flood elevation is primarily

425
02:05:35.520 --> 02:05:54.719
uh driven by storm s surge from ocean. Uh so the uh elevation from the storm surge exceeds the storm runoff or inland flood

426
02:05:54.719 --> 02:06:11.920
uh elevations. So it did not say the inland flood elevation or rainfall elevation and is derived from water storm events.

427
02:06:11.920 --> 02:06:28.880
It could be 100year storm event and 100year tidal event concurrently happening. I understand the chances are very small. Um but it could happen. A DP

428
02:06:28.880 --> 02:06:44.560
didn't say what in their calculations or in their definitions what a type of combination that is. Um so if the um development design could

429
02:06:44.560 --> 02:07:00.400
demonstrate uh during uh 100 year or even slightly less than 100 year storm uh event with combined

430
02:07:00.400 --> 02:07:17.040
tidal elevations that still um result no flooding. increase at a property line uh adjacent to Port Liberty site. Um I think that uh

431
02:07:17.040 --> 02:07:41.679
should satisfy the uh this D standard. This regulation deals solely with storm water runoff. Correct. Correct. >> Thank you.

432
02:07:41.679 --> 02:07:57.360
And there's nothing in here in this regulation and this is the only regulation that you've cited in your reports. Correct. >> Correct. >> And there's nothing in this regulation

433
02:07:57.360 --> 02:08:17.599
that requires the analysis or the modeling that you told this board should be done here. Correct. The question then is how are you going to demonstrate >> that's a yes or no ma'am. >> Um >> respectfully no she can give the No. No

434
02:08:17.599 --> 02:08:32.159
it's not a yes or no. Respectfully she can give the answer which she needs to be given the opportunity for you to say it's a yes or no to give her answer first. >> It was a yes or no question. He asked a question and asked if that was correct. >> She doesn't have to say yes or no. You

435
02:08:32.159 --> 02:08:48.239
can. >> She has an opinion. >> She was asked a yes or no question though. >> The answer could be it depends. >> That could be the answer. >> Okay. So, it's not yes or no. You just acknowledge that. >> Two things can be true at the same time.

436
02:08:48.239 --> 02:09:05.520
Counselor. >> See, >> isn't this fun? >> I live for this. >> I know. >> I'm dying to come down there. >> Yeah. >> It's not as fun up here. Does it depend?

437
02:09:05.520 --> 02:09:31.760
>> I guess. Yes. >> Come on, council. You're here every two weeks. So where in this regulation if it depends does it say that my client has to do the

438
02:09:31.760 --> 02:09:47.040
analysis that you are telling the board has to be done. show me the section and we'll scroll some more or you can go get your get your um resources and see if there's something else you want to

439
02:09:47.040 --> 02:10:01.599
talk about. Well to meet the standard you have to provide some kind of calculation to demonstrate you know to uh meet the standard where

440
02:10:01.599 --> 02:10:18.480
during any uh situations or regulated flood condition which is 100year title flood condition that uh uh you are not increasing flooded condition at the uh adjacent property site.

441
02:10:18.480 --> 02:10:34.719
I don't know what else you can do if you don't do analysis but >> but demonstrate >> sorry >> that uh >> apologize thought you were done >> I'm sorry I so that's the only way that for engineer that's the only way we can demonstrate

442
02:10:34.719 --> 02:10:51.440
through hydraulic hydraologic calculations that uh we're not increasing any flood at the property line uh in combination with maybe with grading designs But but cite me a regulation. Show show

443
02:10:51.440 --> 02:11:06.159
me the regulation you're relying on. I I understand what your opinion is, but where's the D requirement or a Jersey City ordinance that requires my client to do what you're telling the board they

444
02:11:06.159 --> 02:11:25.440
failed to do? >> I explained conditions. M Wong, I think the board understands what your concerns are. >> Yeah. >> Is there not a regulation and is there a

445
02:11:25.440 --> 02:11:40.800
regulation that requires that calculation to be done that you're aware of? the calcul the regulations in general speakings that you know water >> how about specific

446
02:11:40.800 --> 02:11:57.119
>> paragraph C it did not explicitly say um calculation needs to be done but implies that this requirement applies to >> okay >> a site boundary at each abing lotway

447
02:11:57.119 --> 02:12:16.480
water course receiving storm water sewer It's done. >> Okay. >> No, >> council. That's the answer from this witness. You can argue it during closing. >> Uh I have no further questions of this

448
02:12:16.480 --> 02:12:52.000
witness. Uh just a couple redirect. um on the current exhibit. Can you go to the August report, please? and specifically the second page paragraph beginning with elevations

449
02:12:52.000 --> 02:13:08.880
within the property average. Okay, thank you Miss Wong. Mr. McCann um hinted at the notion that you didn't talk about tidal flooding conditions due to the proximity of the Hudson River in your report. In

450
02:13:08.880 --> 02:13:25.679
this paragraph right here in your August report essentially Al you know he alleged a bait and switch I suppose but in this paragraph you say the entire property is situated within FEMA flood zone AE PN special flood hazard area subject to the 1% annual chance of flood

451
02:13:25.679 --> 02:13:53.520
n base flood elevation 12 NAVD 888 and is recognized for title flooding conditions due to its proximity to the Hudson River. Correct. >> Okay. Okay. So, you talked about title flooding in that instance and then on page

452
02:13:53.520 --> 02:14:25.440
you can go eight of 11 in section 13 volume storage or sorry flood storage volume impacts. In this paragraph of your report, you're talking about both about both title flooding influenced areas and how they affect flood hazards associated with

453
02:14:25.440 --> 02:14:42.800
storm surge. Correct? >> Okay. So, this was something you considered from the outset in your original report. >> That's >> Thank you. And I know you didn't read it all when Mr. McC was asking you that question, but now having reviewed the actual report, do you recall that you did address some of these concerns?

454
02:14:42.800 --> 02:14:57.920
>> Yes. >> Okay. and maybe not to the same level of depth you did once you had the actual preliminary step of actually submitting the 25, the 50, and the 100-year event calculations. Correct. >> That's correct. >> And then then that subsequent report, you really focused in on this particular

455
02:14:57.920 --> 02:15:18.719
concern because in response, the applicant had not done so. >> That's correct. >> All right. And this wasn't something you thought about for the first time in January. >> Correct. >> Thank you. Uh I have I have an additional question based upon redirect.

456
02:15:18.719 --> 02:15:51.599
Um >> one question. Can we scroll to the con the summary? >> So there's nothing in So can you see the screen as well? >> Yes. And that's your the conclusion in your August 8th report, correct?

457
02:15:51.599 --> 02:16:08.639
>> And um the second or last paragraph uh the second paragraph that's highlighted in yellow, can you read that to us? Additionally, the design fails to

458
02:16:08.639 --> 02:16:25.199
rot runoff directly and properly from 100 year storm event into the designated wet pond within the adjacent golf course. It is also displays existing flood storage volume

459
02:16:25.199 --> 02:16:41.040
and capacity further al uh elevating the flood risk to the uh Port Liberty site. >> Right. So again, you didn't reference an analysis combining the 100red-year storm

460
02:16:41.040 --> 02:16:56.319
event with a 100red-year flood event. Correct? >> It did not say explicitly. Yes. Well, it says storm, correct? That's a whole different word from title. Yes.

461
02:16:56.319 --> 02:17:14.960
>> The title is also storm surge. >> It doesn't say storm surge. It says 100red-year storm event. That's a different thing. >> Mr. McCann, if you could just tone it down. I'm not sure you're gaining the points you think you're gaining, but >> Sorry. Apologize. >> I I'm sorry. I didn't hear the answer to

462
02:17:14.960 --> 02:17:31.359
the question. I said I did not explicitly say so. >> No further questions. Okay, >> Madam Chair, I think this is the appropriate time to take >> to take a break. Yes, we'll take a 10

463
02:17:31.359 --> 02:18:07.840
minutes break and we'll be back. >> Santo, just a procedural question. At this time, I would like to check on um Miss Cynthia Hijis. Do you have any witnesses? >> Uh thank thank you for asking. Uh

464
02:18:07.840 --> 02:18:25.200
chairwoman, I I do have two witnesses. I have um a planner, a planning expert here, but his his testimony is going to be limited to the master plan amendment application, which is number 10 on the agenda. I also have a fact witness from

465
02:18:25.200 --> 02:18:42.960
Port Liberte, um who her testimony will be relevant to the site plan application. But my my planning expert, Carlos Rodriguez, he just told me he has a kind of a long way to travel to get home and he he he would like to testify. um sooner rather than later.

466
02:18:42.960 --> 02:18:58.319
>> Okay. >> So, Madam Chair, we can take him out of order with the understanding that obviously Mr. McCann hasn't put the direct case on for that. So, as long as council is okay with him coming out of

467
02:18:58.319 --> 02:19:23.200
order, Mr. McCann, do you take issue with that? I suspect he's not coming back another night. Well, I had so excuse me. Um, I had no notice that Miss Hajinus has a

468
02:19:23.200 --> 02:19:39.679
planner. He hasn't submitted a report, so I have no idea what he's going to testify to. Um, so my request would be that as a courtesy to him, if he has to leave tonight, that he leave. Um, that's fine, but I reserve the right to

469
02:19:39.679 --> 02:19:56.160
cross-examine him after I hear his testimony and get a chance to digest it. >> Sure. >> That's perfectly fine. >> I I did inform the board at the LA I did inform the board at the last hearing that I was bringing a planning expert and I did say who I was bringing,

470
02:19:56.160 --> 02:20:18.640
but we we have no problem with Mr. McCann's request. >> Very good. >> Okay. testimony tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth of the truth. >> I do. >> My name is Carlos Rodriguez. That's R O

471
02:20:18.640 --> 02:20:35.840
D R I G- U. Yes, >> Mr. Rodriguez, is your license current and in good standing? >> I'm sorry. >> Is your license current and in good standing, sir? >> Yes. Yes, it is. >> Thank you. Very much so. >> Thank you. You may proceed. board will accept as a professional. You

472
02:20:35.840 --> 02:20:52.720
>> want to swear me in first? >> Thank you. >> That's right. >> Um should I give you my qualifications? >> I I would like the board to hear your qualifications. >> Okay. So, I have a masters in city and regional planning from Rutgers

473
02:20:52.720 --> 02:21:08.160
where I also taught for a long time. I've been a licensed professional planner in New Jersey for over 40 years. Uh I'm a past president of the American Planning Association New Jersey chapter.

474
02:21:08.160 --> 02:21:23.200
I'm a member of the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Certified Planners. And I'm the editor of the 2019 edition of the complete guide to planning in New Jersey, which I'm sure is on everybody's

475
02:21:23.200 --> 02:21:40.080
bedside table. >> You're qualified. >> Thank you. >> More than qualified. Thank you. Okay. Um, so the I'm speaking here about the application to amend the master plan

476
02:21:40.080 --> 02:21:57.600
component of the Caven point redevelopment plan and my testimony is going to focus on questions of jurisdiction. Is this proposed amendment in front of the right body?

