To the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Could we have a sunshine announcement, please, Kim? Yes. Good evening, everyone. Today is
Tuesday, September 23rd, in the year 2025, and this is a Jersey City Planning Board meeting with a scheduled 5:30 p.m. start time. And in accordance with the open public meetings act, notice of this meeting has been given to the editor of the Bergen record, LSPito, and posted with the city clerk on September 19th of
this year. This meeting was also posted on the Jersey City Division of City Planning web page, and all distribution materials made available to the board were published and made available to the public. Okay, thanks Kim. Could we have a roll call, please?
Uh, yes. Vice Chair Dr. Gonzalez, here. Commissioner Gangaden, here. Commissioner Wick here. Commissioner Stamato here. Commissioner Lipsky here. Commissioner Torres. Chairman Langston here. Okay, we have seven commissioners
present. We have a quorum. All right. Thank you. Um Mike, could we swear in the staff, please? I see Matt, Joe, Matt, Sophia, Eric, Tanya, and Cam. Do you guys truth the whole truth and nothing truth? Yes.
Um, and for the record, we've marked the sunshine announcement as B1 into evidence. All right. Thanks, Kim. Do we have any correspondence? Yes, chairman. So, on page 10 of the agenda in new business, starting with
item 17, um, we have, uh, a request to carry to October 28th. So uh I'll do a full uh recap down the list. So that is item 17
case P2025-000038. It's a preliminary and final major site plan with C variances. The address is 427 Bergen Avenue and they've requested to carry with preservation of notice to October 28th. Um,
next item 18 on the agenda, case P2024-011. It's a minor subdivision with C variances. Address is 86 to 92 Ocean Avenue. Um, they have requested to carry with preservation of notice to October 28th.
Um 19 case P2024-012. This is a minor site plan. Address is 90 Ocean Avenue. They've requested a carry with preservation of notice to October 28th of this year. Um item 20, case
P2024-0113, another minor site plan. Address is 86 Ocean Avenue and they have requested a carry with preservation of notice to October 28th. And then the last item on the agenda, item 21. It's case P2025-000091.
It's a minor site plan at 69 Lake Street and they've requested a carry with preservation of notice to October 28th. Um, and that concludes correspondence. All right. Thank you, Cam. So,
[Applause] uh, I am going to jump ahead just briefly. We have one commissioner that's um still in the back room. He's he's got some business to do. So, I just want to get ahead and do a couple new business
items that are real quick. I'm going to call item nine is the review and discussion of certified artist Alex Mamemedi Patricia Drew Juan Neves uh Shrenath.
I got nothing. Bali. All right. Formal action may be taken. That's easy to add. Um, okay. So, the artist certification board um qualified the four artists before the planning board tonight um
under criterias 1 2 3 4 and five um as meeting the uh uh qualifications to become eligible for the artist housing in Jersey City. and planning staff agrees and finds them to be suitable for
the housing and we recommend approval. All right. Thank you, Cam. Does anybody have any questions? No. Yeah. Go ahead. I was just wondering if the uh artist Don Juan, is he present here today?
Mr. Mr. Neves, come with us. It's it's an honor to see your application on this um portal when I opened it up. You opened up my heart today on a day I had a lot of things going on. What you
representing in this community and you want to bring it to Jersey City is a very important thing. I would like to say for the record I am also a part of a folkloric was a part of a folkloric group in Jersey City started in Jersey City and
is one of the biggest ones in the east coast. Uh fellow commissioners he plays a 12 string guitar called the guatos the national instrument of Puerto Rico. He teaches and if I'm not mistaken,
you make them or No, no. I want to take, you know, classes. You're going to take the classes. Okay. My brother. Um, thank you for being picking Jersey City. Thank you for making this your home here.
It's going to be an honor for our community. And I started reaching out to people already. So, we need to get in touch. Um, just for the just to say Christopher Columbus Drive at Jersey City, we'll
remember this. Louie movers. Louie movers. Go over there Saturday. Bring your quatro. They're going to have roast peg. There's a young man over there that could play a guatra that's going to surprise you.
They're in Jersey City, my brother, and they're looking for more guys like you to be here with us. Thank you, Mr. One. Bless. Now I know why you Now you know why I wore my Guaya. Yes, I wore my Guaya. Respect the Mr. One.
Anybody else? Any questions? Okay. Is anybody here from public that wants to comment? Seeing no public, please come on up, sir. Good evening. The truth, the whole truth. I do.
Mike Kulowski. K U L O W SK K I to5 Liberty. Good evening, sir. We have three minutes for you. I'm recommending that Mr. here has been granted this application because we need it will enhance our cultural life here
in Jersey City and we uh we have large Latino community but it's also go beyond the community and this will enhance the image and and knowledge of our city outside of our borders. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Is anybody else here
from public that wants to comment? Seeing no public, I move to close. Second. All right. Motion is made and seconded. public is closed. We already have Cam's uh recommendation. So, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to uh accept and approve the review and discussion of a certified artist, Alex
Motordi, Patricia Drew, Juan Neves, and Shrinath Vapali. Uh and send to um to the council for formal adoption with a favorable recommendation. Second. Okay. Motion is made and seconded for approval. Vice Chair Dr. Gonzalez. Hi,
Commissioner Gungadan. I congratulations Joel. Commissioner Wick. Congratulations. I Commissioner Stamato. Congratulations. I Commissioner Lipsky. Um Ben, I vote I.