477
02:21:57.600 --> 02:22:14.800
and is this proposed amendment even legal? So, uh I preface by saying that the redevelopment plan that you have in front of you is not what we commonly refer to today as a redevelopment plan

478
02:22:14.800 --> 02:22:32.080
in New Jersey. That is a plan adopted pursuant to the local redevelopment and housing law. The plan that you have been dealing with was adopted in 1984. The redevelopment statute was adopted in

479
02:22:32.080 --> 02:22:48.800
1992. So clearly this plan was adopted under some other authority. In fact, it was adopted under the old urban renewal statutes. statutes that were superseded in their

480
02:22:48.800 --> 02:23:07.840
entirety when the local redevelopment and housing law was adopted in 1992. I note that on the cover of the plan document, it is noted that it has been amended a number of times since 1984,

481
02:23:07.840 --> 02:23:29.520
most recently on November 23rd, 2010. It is also noted that this amendment was adopted by ordinance, specifically ordinance 10-148. If this is in fact the case, and I I

482
02:23:29.520 --> 02:23:46.640
have no reason to doubt that it is, then that would suggest that the plan was amended by the governing body. Planning boards don't enact ordinances, nor do they modify plans by ordinance. And if this is indeed the case, then

483
02:23:46.640 --> 02:24:03.359
this proposed master plan amendment, in my opinion, is in front of the wrong body because only the governing body can amend the plan it adopted by ordinance. So I would suggest that the board try to get to the bottom of this before

484
02:24:03.359 --> 02:24:19.520
carrying on with its review as the whole thing may be subject to legal challenge. Page 10 of the redevelopment plan under item I also indicates that the plan was approved by the city council of the city

485
02:24:19.520 --> 02:24:39.680
of Jersey City. Another confounding aspect of this matter is the plan's inclusion of the master plan provision, which requires the developer to present to the planning board what we might call a concept plan for all or a portion of

486
02:24:39.680 --> 02:24:58.399
the redevelopment area prior to presenting actual site plans. I think the idea there was that there would be an overall um development plan as opposed to a sum of

487
02:24:58.399 --> 02:25:15.120
disjointed individual plans. I think that's what Bob Carter was thinking when he included that in in this plan. We note that this master plan provision requires the master plan to include,

488
02:25:15.120 --> 02:25:32.640
among other things, provisions to accommodate the Hudson River walkway on page nine. It doesn't appear that the applicant is planning to satisfy this provision. Uh

489
02:25:32.640 --> 02:25:48.560
perhaps the planning board can consider that a condition of approval if it's inclined to approve the application, the site plan application. That is non-compliance with that provision would also likely violate the project's

490
02:25:48.560 --> 02:26:09.040
waterfront development permit issued by the NJP. This is a lengthy document 86 pages which I recommend everybody to read. Um it's not clear to me whether the

491
02:26:09.040 --> 02:26:24.000
original waterfront development permit has lapsed or is still valid. But what is clear to me is that if the permit has lapsed, it needs to be renewed. And if it is has not lapsed, the terms of the

492
02:26:24.000 --> 02:26:44.560
original permit, including the walkway, need to be respected. The waterfront development permit clearly indicates that the NJD placed a high priority in preserving and rehabilitating areas of natural habitat

493
02:26:44.560 --> 02:26:59.920
in Caven Point. Everyone knows that waterfronts, even degraded ones, are known habitats for all sorts of species, including threatened and endangered species.

494
02:26:59.920 --> 02:27:17.439
I did not see a threatened endangered species habitat study as part of the application. That's a serious flaw. a timing timing schedule to be followed in completing the master plan

495
02:27:17.439 --> 02:27:33.680
development that's another component also appears to be m missing and I would also add that the famous master plan document which the applicant is seeking to amend

496
02:27:33.680 --> 02:27:51.520
also seems to be missing. They presented a one-page drawing produced by Langan dated 10521 which is labeled master plan but it's really nothing more than a conceptual phasing plan and does not contain the

497
02:27:51.520 --> 02:28:08.800
entirety of the information required in the master plan provision of the redevelopment plan. To my mind, it is also significant that the redevelopment plan includes a sunset clause.

498
02:28:08.800 --> 02:28:26.399
On page 10, item I reads, the provisions of this plan specifying the redevelopment of the project area and the requirements and restrictions with respect thereto shall be in effect for a period of 40

499
02:28:26.399 --> 02:28:41.840
years from the date of approval of this plan by the city council of of the city of Jersey City. >> Objection. As I mentioned earlier, I'm reading from the documents. >> He's objecting.

500
02:28:41.840 --> 02:28:56.560
>> What's there to object to? >> We're going to find out, sir. >> As I as I mentioned earlier, >> sir, please. There's an objection on the floor. You have to wait. My objection is that at the last

501
02:28:56.560 --> 02:29:12.800
hearing, the board has already determined that the alleged 40-year expiration component of this argument by the objectors is not to be con is not going to be

502
02:29:12.800 --> 02:29:28.800
considered by this board. So, there's no reason to continue this testimony. >> Yeah, I'd like to respond to that. If you look at the time of application rule, it applies to development applications. The master plan amendment

503
02:29:28.800 --> 02:29:44.479
is not a development application. So while the board may have um reached a decision or I guess the board chair at the last hearing that the time of application rule um allowed the board to

504
02:29:44.479 --> 02:30:03.200
exercise jurisdiction over the site plan application. There's an important distinction to be made between how the time of application rule works in the context of a development application um as opposed to how it works in the

505
02:30:03.200 --> 02:30:20.000
context of something that is not a development application such as this master plan amendment provision or the or or agenda item that we have uh in front of the board as a separate agenda item. I don't believe that was the ruling of the board. But

506
02:30:20.000 --> 02:30:43.880
sir, let's move on from the point of the sunset. >> Okay. Um, as I mentioned earlier, the redevelopment plan was adopted on November 7, 1984. We are now in 2026.

507
02:30:44.000 --> 02:31:00.960
So according to the plan itself, it lapsed in 2024. >> So how can the applicant >> sir, we're moving on from that argument. >> How can the applicant be in front of this board seeking to amend a plan that lapsed two years ago?

508
02:31:00.960 --> 02:31:16.399
That's my question to you. And that is my testimony. I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you, sir. Thank you. That wraps your presentation.

509
02:31:16.399 --> 02:31:32.720
>> Uh, yes. From Mr. Unless the board Does the board have any questions? Board have any questions? >> So, I'm going to open up for the board. Does the board have any questions? >> Mr. McCann, are you still reserving? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, council, we're going to have to

510
02:31:32.720 --> 02:31:48.640
bring Mr. Rodriguez back for Mr. McCann's cross-examination. >> We we understand. And it's it's a virtual meeting, correct? We're moving to virtual meetings. >> I don't know when the next meeting is going to be, but yes, there will be virtual meetings

511
02:31:48.640 --> 02:32:13.520
>> for the foreseeable future. >> Okay. Thank Thank you very much. >> Your next witness. >> Okay. Um Leanne. >> Hi. testimony tonight, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.

512
02:32:13.520 --> 02:32:29.359
>> Yes. >> Leanne Callahan. L E capital A N E. >> C A L L L A H. >> Thanks. >> Okay. Um, good evening, Miss Callahan Longo. Um, how how long could you tell

513
02:32:29.359 --> 02:32:43.920
the board how long you've lived in Port Liberte? >> 20 years. >> Just give us a brief brief background. Do you want me to do that? Go right ahead. >> You're a fact witness. So, >> yeah, I'm a fact witness. Um, >> sorry.

514
02:32:43.920 --> 02:33:00.399
>> Are you a member of the governing body of the association for building one, Ms. Hajianis? Is that who you represent? >> It's it's uh condo association number one within Port Liberte. Yes. >> Yes, I am.

515
02:33:00.399 --> 02:33:15.680
>> Okay. And what position on the board do you hold? >> I am the secretary. >> Okay. And you're obviously a resident of >> I sure am. Yes. >> Okay. >> And your name again? >> Leanne. >> Leanne. >> Yeah. >> And your last name? >> Callahan.

516
02:33:15.680 --> 02:33:31.920
>> Okay. So, um, so, Miss Callahan, I believe you were telling the board how long you've lived in Port Liberte. >> Yes. 20 years. >> Okay. And how did you first decide to move to Port Liberte? >> Um, I was told about Port Liberte from a friend of mine who lived in Jersey City.

517
02:33:31.920 --> 02:33:49.359
Um, I went to visit it and fell in love with it the moment I saw it and um, we purchased right away. >> Okay. And, um, when did you first join the board of of Port Liberte Condo Association number one? >> I am the newest member. I was elected to

518
02:33:49.359 --> 02:34:04.720
the board in December of 2025. >> Okay. And what do you like about living there? >> Um, there's so much to like about Port Liberte. It's a beautiful community with incredible waterfront access. Um,

519
02:34:04.720 --> 02:34:20.960
I love the quiet of it. I grew up in the suburbs of Massachusetts and I found that it was the closest thing I could kind of find to suburban living and still be in an urban environment. Um, we have amazing amenities from, you know, a ferry into New York City, shuttle

520
02:34:20.960 --> 02:34:36.800
service to downtown. Um, mainly I just enjoy the environment with which it's in and I think it's super special. Um, >> Okay. Um, and um, did you live in Port Liberte

521
02:34:36.800 --> 02:34:52.240
during any major storm events such as Superstorm Sandy or Hurricane Ida? >> Yes, both. >> Okay. And could you describe to the board what happened? >> Sure. um Sandy was um a lot more severe

522
02:34:52.240 --> 02:35:07.359
and um during that flood dur during that storm we did in fact have flooding um in condo one um and the what is now Hudson House the entire property was destroyed

523
02:35:07.359 --> 02:35:24.960
from the storm um a lot of damage we took on a lot of damage to our seaw walls the boardwalks um a lot of the things that we're responsible able for um it took you know also the flooding um our electricity

524
02:35:24.960 --> 02:35:42.160
grids were in the garages so we actually had to move out for a month and then had no elevators for 5 months other residents I think went even longer um the flooding we didn't have to leave our properties so it's hard to say what the

525
02:35:42.160 --> 02:35:59.040
evacuation situation would have been but I will say that you know since the since the Oliver has moved in and now PTE um and especially seeing some of the things I've seen in this planning board meeting in the last few meetings um that's been

526
02:35:59.040 --> 02:36:15.280
a concern of ours for a long time um adding even more people to this area is super concerning um also the lack of discussion around like if it's a title event um it's just could happen and statistically insignificant with the

527
02:36:15.280 --> 02:36:32.479
rise of dangerous storms terms, you know, being I think statistically provable like that that answer doesn't, you know, it it's concerning to me. Um especially after seeing when that when the waters rise um that's when it gets

528
02:36:32.479 --> 02:36:49.600
really uh you know like the roadways are very concerning. Um I believe somebody gave to >> in the past like what was flooded if you could just explain to >> again I didn't walk the full property but like our all of our garages on the condo one side flooded. I can't speak to

529
02:36:49.600 --> 02:37:04.399
phases two or three. Um the roadway definitely flooded at certain points. Um we were told to park we actually were told to remove our cars and park them in what was then the high ground which is

530
02:37:04.399 --> 02:37:19.920
now where the Oliver sits. And also my understanding is at that time a lot of the water surge went ran off into the lowlands which is now once again been partially built up for Oliver and now the intention is to build it up even

531
02:37:19.920 --> 02:37:37.680
more. Um so that really is concerning for where that water pools now that it has no runoff. >> Okay. So, are you concerned that it that the the further elevation of sites in close proximity is going to cause water to flow back toward Port Liberte?

532
02:37:37.680 --> 02:37:54.319
>> Yes, because if it can't flow off, it's now going to hit a retaining wall and higher property from my understanding. >> Objection. >> Okay, >> good. That's okay. Do you want to elaborate on your objection or you're just >> She's not an expert as to what the storm water is. >> You have to get on the microphone,

533
02:37:54.319 --> 02:38:11.439
council. I'm sorry. >> I'm sorry. My object my objection is limited to this witness is a fact witness. She's not an expert as to where the storm water is going to go if in fact there is another flood either fuvial or title. >> So council let's keep it to what she

534
02:38:11.439 --> 02:38:26.960
knows. >> Yeah. Well, she's she's testifying about what she believes and what her concerns are. So >> what she knows, not what she believes. >> Yeah. Okay. Um >> and ma'am, just step >> two inches. >> Too loud. you you think it's causing

535
02:38:26.960 --> 02:38:42.080
fear. >> We usually have the opposite problem. Okay. So, um and tell me about the Hudson River waterfront walkway. Uh >> um the walkway um winds all the way through Port Liberte. Um it is a public

536
02:38:42.080 --> 02:39:00.000
walkway. Um we the HOA of Port Liberte is is from what I understand in charge of having to keep up that. Um, also my understanding was originally Port Liberte was meant to be five pieces all contributing to that. Um, I don't know

537
02:39:00.000 --> 02:39:16.080
the genesis of how >> council facts. Let's get the facts. >> Oh, sorry. Um, I guess the fact is we pay for property that everybody is moving into the neighborhood to use. Um, so not understanding,

538
02:39:16.080 --> 02:39:31.600
um, I guess I'm here to say we've not been given any answers as to what would restrict people and they're actually allowed to use that waterfront property. Um, but why are they not contributing? >> Again, what is your association

539
02:39:31.600 --> 02:39:46.000
maintaining? Like what infrastructure do you maintain right now? >> We maintain the boardwalks, the property I believe are the pump houses. Um, and I think any entryways onto those and

540
02:39:46.000 --> 02:40:02.319
then of course all of our property. >> Okay. How about bulkheads and walkways? >> Sorry. Bulkheads. Yes. And the walkways. Yes. That that I meant if I said boardwalk, I meant walkways. >> Okay. And as for transportation, how do you get to and from your home in uh

541
02:40:02.319 --> 02:40:18.359
Caven Point? >> Um, if I'm driving, I have to drive out Chapel Avenue. And if I'm I mean there's also a shuttle also. It exits out Chapel Avenue and a ferry.

542
02:40:18.399 --> 02:40:35.600
>> Okay. And um is there traffic on Chapel A? >> Yes. And it's um since the Oliver has moved in, it's increased morning traffic. Sorry. >> Um yes, there is traffic. >> I don't think regular lay people know

543
02:40:35.600 --> 02:40:51.280
about traffic. I don't think that's what you're asking. We've exper I've experienced traffic myself. >> Yes, there's traffic on Chapel Avenue. >> There is traffic on Chapel Avenue. Yes. >> Okay. So, um and has has traffic gotten worse? Oh,

544
02:40:51.280 --> 02:41:08.359
well, I think you already addressed this. Okay. So, you attended most or all of the hearings on this application. Is there anything in particular you heard or saw during Py's presentation that you feel they got wrong?

545
02:41:09.120 --> 02:41:24.800
Um, yes, I think that the road study was done before Oliver was open and also without taking into account any of the public things that happen at the end of Chapel Avenue. Um,

546
02:41:24.800 --> 02:41:41.280
and I don't think that we have I didn't see proper emergency exiting plans. God forbid we have one. Um and the again the seeing the map seeing what they put up for the title flooding without it with

547
02:41:41.280 --> 02:42:00.800
it being just that's what will happen um seems unsatisfactory. >> Okay. And is there anything else you feel the planning board needs to know in order to fully evaluate PI's application? I think just based on what we've heard,

548
02:42:00.800 --> 02:42:17.359
the elevation and water egress seems I still don't know how anyone could comfortably feel like that's been addressed and answered. >> Okay. Thank Thank you very much. Any questions for Hold on. Hold on. >> Going to run away.

549
02:42:17.359 --> 02:42:36.000
>> Any questions from the board? >> No. >> Thank you, Mr. McCann. Hi. >> Hi. >> Um, >> Miss McCann, be nice. >> Be nice. >> Okay. >> Um, are you a certified planner in the

550
02:42:36.000 --> 02:42:52.479
state of New Jersey? >> I am not. >> Are you a certified traffic expert in the state of New Jersey? >> I am not. >> Are you a certified architect in the state of New Jersey? >> I am not. >> How about an engineer? >> No. >> What is your background? I am um

551
02:42:52.479 --> 02:43:08.560
manager, consultant, advisor, exc >> I'm the manager or consultant or adviser in the entertainment space and business space and tech space. >> Thank you. No further questions. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, ma'am.

552
02:43:08.560 --> 02:43:24.640
>> Good. >> Council, you didn't have any questions for that witness, did you? >> I do not. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Miss Hajianis. No other witnesses. >> No, we No, that's it.

553
02:43:24.640 --> 02:43:47.600
>> Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Hajianis. >> Mr. McCann. >> At this time, I'd just like to recall um Mr. Brian Wazner, my professional engineer, for some rebuttal testimony on the um

554
02:43:47.600 --> 02:44:09.840
assoc the association's engineers testimony. >> Good evening. >> Good evening, Mr. Wazer. Mr. Wazer, you've been previously sworn. >> I have. >> Your licenses are still current and in good standing. >> It is. >> Okay. We'll just remind you that you're

555
02:44:09.840 --> 02:44:56.479
still under oath, sir. >> Is this better? >> Now it's better. >> Okay. What can you do? >> Stephen Joseph is not getting anything done tonight. >> You want to bring something up on the screen, right?

556
02:44:56.479 --> 02:45:13.600
>> Yes. I'm gonna bring up the prior I'm going to bring up prior exhibits. So, so just >> shall I go? >> Go. >> Let's reference the exhibit that's up. >> Yeah, >> it is exhibit

557
02:45:13.600 --> 02:45:29.840
27. A27. We called it excerpt of FHA exhibit on the 428 meeting. Um, I just want to reiterate, I went through at the last meeting quite a bit about title versus rainfall. They are

558
02:45:29.840 --> 02:45:46.560
two separate events. And this example or not example, this um piece of regulation describes them. I'll zoom in again. Tidal flood area in which the flood hazard area designed flood elevation is governed by tidal flooding

559
02:45:46.560 --> 02:46:03.439
from the Atlantic Ocean. Flooding in a tidal flood hazard area may be contributed to or influenced by storm water from inland areas. But the depth of flooding generated by tidal rise and fall atlantic ocean is greater than than flooding from any fluial source.

560
02:46:03.439 --> 02:46:18.560
Conversely, fluial flood hazard area in which flood hazard area designed flood elevation is governed by storm water runoff. Flooding in a fluial flood hazard area may be contributed to or influenced by elevated flood elevated water levels generated by the tidal rise

561
02:46:18.560 --> 02:46:35.680
and fall of the ocean. But the depth of flooding generated by storm water runoff is greater than the flooding from the Atlantic Ocean. There's no provision in here to assess both simultaneously. It's generally considered that one is going to be worse than the other depending on

562
02:46:35.680 --> 02:46:50.880
where you are close to the shore or not close to the shore. In this case, we've actually analyzed both. We analyze when the storm surge comes in comes into elevation 12. It's governed by ground elevation, not by runoff falling from

563
02:46:50.880 --> 02:47:07.760
the sky. We've also analyzed under a fluial situation when an extreme event, a 100redyear flood, rainfall event happens, the wet ponds fill up actually to the 2100year rainfall event. And when that happens, all the storm water is

564
02:47:07.760 --> 02:47:22.720
still retained on the site. It does get close, gets within an inch or two in two locations. Otherwise, all the ponding happens on the applicant site. I'm going to switch now quickly to

565
02:47:22.720 --> 02:47:38.319
exhibit A28. This is the exhibit that I explained at the last meeting that illustrates where the flood waters would come in and inundate areas below elevation 12. And

566
02:47:38.319 --> 02:47:53.520
the point of bringing this up is to show the proximity here to the Hudson River. It comes in right along Chapel Avenue. There's a direct nexus from the site. If this flood event happens, it's because it's coming in from the river. It's not

567
02:47:53.520 --> 02:48:08.640
generated by runoff coming from the site going out to the river. There's no blockage of pipes here from runoff from the site. It's actually the opposite. It's water coming backwards into the site. And for that reason, having separate storm sewers or separate drain

568
02:48:08.640 --> 02:48:28.560
lines to the wet ponds is not going to ameliate whatever condition exists today on the HOA property or on this property. Elevation 12 is going to govern where the flood water comes in from the ocean. Um lastly the

569
02:48:28.560 --> 02:48:46.240
I'm now referring to exhibit A2 which is the entire site plan set of drawings last revised 1016 and the only reason I'm bringing this up which is sheet CS100 is on it we have labeled in various

570
02:48:46.240 --> 02:49:01.680
locations that along the edge of the property that borders the applicant's property with the HOA way. It's identified there's a black aluminum fence to be installed on top of wall. There's an emergency access

571
02:49:01.680 --> 02:49:19.439
which is depicted with a gate. And the fence also continues up around the wall up to plan north and where it meets with an existing 4ft high black aluminum fence. Um and then it continues down plan south to Chapel Avenue. There's a

572
02:49:19.439 --> 02:49:35.680
question as to how are we providing security. The retaining wall itself is not the security. It's the 4ft high fence along the entire perimeter of the site that borders the HOA. That is how the site is being secured to prevent trespassers from going back and

573
02:49:35.680 --> 02:50:15.439
forth. So, getting back to the regulation that was highlighted in yellow and green, can you pull that up on the screen for us? So, I'm back in exhibit A27 and I'm on

574
02:50:15.439 --> 02:50:30.080
page nine. So there's been kind of a question or a suggestion that maybe the D wasn't aware that

575
02:50:30.080 --> 02:50:47.359
we were the the project plans to discharge the storm water into the um remind me the the um >> wet ponds >> wet ponds which are connected to the Hudson today.

576
02:50:47.359 --> 02:51:03.279
Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Was the D fully aware of the facts of this design when they issued the waterfront development permit? >> Flood hazard. They issued a

577
02:51:03.279 --> 02:51:19.520
>> flood hazard. Sorry. Flood hazard. My apologies. >> Yes, they were aware. Uh, the reason I know this is we had a pre-application meeting with the DP in June of 2024 before we applied for the permit to make sure we understood the conditions and the applications that would govern this

578
02:51:19.520 --> 02:51:36.000
site. I actually have it in an email that they responded to. Am I allowed to bring this up? >> Yes, let's bring it up. It's a rebuttal exhibit. >> We're going to have to mark it. It has not been shared.

579
02:51:36.000 --> 02:51:55.000
>> It's not been shared yet. No. >> Um, >> what are we marking as? >> What are we up to? A Is it A31? >> It's one of five. Is this a trail? Let's >> Yes, it's an email trail. >> Okay. are you?

580
02:51:56.560 --> 02:52:21.680
>> It's an email from Michael Shehan of D to myself, Kelly McCormack, and Lauren Ballardo, all Langan professionals that were on a call with Michael. Mr. Lumpy, I'm just going to object to the document. We don't have an opportunity to question Mr. sheen about

581
02:52:21.680 --> 02:52:39.040
what was stated in here or cross-examined him. I mean, don't know the context of the email. In order for the witness to describe the context of the email, he's going to have to talk about hearsay. I know that's, you know, a trial objection, but still, I don't. >> And if this was a trial,

582
02:52:39.040 --> 02:52:53.840
>> I understand >> that would be a good objection. >> Council, let's get some foundation. Let's start at the bottom. >> Mr. Uh, Wazner, take us to the explain to us how

583
02:52:53.840 --> 02:53:10.720
you disclose to the DP the facts that applied to this project. So, we reviewed um the constraints around the site and we reviewed a prior application, the one for the Oliver to ask the DP would the

584
02:53:10.720 --> 02:53:25.920
same set of rules apply specifically regarding the use of the wet ponds. If you recall, the Oliver was permitted at a time when the wet ponds could be used for water quality, but the regulations had changed. And moreover, the flood

585
02:53:25.920 --> 02:53:41.760
elevation had changed. I heard a prior witness talk about the flood elevation uh or flood experienced after Sandy. In fact, the flood elevation was raised after Sandy happened. We have to deal with a higher flood elevation and a

586
02:53:41.760 --> 02:53:58.080
higher requirement than used to exist. Nevertheless, we walked them through the project. We said, "This is how we think the regulations would be applied or the regulations that would be applicable." And we followed up with this email that asked for their confirmation of our

587
02:53:58.080 --> 02:54:17.600
understanding. And did in in the in the flood hazard area permit application, did you disclose the wet ponds to the NJD?

588
02:54:17.600 --> 02:54:35.359
>> We did. And did you disclose the conveyance system that you planned to the NJ? >> We did. >> Is that I'm sorry. Is that part of this email here? >> Yes. This is the email that was sent um

589
02:54:35.359 --> 02:54:52.560
in the chain on page two. >> Do these emails follow in sequence? >> Yes, from the bottom up. >> Okay. So, we're going to mark it as A31. Council, your objection is noted for

590
02:54:52.560 --> 02:55:13.680
purposes of the record. Let's go to the first email. I'm going to get past the team's invite. That was the appointment for the meeting. The first email is Michael Sheihan,

591
02:55:13.680 --> 02:55:32.560
DP emailing the same day as the pre-application meeting on June 11th indicating he tracked down the approval for the most recent project. He's referring to the Oliver and it appears the reason you're permitted to use the wet ponds for water quality is because the permit was issued prior to the

592
02:55:32.560 --> 02:55:49.439
effect of data green infrastructure. It goes on this is not particularly relevant to the point I'm trying to bring up regarding that ele that section of the code. I can continue reading if you'd like or I can get to the next

593
02:55:49.439 --> 02:56:12.080
email. >> Council, >> I'm fine. Move on. Let's move on. >> Okay. So, the next email is Friday, June 28th from Lauren Bolardo of my office to Michael

594
02:56:12.080 --> 02:56:28.319
asking him for clarification or summary and an update on what we found following our meeting. And the first item is really the important item for purposes of what I'm describing. Storm water quantity management. As discussed on our

595
02:56:28.319 --> 02:56:43.520
call, the attached agreement between the property owner and neighboring golf course allows the project site to discharge storm water runoff from the developed site into the golf course wet ponds. As such, storm water runoff from the site will be discharged to the wet pond system which is directly connected to a title water body and further

596
02:56:43.520 --> 02:56:59.279
measures for storm water quantity or control are not required. We respectfully request your concurrence that this documentation addresses the question of a permitted connection to a wet pond so the project design and entitlements may proceed with confidence that a new storm water quantity

597
02:56:59.279 --> 02:57:16.080
management measures are not required. So >> council the purpose of this email is to demonstrate that these conversations took place with D and yes and the purpose is also respect to wet bonds. >> Yes sir. And Brian, if you would like,

598
02:57:16.080 --> 02:57:32.479
do you want to go back to the green and yellow highlighted regulation? So the green is no analysis is required if the storm water is d discharged directly into any ocean bay inlet or the reach of any water course between its

599
02:57:32.479 --> 02:57:48.399
confluence with an ocean bay or inlet or downstream of the first water control structure. And the significance of this related to the email is that the DP was fully aware am I correct of the fact that we were dis the project is

600
02:57:48.399 --> 02:58:05.120
discharging into the wet pond which was then discharging into the Hudson Bay and that's the basis for this permit being issued. Correct. >> Correct. And July 10th email at 10:06 p.m. we're in a this is from the D.

601
02:58:05.120 --> 02:58:21.920
We're in agreement that the drainage easements have language that would allow you to discharge unattenuated runoff, no quantity controls is what that means, into the golf course ponds and subsequently the title water course such that the requirements of NJAC7

602
02:58:21.920 --> 02:58:39.359
8-56B4 would be met. B4 is the highlighted yellow and green. unattenuated runoff means we don't have to do the quantity controls that we're being asked for. We did them

603
02:58:39.359 --> 02:58:55.680
without the tidal flood plane just to show that if there was no title flood plane, we were still controlling runoff within our site, but you don't have to combine them. D would not issue a permit if they did require us to combine them because they would make us demonstrate exactly that.

604
02:58:55.680 --> 02:59:13.319
So I think this demonstrates we communicated with D to clarify the rules before we submitted. They agreed and in fact provided us guidance and confirmation before we submitted of how it would be applied. >> Thank you. No further questions.

605
02:59:16.240 --> 02:59:33.359
>> Any comments from the board? Sure. >> Yeah. Just just one question. Um, and I don't know who this is directed to Santo or you guys, but is this referencing an official interpretation of D of their rules or is this the individual opinion of and someone who um is at D an expert?

606
02:59:33.359 --> 02:59:48.080
I >> I would say this is the reviewer's guidance to us before we made an application and the ultimate proof is the issuance of the permit. Now, we based our application on this.

607
02:59:48.080 --> 03:00:04.399
In fact, in here it says he had a check with his supervisor to make sure this interpretation was correct. >> Thank you. >> Can we refer back to the email on um I believe it's July 9th. There's an email. This is the 10th.

608
03:00:04.399 --> 03:00:49.279
>> Yeah. 9 Thank you. Any other board comments? >> Rebuttal witness. >> Mr. >> Caliberus. >> Come on, Miss Janus. Um,

609
03:00:49.279 --> 03:01:13.439
hi, good evening. Um, so I don't I don't know if we could scroll down to the beginning of the email chain like after the teams. Okay. So, um, in the first email, I'm not sure what the date is from Michael Shehan.

610
03:01:13.439 --> 03:01:31.120
Okay. June 11th. Um, was was this after or before the pre-application meeting? >> This was the same day as the pre-application meeting. Later in the day. >> Okay. And if you could scroll down slightly more. >> Um,

611
03:01:31.120 --> 03:01:47.439
okay. So, they I'm just curious, did did the topic of a waterfront development permit come up during that meeting? Because there's I see something there that says the permit next paragraph. The permit was modified under WFD 220001

612
03:01:47.439 --> 03:02:05.279
on 1025 2022. I'm just curious if that was raised at the pre-application meeting. >> It was. And I'm going to go up one email which is Friday, June 28th. >> And we're writing an email to Michael following up. And the last bullet point

613
03:02:05.279 --> 03:02:21.439
says coastal jurisdictional determination. A coastal jurisdictional determination letter was provided from NJD for the project stating a waterfront development permit, a caffer permit, and a coastal wetland permit is not required. >> Okay. And is that the letter that was submitted to the board today as an exhibit?

614
03:02:21.439 --> 03:02:36.240
>> Correct. >> And that letter was for another project, not for this one. >> It was for the site the the tax lot. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. And and just to continue, Michael does confirm that um the remainder of the

615
03:02:36.240 --> 03:02:52.399
items in your email appear to be consistent with what was discussed at our >> Okay. I I actually do have a follow-up question. Do >> and that letter was A29 for the record. >> Okay. Thank you. and um what what kind of um notice and

616
03:02:52.399 --> 03:03:08.720
opportunity to comment is provided for these NJD decisions or or or decisions uh involving permits. >> So we have to get an uh list of property owners within 200 feet of the property

617
03:03:08.720 --> 03:03:25.040
and send out notice for the permit. uh copies also sent to the city uh clerk and I think the planning board is also notified >> and if if I'm sorry I'm interrupting you please. >> No, we have to provide proof of that notice in our application to DP.

618
03:03:25.040 --> 03:03:40.560
>> Okay. And if if there's a determination that a permit's not required, is there any notification of that? um >> like how would the public find out that there there's a decision not to require a permit?

619
03:03:40.560 --> 03:03:58.080
>> Well, it's the application notes what is proposed, what permits are being sought. You don't list every permit that's not being sought or may not be relevant. >> Okay. So you're saying just by default people or just by deduction people

620
03:03:58.080 --> 03:04:15.439
should realize no permit is being applied for required. >> Okay. >> Did you comply with those requirements in this case? >> We did. >> Do you have proof that you complied? >> It's in our application to D, a copy of

621
03:04:15.439 --> 03:04:32.080
which was provided to the city. Maybe not to the board, but to the city in accordance with the D permit application rules. >> Was notice provided to the property owners >> within 200 feet based on the list given to us by the city.

622
03:04:32.080 --> 03:05:00.439
>> Thank you. >> I have nothing further. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other witnesses? Council. >> Uh yes. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. >> Okay.

623
03:05:10.720 --> 03:05:27.439
>> Oh, well, actually, I think I've already been sworn. >> Yes. Uh, this gentleman's testified >> back in September. >> In September, >> we could swear him in again, but he's he's already been sworn in. Tonight's going to be the truth. The whole truth.

624
03:05:27.439 --> 03:05:45.760
>> I do. >> Uh, Sean S. Moransky. M O R O N S K I. >> Miss Moranski, is your license current and in good standing? >> It is. I proceed. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Sorry. What was your license

625
03:05:45.760 --> 03:06:00.880
again? What are you a planner engineer? >> I'm sorry. Yes, I'm a licensed professional planner. >> Okay, thank you. >> Should have added that. I know. Okay. Um, with regards to um the site plan application,

626
03:06:00.880 --> 03:06:14.960
a couple of things that I'm going to go over in response to Mr. Pesselano's comments earlier. Uh, the first So, um, Mr. Moransky, first let's tell the board what we have up on the screen right now. >> Yes. Okay.

627
03:06:14.960 --> 03:06:33.439
Um, right now this is sheet site plan CS 101, which is a zoomedin site plan of the what I'll call the northern section of the site. I believe this was part of the site plan. This was part of the site

628
03:06:33.439 --> 03:06:50.560
plan package that was last revised October 10th, 2025. I have that noted as A19. >> I believe that's correct. Yes. >> Okay. And the reason I brought it up was uh because um going to go through some of the um some of the requirements um

629
03:06:50.560 --> 03:07:08.080
with regards to project compliance. Um as as uh you're aware, we have not uh we're not requesting any variances because according to the redevelopment plan requirements, we don't need any. And I'll first start with um our

630
03:07:08.080 --> 03:07:22.960
building height redevelopment plan section 8C3 permits a height up to 15 stories and 200 ft. Our buildings are proposed at four stories and 54 ft. The unit type stack town houses which are also

631
03:07:22.960 --> 03:07:40.880
permitted um in the redevelopment plan. Question of parking space dimensions came up and I'm referring to um the exhibit now. Um let's see I have the cursor showing the um the surface

632
03:07:40.880 --> 03:07:57.279
parking spaces not associated with the garages. Those are 9 by8. Um the minimum the dimension is required is 8.5 ft wide by 18 ft deep. There was also a discussion about the drive aisles. Um 22

633
03:07:57.279 --> 03:08:14.000
ft is the minimum as I'm zooming in where there are park surface parking spaces that are not that are not um that do not have garage driveways on both sides. The driveways are 24 ft wide. Um

634
03:08:14.000 --> 03:08:33.920
it's the 22 feet wide uh drive aisles are in areas where you have no parking spaces such as where I'm showing on the plan here. And as I scroll down, actually I will refer to uh the same site plan, but it'll be sheet CS102,

635
03:08:33.920 --> 03:08:50.640
which is the southern section of the project. And I'm zooming in to an area where you have driveways on both sides. We have a 22 foot wide drive aisle, but

636
03:08:50.640 --> 03:09:07.600
each of the driveway lengths are 20 ft. So across you have 62 feet, which is actually 2 feet more than when you have conventional parking spaces which are each 18 ft deep. And with a 24 uh foot wide drive aisle, that's 60 ft. So we do

637
03:09:07.600 --> 03:09:22.960
comply with with the redevelopment plan in terms of driveway width, in terms of parking um space. uh length in terms of circulation. We've addressed the Department of Infrastructure comments that we've received and we meet the

638
03:09:22.960 --> 03:09:40.479
guest parking requirements. See, there was there was a suggestion made um by the planner who testified tonight that there was a concern that the drive aisles did not meet RSI requirements and

639
03:09:40.479 --> 03:09:57.439
and redevelopment plan requirements. The purpose of this testimony is to reinforce and show the board that they they absolutely do. Correct. >> That is correct. They they do meet the requirements um as been noted in my testimony and in previous testimony um for this application.

640
03:09:57.439 --> 03:10:12.240
Um another subject that was brought up with regards to the redevelopment plan is preserving sightelines. And I am referring to uh the redevelopment a section of the redevelopment plan which is exhibit A5 uh the redevelopment plan.

641
03:10:12.240 --> 03:10:28.479
And this is on page six. It's um redevelopment plan section 3D. And the specific section highlighted talks about the preservation and development of sightelines and vista points to the sites surrounding visual attractions including the Manhattan skyline, the

642
03:10:28.479 --> 03:10:44.960
Statue of Liberty, and New York Harbor. And um as Mr. Pelano had noted, that's obviously a concern, which it is, which we've discussed based in our prior testimony. And also as um subject to uh

643
03:10:44.960 --> 03:11:01.120
the initial application checklist requirements, the applicant was required to submit a visual impact assessment um which is exhibit A23 and has been posted on on the um city website uh for

644
03:11:01.120 --> 03:11:22.399
download um for we submitted it back in September of 2024. Let's see. Just getting to the right section. Okay. What I'm referring to now is uh the Jersey City Land Development Ordinance.

645
03:11:22.399 --> 03:11:38.160
This is the relevant section of the ordinance with regards to the visual impact submission format. And the four items that we have to address include the elevation of the proposed building or project, a description of

646
03:11:38.160 --> 03:11:54.479
any unique scenic features or scenic views, the visual impact the proposal will have on any of the scenic corridors identified in the master plan and if necessary proposed mitigation to ne to negative impacts. Um there also we also

647
03:11:54.479 --> 03:12:11.760
included a shadow study in the um in the visual impact assessment all which is also uh required in in the ordinance but for the purposes of my testimony I'm going to address the the four subsections that I noted with regards to

648
03:12:11.760 --> 03:12:28.800
the visual um impact assessment submission format. Now, um, the first part has to do with the elevation of the proposed building or the project. Section 3.0 of the visual impact assessment, which is on page two, describes the height. It's

649
03:12:28.800 --> 03:12:42.640
lower than the the height that's permitted. And the reason we have to do a visual impact assessment is because any structures that are proposed with a height of 40 ft or greater, um, we are required to provide this visual impact

650
03:12:42.640 --> 03:12:59.680
assessment. But we reinforce that what's being proposed is much lower than what is what is currently permitted at the site. So then there's um the second item which is a description of unique scenic features or any scenic view from the

651
03:12:59.680 --> 03:13:17.399
site section 4.0 know and I'm going to refer to A23 of the um A23 which is the visual impact assessment section 4.0 I know I will get that.

652
03:13:20.319 --> 03:13:36.160
And what we were asked were asked to do is show photographs from the site itself. Obviously, it shows the existing conditions um on the site and the views you have. This the photograph two shows from the northeastern section of the

653
03:13:36.160 --> 03:13:53.359
site facing across the Port Liberte tennis courts and pavilion. And in the in the report there is a map a figure which shows where we took the photos from and in the direction of scenic vistas.

654
03:13:53.359 --> 03:14:10.000
So the section the third part of the visual impact assessment is what is the visual impact to the scenic corridors or visttors vistas. Um, we have to refer to the most current master plan reference to the corridors or vistas and the 2011

655
03:14:10.000 --> 03:14:26.560
master plan circulation element. >> And just to be clear, that's the city master plan for the entire city of Jersey City. Correct. Not this master plan that we've been talking about for Caven Point. >> Correct. This is the city master plan. And an important point because the views of these scenic corridors and vistas,

656
03:14:26.560 --> 03:14:43.040
it's not related to one or two particular properties. It's the view of the vistas from locations throughout the city. And in the uh 2011 um circulation plan of the Jersey City master plan, it talked

657
03:14:43.040 --> 03:14:58.239
about preserving and creating scenic corridors and viewsheds as identified in the land use element. And how would they go about that? They cite a specific action to preserve the New Jersey Turnpike Newark Bay Extension Scenic Corridor as discussed in the land use

658
03:14:58.239 --> 03:15:13.920
element of the 2000 Jersey City master plan. And one would think, okay, well, what relevance does this have to this particular property, but it goes to the question of how any development would have an impact on scenic corridors from

659
03:15:13.920 --> 03:15:32.000
key viewpoints throughout the city. and the uh the turnpike Newark Bay extension is a substantial gateway for people who are visiting Jersey City or maybe traveling through toward toward New York City. So if you follow the 2000 Jersey

660
03:15:32.000 --> 03:15:48.720
City master plan land use element, it talks about that the planning board has recognized the scenic value of the vistas provided by the turnpike and continues to seek to protect them from incompatible development. And these limits aren't intended to prevent the

661
03:15:48.720 --> 03:16:03.760
development of significant structure, but require that building placement be managed so that you coordinate with the vistas to be provided toward New York Harbor, toward Manhattan, the Statue of Liberty, the downtown waterfront, and Jersey City's historic

662
03:16:03.760 --> 03:16:19.359
neighborhoods. The key point is that the view protection is to protect the overall public view from key points as identified in the master plan. It's about a public benefit as opposed to a view from a particular site. And our

663
03:16:19.359 --> 03:16:37.200
position based on this report is that the the project as proposed does indeed meet that. Yes, because of the lower buildings, but also because of the layout which does not have any substantial impact on the view corridors

664
03:16:37.200 --> 03:16:52.640
that have been identified in the city master plan. With regards to mitigation, I don't believe any uh mitigation is required. It's the project's not visible from uh the turnpike extension or so other areas of a substantial distance

665
03:16:52.640 --> 03:17:10.160
due to that distance and grade change. Um the Port Liberte buildings closest to the project site are of a similar size and scale. Some of them might be taller and the project height is much lower than permitted which is consistent with the project's intention of scaling

666
03:17:10.160 --> 03:17:26.319
downwards staying within the requirements which is why we are requesting no variance and the visual impact assessment shows that there's no adverse impact to scenic corridors and we're consistent with the redevelopment plan with regards to the preservation of

667
03:17:26.319 --> 03:17:41.040
sightelines. So, if there are one or two buildings in the Liberty Watch community, if it's approved, that block the view of one or

668
03:17:41.040 --> 03:17:57.720
two buildings in the Port Liberte community, is that a factor that needs to be taken into consideration in connection with the section of the redevelopment plan that you cited? Okay, put it back up on the on the screen. >> Yes.

669
03:17:58.239 --> 03:18:14.880
Right. Are we required to preserve the sightelines of any particular building or condominium unit? No. >> In Port Liberte? >> No. >> It's not what this entire scheme is about, is it? >> No. It's it's about the overall public benefit as opposed to a particular

670
03:18:14.880 --> 03:18:31.600
property or site. >> Thank you. >> No further questions. >> Thank you, councel. Thank you, council. Sajianis, thank you.

671
03:18:31.600 --> 03:19:12.160
Any other witnesses? Council. >> Thank you. >> No, sir. Thank you, councel. >> So, very briefly, Mong, >> Miss Wong, did Mr. Weisner's rebuttal

672
03:19:12.160 --> 03:19:26.319
testimony address your concerns about the impact of flooding on Port Liberty HOA property? >> No. >> And why not? because um as I mentioned before the uh

673
03:19:26.319 --> 03:19:44.239
conditions of 100year tidal flooding combined with uh storm rainfall uh condition was not addressed. >> Okay. And in the emails between Mr. Wazner, his colleagues in the D that were put up on the screen, did you see any mention or discussion regarding the

674
03:19:44.239 --> 03:19:59.920
impact of title flooding on the site? >> No. >> Mr. Wazner also spoke I think specifically about the difference between fluvial and tidal flooding um and he stated that they are treated separately. Do you agree with that?

675
03:19:59.920 --> 03:20:17.279
>> Yes and no. So >> please explain. >> Yes. It's it's two different definitions. One is for inland area, one is for um coastal area. So step one, they do

676
03:20:17.279 --> 03:20:34.399
have different definitions. >> Correct. >> Okay. So there is some difference between the two. >> Yes, definitely. >> Why do you disagree then that uh when you said yes and no that there's also a difference between them? >> The difference is the when

677
03:20:34.399 --> 03:20:50.560
title flood happens it does not exclude rainfall events. It often happens same time as we all say the hurricans the tropical storms the norers have storm

678
03:20:50.560 --> 03:21:06.319
surge but in the same time have significantly um have uh rainfall events happening same time. So, so in other words, it's a very simple fact that while they're separate events, they can happen at the same time. And in that scenario, you

679
03:21:06.319 --> 03:21:22.920
can't treat them separately. They're both happening and occurring at the same time. >> Yes. >> Okay. And that's why you disagree that you can't treat them separately despite having a different definition because you need to as an engineer take both of those things into consideration.

680
03:21:23.439 --> 03:21:38.960
>> Yes. >> Okay. If the planning board feels that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that their application will not increase flooding on neighboring sites, that is then a basis upon which the planning board members could deny the

681
03:21:38.960 --> 03:21:55.600
application. Correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And it's your opinion that in fact the applicant has failed to demonstrate that their application will not increase flooding on neighboring sites >> and under in extreme fl uh title flood condition >> and that's because they've refused to

682
03:21:55.600 --> 03:22:10.640
run those calculations for title flooding events. Correct. >> Yes. >> And that's resolvable, right? >> Yes. >> They could run those calculations. >> They can run the calculations and demonstrate that. In other words, the members of the planning board have no

683
03:22:10.640 --> 03:22:26.080
reason to wonder or worry about whether or not their decision is going to increase flooding on the neighboring Port Liberte site because that can be addressed and resolved by the applicant. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> No further questions.

684
03:22:26.080 --> 03:22:50.399
>> Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Wong. >> Mr. Can Mr. McCann. >> I have more. I have a question. Question. So what I don't understand about your argument is that you're not citing any

685
03:22:50.399 --> 03:23:06.000
regulation or there where is the regulation that requires what you're saying? >> Okay, let's put regulations on. >> No, no, no, we can't. I'm asking you where is the regulation

686
03:23:06.000 --> 03:23:33.520
in the D requirements >> obj regulation NJAC 7 colon um part 5.6 Six that requires the development to hold water

687
03:23:33.520 --> 03:23:51.439
quality standard water quant uh water quantity standard at the uh development side not increase flooding onto a budding lot adjacent property and that's my interpretation of the lot requirement

688
03:23:51.439 --> 03:24:07.040
>> and the D disagreed with that and issued a permit correct >> DP He issued the permit. Yes. >> Thank you. And the regulation that you're referring to is the storm water quantity

689
03:24:07.040 --> 03:24:29.120
regulation. Correct. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Wong. >> Mr. McCain, do you have any other witnesses? >> No, sir. >> Council, do you have any other witnesses? Y >> Miss Hyianis, do you have any other

690
03:24:29.120 --> 03:24:44.479
witnesses? Okay, Madame Chair, given the lateness of the hour, we have a room full of people that can't wait to talk to the board. Then we're going to have summations. Uh

691
03:24:44.479 --> 03:25:01.920
it would be the chair and the board's decision whether we have public comment on another evening or if we start public comment. and carry over. But there is a room full of people and we will be going

692
03:25:01.920 --> 03:25:18.000
virtual uh >> in our next meeting >> in our next meeting. >> Um >> we would very much like to be heard some tonight. >> We understand that everybody wants to be heard. We understand that everybody in the room has an interest in this

693
03:25:18.000 --> 03:25:42.359
particular application. >> Okay. So what we'll do is we'll take a five minutes break. We have a hard stop at um 10. >> So So Madame Chair, it's 20 to 10. So

694
03:25:43.920 --> 03:26:13.439
>> because our recorder needs a break. >> So we'll do a five minute we'll do a five minutes break and then we'll be right back. So, we are against time and I know there's a lot of you from the public that would like to speak on this project. Um, for this evening meeting,

695
03:26:13.439 --> 03:26:31.680
we will have a hard stop at 10:15. Nice. Thank you. >> So, everybody gets three minutes. We can't repeat the same things raised by the person before us.

696
03:26:31.680 --> 03:26:48.720
So, just keep that in mind. It will move the process along. So, with that being said, Mr. Wine, you're standing there like you want to say something. So odd for an attorney to be quiet for

697
03:26:48.720 --> 03:27:04.640
six hours. So it's fun. >> Um just very briefly, Madame Chair, um commissioners, it obviously the hour is late. I do have an application on this evening um for 53 Beacon Avenue and I forget what item that was on the agenda.

698
03:27:04.640 --> 03:27:19.120
>> 13 new business. >> 13 under new business. And uh I guess being that we will not be reached this evening, I would just respectfully request to be adjourned to whatever the next hopefully soon uh meeting date is as this application has been complete and scheduled initially in December of

699
03:27:19.120 --> 03:27:35.760
2025. So to the extent it can be a soon agenda, I would appreciate that and I understand we would have to renotice for the virtual meeting. >> What's the date, Kim? Just so we can notice. >> If you can do it, we will extend June 9th. We understand this application has

700
03:27:35.760 --> 03:27:52.160
been around for a very long time. >> Okay. So, assuming I'll confirm with uh with you tomorrow, Cam, that my parallegal says I can get the notice out in time. And assuming that's the case, we'll do June 9th. If for whatever reason it's past the notice deadline um I guess two weeks later,

701
03:27:52.160 --> 03:28:06.000
>> we would definitely work. >> Yeah. I mean, >> thank you. >> Thanks, council. >> Thank you very much, >> Mr. Harrington. Yes, if if I could while while we're doing this. Um uh I have the lot street um application. It's agenda

702
03:28:06.000 --> 03:28:25.200
item number 9P2025-000067. I was spo speaking with Cameron about that if and would respectfully request that it be carried to the June 9th meeting. I understand that I'm going to have to renotice. Um I have a notice ready to go. It's just a matter of trying to get it in the paper on time.

703
03:28:25.200 --> 03:28:39.680
Okay. >> So if that's okay. We are also extending the June 9th date to Mr. Harrington for last. >> How about Mr. Lean who's standing behind Mr. Harrington? >> Well, if I could just take care of one one other item, the the Marin Boulevard.

704
03:28:39.680 --> 03:28:57.040
Uh we talked about that. I believe Cameron said that >> that's on number 15. >> That's uh yes, 15. That's P2025-0068. I believe that uh Cameron uh discussed July 14th for that one. >> Correct.

705
03:28:57.040 --> 03:29:14.800
July 14th. >> Since we're noticing for all these, we don't have to go through them. They're going to be noticed. >> That's correct. >> Okay, >> Mr. Lean. >> Thank you. >> Uh, thank you. I had number eight on the agenda, P20250106. I spoke with Cam and we're going to put

706
03:29:14.800 --> 03:29:35.600
this on June 30th. Hoping it's first up because we were first up tonight originally. Um, and uh, yeah, we'll uh, we'll renotice. >> Thank you, council. >> Thank you. Okay. So, at this time I would like to open for public on

707
03:29:35.600 --> 03:29:55.560
case P2025- Z sorry P2024-000029. >> Who's going to manage it? >> I was hoping that everybody would manage it themselves, but okay. We're going to go in height order.

708
03:29:56.720 --> 03:30:14.960
Good evening. >> Shortest to tallest. >> Yep. >> I do. >> Alexander Cameron. A L E X A N D R A C A M E R O N 16 Constitution Way, Jersey City, New Jersey 07305.

709
03:30:14.960 --> 03:30:28.960
>> Three minutes. >> You have three minutes. >> Uh sorry, I have notes. Okay. Um, I'm a longtime Port Liberte resident, a parent, and someone who personally experienced the consequences of poor waterfront development planning during

710
03:30:28.960 --> 03:30:44.640
Superstorm Sandy. Ironically, I had to evacuate a PY building in Jersey City during Sandy uh due to what I would call design failures. Shortly afterward, my family moved into Port Liberte. The townhouse and condo too had severe

711
03:30:44.640 --> 03:31:01.279
flooding, a destroyed backyard yard, and years of insurance related delays before repairs were completed. Property values suffered significantly. Today, we live in condo 3 directly near the pond behind the golf course. Um, where I've raised my children and

712
03:31:01.279 --> 03:31:16.640
invested in this community for over a decade. If this board allows the PY project to proceed tonight without major protective contingencies, including a fully independent storm water and water management system, we will consider seriously consider selling our home.

713
03:31:16.640 --> 03:31:31.840
This proposal is not just about adding housing. It's about knowingly intensifying flood sewage, traffic safety, and infrastructure risks in an already vulnerable waterfront community. FEMA flood maps do not adequately account for intense rainfall events,

714
03:31:31.840 --> 03:31:49.279
combined sewer overflow fl over overflow failures, or Jersey City's aging drainage constraints. Jersey City's combined sewer system already has become overwhelmed during major storms, creating street flooding mixed with untreated sewage discharge. Adding 168

715
03:31:49.279 --> 03:32:06.640
new T town homes and paving over absorbent land will dramatically increase runoff volume, sewage demand, and pressure on evacuation routes like Chapel Avenue. Residents know from experience that promises made by developers during approvals are forgotten once units are occupied. We

716
03:32:06.640 --> 03:32:23.520
already experienced trespassing, trespassing, congestion, delivery bottlenecks, and construction gridlock from nearby development. Approving this project without ironclad independently verified flood mitigation and infrastructure protections would be reckless and would permanently alter the

717
03:32:23.520 --> 03:32:40.520
safety, livability, and character of Port Liberty for the family families who already call it home. I have my 13-year-old son here who's here all night just to also represent on behalf of uh our family. Thank you. >> Thank you.

718
03:32:41.120 --> 03:32:57.040
>> Good evening. any testimony tonight. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing truth. >> I do. >> Yeah. My name is Aparna Shinasan. A P A R N A. S is in Sam, R I. N is in Nancy. I V is in Victor A. S is in Sam, A. N is

719
03:32:57.040 --> 03:33:13.439
in Nancy. Sorry, that might take all 15 minutes. Right. I'm an owner at 30 Constitution Way, Unit One in Jersey City, um part of Port Liberte. >> You have three minutes. Thank you, chairman board. Tonight, you'll hear

720
03:33:13.439 --> 03:33:29.760
from the community that has spent years living with the consequences of decisions made without us about us. You'll hear from parents, seniors, first-time homeowners, lifelong residents, people who have carried the weight of flooding, failing infrastructure, environmental uncertainty, and the

721
03:33:29.760 --> 03:33:46.960
erosion of trust. These are not abstract concerns, but daily realities that shape how we live, plan, and how safe we feel in our own homes. We Excuse me. We are here tonight because the people who live with these consequences of development have been treated as an afterthought and

722
03:33:46.960 --> 03:34:03.040
here sorry and we are here because the board has a responsibility and the authority to change that. The decisions made in this room rippled outward into people's lives. They determine whether families feel protected or abandoned, whether environmental risks are taken seriously

723
03:34:03.040 --> 03:34:18.640
or brushed aside, whether development serves the public interest or simply serves those who stand to gain financially. For years, the harms of Port Liberte have been minimized, dismissed, or treated as unfortunate footnotes to someone else's profit. But the truth is unavoidable. When a

724
03:34:18.640 --> 03:34:34.880
developer's actions destabilize a community's safety, environment, and infrastructure, accountability is not optional. It is a bare minimum standard of responsible governance. Tonight, you will hear from residents speak to how the burden, financial, emotional, and

725
03:34:34.880 --> 03:34:51.279
physical, has fallen squarely on the people who live there. You will hear facts, data, and firsthand accounts that make one thing painfully clear. The status quo is not sustainable and is not acceptable. These flaws are not merely technicalities. They translate directly

726
03:34:51.279 --> 03:35:06.800
into real world consequences that Jersey City will bear the full burden of. When flood waters damage our homes and infrastructure, is Jersey City prepared to assume the financial responsibility? When property values in Port Liberte plummet, it's Jersey City's reputation

727
03:35:06.800 --> 03:35:23.120
and tax base that will be compromised. And when residents find themselves isolated in emergencies, the city will stand accountable for failing to protect its citizens. We are not asking for special treatment, simply fair treatment. We're asking

728
03:35:23.120 --> 03:35:40.000
you, we're asking you to uphold the principles this board is meant to embody: transparency, diligence, and protection of public interest. Every speaker who follows me will illuminate a different facet of the same truth. Port Liberte deserves better. Our families deserve better. And the decisions made

729
03:35:40.000 --> 03:35:55.680
in this room will determine whether this community continues to bear the weight of past failures or finally begins to see justice, accountability, and meaningful change. Approving this development as it stands is a direct abdication of your responsibility to

730
03:35:55.680 --> 03:36:11.439
this to safeguard public safety and community welfare. We are You'll be authorizing a project that puts Jersey City on the hook when things fall apart. >> I urge you to listen to Give me a second. I urge you to listen to the experts who come after me. Who

731
03:36:11.439 --> 03:36:27.439
are these experts? The residents of Port Liberte, the people who live here with the consequences every single day. Your vote is not just to a project on paper. It will determine the future safety. >> Your time is up. I'm sorry. >> Sorry. >> And stability of Port Liitate for generations to come. Vote no. And do not

732
03:36:27.439 --> 03:36:48.800
let Jersey City be on the hook for disaster waiting to happen. Thank you. Thank you. >> Michael Arman. >> You swear any testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I swear gives you >> Michael Ehr

733
03:36:48.800 --> 03:37:06.000
Mn 15 Enterprise Court. >> Good evening. You have three minutes. Uh the debate started tonight with a comment by Commissioner OD remembering that for the last 50 years all of the parcels in Caven Point Peninsula were

734
03:37:06.000 --> 03:37:23.200
expected to contribute to the expenses of Caven Point Peninsula. Mr. McCann responded by saying no our development is not going to be part of Port Liberte because it doesn't have to be. Let me give you some further

735
03:37:23.200 --> 03:37:39.120
information to help you decide what to do about that clear dispute. Um, first number one, after the permit that was discussed here tonight had been received uh by the developer and he built the

736
03:37:39.120 --> 03:37:56.800
boardwalk and he built condo two and three, there's one of these transfer agreements. In that transfer agreement, there's there's no gray area. Everything that was an expensive caven point was shifted to the Port Liberte HOA. And it

737
03:37:56.800 --> 03:38:13.279
didn't say just the Port Liberte three condos. It said whatever condos were part of the HOA would have all the responsibilities. And the HOA did sign that. Um the permit that you've heard about tonight, we have had various

738
03:38:13.279 --> 03:38:28.319
studies done over the years and what we know is that about every 10 or 15 years, Port Liberte will have to pay anywhere between 10 and 20 million for the refurbishment of that boardwalk. That is

739
03:38:28.319 --> 03:38:46.640
a burden that this community pays, which is why the issue of whether other prop parts of this property are going to help pay for it is so crucial. Right after condo 3, my condo was built. The developer tried to build condo 4. He

740
03:38:46.640 --> 03:39:03.279
did the design. He had some pre-sales. He couldn't get it through because of financing, but he clearly accepted with condo 4 which is on the land which is now proposed for PY that there would be this cost sharing. Didn't happen. There

741
03:39:03.279 --> 03:39:20.080
were for the next 10 years that developer stayed on the board as president of the HOA because it was his intention to have all of the land become and remain part of Port Liberte. So he waits and waits and finally in 199 in

742
03:39:20.080 --> 03:39:37.520
2019 he decides he has enough and he starts looking for separate developments and the first thing he does is does it 47 unit Oliver and the 47 unit Oliver can't be part of the HOA because it's apartments but the that development has

743
03:39:37.520 --> 03:39:54.560
paid nearly $4 million to the HOA and to condo one to support expenses of Caven point 2 a.5 million by agreement. The rest as a result of a lawsuit. So now along comes this development. Uh he

744
03:39:54.560 --> 03:40:09.600
chooses one of the most unlikely companies to to ever cooperate in an HOA py. It's too strong. It doesn't need >> time is up. uh we if you approve this you basically

745
03:40:09.600 --> 03:40:32.479
are choosing the approach of not taking responsibility for the peninsula. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker >> I do the record and give us your home address please. Karen Donnu, D O N O H U

746
03:40:32.479 --> 03:40:48.960
E 15 Freedom Way. >> Thank you. You have three minutes. All right. So, um, the request for an amendment to the Caven point redevelopment plan is not val, excuse me, is not valid in my opinion. This will not be a phase five

747
03:40:48.960 --> 03:41:03.680
as they have stipulated since they will not be part of our HOA as intended. Consequently, they will not be paying anything towards the maintenance of the Hudson waterfront walkway, which is due, as Michael said, in the next few years for millions of dollars in restoration

748
03:41:03.680 --> 03:41:19.520
costs. The original plan for call for approximately 2,000 units to support the cost of maintaining the walkway. PY is significantly changing the original plan to stack town homes, which significantly increases the density of the development

749
03:41:19.520 --> 03:41:36.080
beyond what was originally detailed, basically altering the character and environmental impact to the site. Point two, traffic is currently limited to one road in and one road out of our peninsula. We have over 800 units

750
03:41:36.080 --> 03:41:54.080
currently with over 1,600 residents. The Oliver has um in full flux of getting their 400 plus units filled. Uh PTE proposes 168 town homes with a minimum approximately of 350 residents. A

751
03:41:54.080 --> 03:42:11.520
conservative e estimate of 2800 people will have to exit our peninsula during a natural disaster. A new development should not be approved until our egress is properly expanded. This will be a potential lawsuit against the planning

752
03:42:11.520 --> 03:42:26.560
board, the city of Jersey City, and with the inevitable natural disaster strikes, people cannot quickly and safely evacuate our peninsula. My point three is we're in a flood zone. PY has been ordered to raise their buildings at

753
03:42:26.560 --> 03:42:43.279
least three feet. And though PY PY has stated they have an easement from Liberty National Golf Course to divert flood waters onto the golf course, the potential for flooding into our buildings increases exponentially. After all, water always flows downhill

754
03:42:43.279 --> 03:42:58.960
and we will be downhill of the golf course and the proposed town homes. Murphy's law states what can go wrong will go wrong and at a minimum our garages will be flooded. And my last point is our pump house has proven to be

755
03:42:58.960 --> 03:43:15.359
unable to accommodate Port Libertate condos and the Oliver rental complex which is not fully rented yet. And we have experienced sludge backup in our garages, in our midrise buildings. It's unsanitary, a health hazard, and costly

756
03:43:15.359 --> 03:43:33.199
to clean up. I am urging you not to approve this plan. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> You didn't have to tell me my time was up. Great. Hey Our next speaker, you have three minutes. >> The truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.

757
03:43:33.199 --> 03:43:48.880
>> I do. >> Peter Mey like and Mary El >> What's that? >> 100 Sheerwater Court East 63, Jersey City, New Jersey 07305.

758
03:43:48.880 --> 03:44:04.640
>> Thank you. >> Welcome. Good evening and thank you for your service. Appreciate what you do and uh your commitment to the betterment and the future of Jersey City.

759
03:44:04.640 --> 03:44:21.199
Thank you for doing your job. Um, and I want to thank the uh the attorneys for uh my continuing education in life and uh reading the fine print.

760
03:44:21.199 --> 03:44:39.520
Um, it's been a it's been a very interesting ride, but uh there's not much for me to really say except um uh I've been at Port Liberte for 20 25 years in that area. Um been through

761
03:44:39.520 --> 03:44:56.160
whatever we've been through. And um uh this uh development uh by PY is uh to be just quick about it, it's totally unnecessary. PY could go anywhere he wants and build whatever he wants. He's a national

762
03:44:56.160 --> 03:45:14.640
developer, got deep pockets. Uh and uh it it just shouldn't happen. It's uh I spent over 30 years in the construction business, so I kind of know know some stuff. Um, and uh, it ain't going to work. Uh, and what I'm going to charge you all

763
03:45:14.640 --> 03:45:31.439
with, and I do charge you with, is our lives, our safety, our future, our betterment, our beauty. Uh, because this thing is just going to be a nightmare. uh you not any any

764
03:45:31.439 --> 03:45:48.880
individuals here, but this board or whoever was on the board when you gave the Oliver the green light to go do what they did. They're now encroaching upon our privacy, having the dogs poop all over the place on our property, uh infiltrating our

765
03:45:48.880 --> 03:46:05.520
pools, our tennis courts. Uh, and you gave and and and Chapel Avenue was a pretty decent roadway before uh the Oliver uh you gave the Oliver whatever you wanted to give them. Now Chapel Avenue uh is a driveway with

766
03:46:05.520 --> 03:46:22.319
a double line in it. It's absurd. And I'm a professional driver. It is absurd. It is ridiculous to have to go up and down that road and deal with the Oliver and anything else. the Army Corps of Engineers, you know, that's our

767
03:46:22.319 --> 03:46:40.800
neighbor. So, uh, talk about safety, fire engines coming down and up and down. It ain't going to work at all. And, and all all that's going to happen is our lives are going to be in jeopardy forever. So, please, you know, tell Mr.

768
03:46:40.800 --> 03:46:57.840
Py that to go somewhere else. I wish him well. you know, he could go anywhere in the United States or whatever he has rights to go build and, you know, continue his his journey. >> Um, but, uh, Chapel Avenue is Chapel

769
03:46:57.840 --> 03:47:17.279
Avenue. >> I'm sorry your time is up. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Goodbye. >> Testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. Yes. >> Fred, please. >> Fred Miller. M I L L E R 206 West Shere

770
03:47:17.279 --> 03:47:32.640
Water Court. >> Mr. Miller, you will be the last speaker for tonight. We are at 10:15 almost already. So, >> well, thank you for indulging me with the opportunity to speak then. My name is Fred Miller. Uh come July, I will have lived in Port Liberte for 30 years.

771
03:47:32.640 --> 03:47:48.560
My thoughts are simple. We live in a country that's being torn apart by cynicism about government. in the it is the public's perception that government does not work for them that large money interests are drowning out everything else. I look at that row of the

772
03:47:48.560 --> 03:48:05.760
undertaker convention over there and I feel that um one of the unpleasant aspects of living in our little corner of Jersey City is the sense that we have not had no voice in the shaping of our neighborhood for many years. Let me give some examples. Ed FA field was rebuilt

773
03:48:05.760 --> 03:48:22.800
as a center for major football games. Huge traffic jams. We were never consulted. Caven Point Road was narrowed to provide room for a high-speed uh ebike food delivery corridor, mistakenly named a bike path. We were never talked to about

774
03:48:22.800 --> 03:48:40.399
that. The Oliver narrowed Chapel Avenue. There was no discussion with the residents of Port Liberte about that. the um golf course, Liberty National and the Jersey City Marathon close our street when they have events without any

775
03:48:40.399 --> 03:48:56.479
consultation, sometimes creating very dangerous situations. I think you see a theme here. The opening of the Oliver has been awful. The developers refused to share in any of the responsibilities for being part of Port Liberte and then told all their renters, "You're renting

776
03:48:56.479 --> 03:49:11.680
apartments at Port Liberte." So when people complain about all of our residents using Port Liberte facilities that we pay for and they don't, it's based on what you approved. And then PY comes along, will not meet with us to

777
03:49:11.680 --> 03:49:27.600
discuss the impact of their project at all, will not take responsibility for the walkway, just wants to build. And so um approach seems to me that if they can get the planning board to approve they can ignore the impact on the

778
03:49:27.600 --> 03:49:44.319
neighborhood. I'm not asking you to prevent development on that site. Some of my neighbors want that. I don't. I'm asking that a basic requirement be that developers seriously consider the impact of development on the people who already live in Jersey City. Instead, we saw the

779
03:49:44.319 --> 03:49:59.760
process delayed because PTE could not be bothered to notify all the people within 200 feet of the development. Remember that the first meeting we say um they've handed us several traffic studies, all of which got the name of the road we

780
03:49:59.760 --> 03:50:17.439
depend on wrong. It's Caven Point Road, yet Langden calls it Craven Point Road. Even in their testimony, it seems like maybe that was a Freudian slip. Choice of Craraven seems pretty obvious. Nevertheless, if you are so sloppy in your proofreading that you can't get the

781
03:50:17.439 --> 03:50:32.880
name of the street right, why should we trust any of your statistics and I'm speaking as a statistician pure and no one on the board noticed we live on Caven Point Road. We're proud to we'd like people to recognize that. So

782
03:50:32.880 --> 03:50:47.920
the question for all of us is what matters? Do we build more apartments? Do we develop more apartments or do we create healthy neighborhoods? Because right now you have a choice between a developer who wants to ram more

783
03:50:47.920 --> 03:51:02.319
apartments in without a single concern for the people who live there or those of us saying work with us to make a community. And this board has an obligation to decide. Is the goal to build apartments or is it to build neighborhoods? It's your choice.

784
03:51:02.319 --> 03:51:22.000
>> Thank you, Mr. Thank you. At this time, I would like to entertain a motion to close public comments. >> I see no one else from the public, >> you have to make a motion. >> Oh, I make a motion to close public portion.

785
03:51:22.000 --> 03:51:38.640
>> Second. >> Are are we going to reopen public comment at the following meetings? Is that >> we announced that just now? >> Roll call, please. >> Chair Wick. Uh, Vice Chair Wick. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Barnaby, >> I.

786
03:51:38.640 --> 03:51:57.840
>> Commissioner Councilwoman Little. >> Nay. >> Commissioner Kaplan. >> I. >> Commissioner Patel. >> I. >> And Chair Gangaden. >> I. >> Okay. Motion carries to close the public portion. Uh, five in favor, one oppose.

787
03:51:57.840 --> 03:52:12.479
>> Okay. So, at this time we will be scheduling this matter for a special meeting. Did we um agreed on a date? >> September uh June 16th. >> So June 16. Um all our meeting going

788
03:52:12.479 --> 03:52:29.359
going um further will be on Zoom. So um be on the lookout. You will be getting getting renotic in the mail. That's one. Number two. The the city website will have the link to the Zoom. >> Am I correct?

789
03:52:29.359 --> 03:52:47.680
>> They'll get notice in the mail as well. Yes, Mr. McCann. >> Come forward, Mr. McCann. >> Hi, thank you. I just want to >> Yes. The meeting will start at 5:30. It will be on the Zoom platform. >> Okay. You consent to the extension of

790
03:52:47.680 --> 03:53:02.479
time for the board to act on the application. >> Yes. >> Thank you. So, for everybody in the public, the next opportunity is June 16th, 5:30 via Zoom. What is going to

791
03:53:02.479 --> 03:53:20.239
happen on June 16th is the remainder of the public that did not speak will be afforded that opportunity to speak. Then we're going to have submations and then this will be put to a vote by the board >> at that time.

792
03:53:20.239 --> 03:53:48.880
>> Hopefully at that time >> if 300 residents show up. No. Thank you all for coming out this evening. >> Thank you. >> All right, we still have some business to um get to. >> So, please leave the room quietly. We

793
03:53:48.880 --> 03:54:23.520
still have business to get to. >> I don't have to say this beginning. Are you ready? >> All right. >> You want me to wait? >> You want me to wait? >> Okay. Application number P2026-000051 decided on May 12th, 2026. Memorialized

794
03:54:23.520 --> 03:54:40.800
May 26, 2026. It's application for extension of preliminary and final major site plan approval. Next is case number P2025-0180, address 113 through 115 Oak Street, Jersey City, New Jersey, block 19503,

795
03:54:40.800 --> 03:54:58.800
lot 3 decided on Tuesday, May 12th, 2026. Memorialized on Tuesday, May 26, 2026, which is application for minor subdivision approval with C variances. Next is case number P2024-0223. Applicant 3 Orchard Holding LLC. Address

796
03:54:58.800 --> 03:55:15.279
3 Orchard Street, Jersey City, New Jersey. Block 15201, lot 48. Decided on Tuesday, March 31st, 2026. Memorialized on Tuesday, May 26, 2026. Application for minor site plan approval with C variances. Next is case number

797
03:55:15.279 --> 03:55:34.359
P2025-0224. Applicant Deep Patel for 2-year extension of preliminary and final major site plan approval with C deviations. Address 16 Van Reapen Avenue, block 7903, lot 32.01,

798
03:55:35.920 --> 03:55:53.399
Jersey City, New Jersey. Next, resolution of the planning board of the city recommending an amendment to the transit proximity bonus in zone 1 of the Jackson Hill redevelopment plan. Next is case number P2026-00003.

799
03:55:53.439 --> 03:56:10.199
Address 210 through 212 Bergen Avenue, New Jersey City, New Jersey block 23405, lot 6 decided on Tuesday, May 12, 2026. Memorialized on Tuesday, May 26, 2026. Application for minor subdivision approval. Done.

800
03:56:10.399 --> 03:56:25.920
>> Vice Chair Wick >> I. >> Commissioner Barnaby >> I. >> Commissioner Little >> I. >> Councilwoman Little. >> Commissioner Kaplan >> I. >> Commissioner Patel. >> And Chair Gangadan. >> I. >> Okay. Motion carries. All in favor to

801
03:56:25.920 --> 03:56:41.840
memorialize resolution. >> So this is our last meeting for right now in person and we will be going Zoom. Anyone has any questions regarding your Zoom meeting? >> Um, >> did we have to do

802
03:56:41.840 --> 03:56:57.439
>> uh did you send an email about doing a test? >> I spoke with Madame Chair this afternoon and we're going to do a mock Zoom meeting on Monday. Um, does uh is there a specific time that works best for

803
03:56:57.439 --> 03:57:13.920
everyone? So I think Monday is caucus which >> okay >> might just conflict for me and councilwoman. >> Okay >> uh at 4. So if it's earlier >> second >> um >> June 1st >> Oh sorry >> June 1st is my >> June 1st. My bad.

804
03:57:13.920 --> 03:57:30.239
>> Tuesday >> Tuesday is fine. >> Um no it's actually not caucus. >> Oh I lied. I'm sorry. >> Yeah we got an extra week. >> We have they took an extra week off. Those council slackers. Um, June 1st. >> Do you want to do 3 3 p.m. anyway on

805
03:57:30.239 --> 03:57:47.439
June 1st? 3 p.m. >> I'm >> That works for me. >> Whatever. >> 3 p.m. on which date? >> On on Monday next week? >> Can we do 3:30? I do have a three. >> Okay. 3:30. >> 3:30 is good.

806
03:57:47.439 --> 03:58:04.080
I'm fully aware on how to use >> I I just would note I I mean I don't know but is it different in this setting where we are on a board and there's public as opposed to kind of a typical Zoom meeting of >> what will happen is we will all be participants so we will be up on the

807
03:58:04.080 --> 03:58:20.560
screen cam and Ben and staff do everything you just need to know how to mute how to turn your camera on and off. And as we get to

808
03:58:20.560 --> 03:58:35.840
persons, whether it's the public or attorneys, the attorneys and their team gets elevated to participants. They come on the screen and then public one at a time

809
03:58:35.840 --> 03:58:53.199
gets elevated onto the screen. Obviously, we're not sharing documents ourselves. If we wanted a document, we needed a document, we would ask staff as if they were sitting here, can we pull this up? Can we see this? And

810
03:58:53.199 --> 03:59:09.279
all of those types of things. So, >> and then other than that, we just >> speak as normally, questions, etc. >> Any raising hands or we just kind of whenever there's time for questions? >> Right. So, chair, I have a question.

811
03:59:09.279 --> 03:59:25.920
Yep. chair will recognize the member so we keep some order on the Zoom >> but we would unmute and say madam chairwoman in order to >> okay >> it's pretty simple >> straightforward >> very straightforward >> and if you keep the tablets right like

812
03:59:25.920 --> 03:59:52.720
you're >> if you have only speakers >> let's see Is there any >> We can obviously do it and try to run it. I don't know that you're going to get any real feel because >> doing it other than us. >> I I I feel like we could have two.

813
03:59:52.720 --> 04:00:07.760
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Matt could be an attorney. >> A fake slide deck or something. >> Yeah. >> Santo could you could argue. You could depose Matt as a witness. >> Grill him. Make him really for him. >> Make him sweat.

814
04:00:07.760 --> 04:00:26.560
>> Yeah. Is your license? >> Sorry. What was that? Madam >> chair email Monday. >> Yes, I will. I will tomorrow. I'll send an invite. Um but

815
04:00:26.560 --> 04:00:43.920
in that email tomorrow, um I'm I'm going to ask if you got an invite from Zoom today. >> Oh, you did? Oh, fantastic. Well, the hardest part for me is done. Um, but yeah, we definitely we should all just jump on and familiarize ourselves with

816
04:00:43.920 --> 04:01:04.720
the uh format on Monday. >> I I don't know that I did, but >> okay, let me see. >> That's what happened. Don't try to use the one on the agenda >> as a panelist. I can always promote you if you're on a device you're unfamiliar

817
04:01:04.720 --> 04:01:20.080
with and you don't have access to it. You can always click the public link and then just text us and we'll we'll promote you to panelist. But >> okay. >> Yeah, mine is in quarantine. >> Mine was quarantine. Thank you for that. >> Is there any um decorum like cameras on

818
04:01:20.080 --> 04:01:38.560
like any >> for us? Yep. >> Dress up from waist up. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Formal from the waist up at least. >> Or do you want us eating on camera? >> There there'll be breaks

819
04:01:38.560 --> 04:02:00.399
>> within reason. >> You should keep your camera on, right? You should be on the screen and you shouldn't be doing anything else. You should be drinking or eating, right? >> I'll be >> not even candy.

820
04:02:00.399 --> 04:02:16.000
>> Not even massive amounts of Kit Kats. >> So, the only thing I would tell everybody is you look a little different on the Zoom than you do on YouTube in this room. So, if you haven't watched any of these on YouTube, on the Zoom, it's your face in

821
04:02:16.000 --> 04:02:33.600
the screen. >> Might be a little distracting. I'm told I look much older in Zoom. >> All right. >> You can tell me in executive session following our test run. >> Madam Chair, motion to >> I don't want to go to Zoom.

822
04:02:33.600 --> 04:02:41.279
>> Do we get a second? Second. >> Okay. All right. We're adjourned. >> Second. All right.