Commissioner Torres, you guys know I got a big eye on this one. So I vote I for all of them. All all the artists were outstanding. Commissioner Patel I. And Chairman Langston I. Motion carries. All in favor. And uh Cam, let the record show Commissioner
Patel was not in the room for the entire discussion. So Mike, if we could strike that vote, please. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Good call. But let's have the record now show that Commissioner Patel is at the DEIS and uh is eligible to vote and comment from here on out.
Thank you. So that's seven in favor. Okay. Thank you, Kim. All right. So let's go back to item A. uh is case P2025-071 is the preliminary and final major site plan with C variances for 829 Bergen Avenue
happened. Oh uh this was carried from July 15th and August 26th with uh preservation of notice and testimony taken. Council, just give us one second until uh Commissioner Torres gets back up here.
Sorry about that, brother. That's all right. No worries. So, before we get started, council, let's just go through the board. uh make sure everybody's read the previous testimony if they weren't at the meeting or watched the videos.
Um so I was at I don't think I was here for either meeting, but uh yes, I watched the video for both meetings and um I'm eligible to vote tonight. Uh, Doc,
I was present as well. Uh, except for one of them, I think. Do you have the date? I don't think you were here for the 26th. Yeah, I did. I did see the video. Let me pull the dates up. only one. Um, just for the record, I was uh
not present in July, but at the August meeting, I did put on the record that I watched the video and um watched it again today. So, okay. V, I think you were here for both meetings. Uh, I believe I was here for both. Um,
I don't think I don't have you down for the 26th. Um, and I did watch the the video the and read the transcript for the 8:26. Okay. And, uh, Commissioner Stamato, I have at both meetings, you
get a gold star tonight, Pat. Um, and uh, Commissioner Lipsky, I believe you were at both also. So, two gold stars tonight. three gold stars including video. Thank you guys. All right, council. Go ahead. And uh I'm sorry I skipped bobin. Um
you were here for one of them. So did you have a chance to watch the video for the meeting on the 26th? Okay. Excellent. All right. All right. Thank you, council. Okay. Thank you. Uh for the record, Charles Harrington of Connell Foley on behalf of the applicant. Yes. At the
last meeting, uh we um completed our our presentation. there was some public comment um and and some discussion and we had a journ to tonight. Uh in the meantime there we did make a change uh to the uh to the plan. There was a uh an
issue that was brought up with regard to a possible building code issue and that the uh distance from our building on the ground floor uh to the egress stairs um next door at the Coptic Church. uh our professionals have been going back and
forth um to discuss the the issues um and uh we are still um discussing and um an access agreement uh for the demolition which is not an issue for this board but we're very close to we we hope to uh be very close to um getting
that completed uh but we still have you know the devil's in the details right um so what I'd like to do tonight then is is to um have our architect come up and walk the board through uh what we've uh we are proposing uh and there are a few
items that uh their uh consulting engineer asked for us to state on the record uh to clarify what they discussed um so give that for the to the benefit of the board and um with that said I I want to bring uh Mr.
Mr. was not present at the last hearing, but he's the architect of record. He was out of the country in late August. So, council, the way I recall when we adjourned on August 26th,
uh there was a potential question regarding the window well on the north side of the building. Uh that's obviously what you're discussing here. Are we limiting
testimony just to what change has been made with respect to that portion of the plan? Yes, it' be limited to that and to the representations and the discussions that Mr. had with their consulting engineer.
And Mr. Before we swear you in, do you know if that individual is here tonight? I noticed that a lot of the potential people are not here that were here. Yes, he's here in the audience. Okay. All right. So, chairman, with
that, uh, obviously we will limit all comments to whatever's testified to this evening. Okay. Thank you, council. Truth, the whole truth. I do. Sure. Ahmed Amara, last name E M A R A.
Mr. Omari, good evening. Uh, I know we've qualified you numerous times. Your license is current and in good standing. It is. Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. Um, Cam, do we have a another microphone for Mr. Harrington? One, please.
It was left off the charger. I'm going to see how much it charged and I can get it up there. Okay. Yeah, because one thing I notice on the videos is uh Come closer. I'll just That mic's a little hard to hear if you're not right up on it. Yeah, I'll I'll ask a few questions and get out of the way.
Okay. Does it work? Oh, I see. Oh, there you go. Oh, okay. Mic. Yeah. Okay. So, uh I can pick it up. Yeah. Oh, there you go.
It's Mr. Microphone. Uh Mr. uh you're familiar with with the issues that were raised at the last meeting? I am. Okay. In between the last meeting and this meeting, did you uh amend the plans? We did. And did and did you have uh discussions
with the consulting professionals with the church? Yes, we had. And could you then walk uh the board through the changes that were made, the discussions that were had, and some of the representations that that were requested of you tonight? Currently, yes. Um so I'm going to start with the discussion that we've had with
the with the um church the engineer representing the church just to put everything in perspective. Um the main concern and and I respect it and totally understand it. The main concern isn't about the building and what's happening in the building. It's really about what's happening um at the perimeter of
our building facing their building. So that's that's the main concern. what windows are going to be facing the the church's property and how those windows are going to affect um uh the church in case of fire. There is a second means of egress for the church that is um along
in that um alleyway basically or the pathway between the church and the um our proposed building. The entirety of the stair and the pathways on the church's property. We are building the entirety of our project within our property. But there nevertheless they've
you know we've had some discussions about this and um they've asked me to testify today specifically to agreeing to fire rating the windows on the second and third floors uh on the return wall which I will um show in a second but I
just wanted to put that on the record as as well as showing a 1 in seismic gap uh on the property line on our side of the building of the project. Um I wanted to get those on the record. um in the beginning and those will be shown in our construction documents um as we
discussed with them. Um just before you go any further um just so you get on the record, I believe Magdate this afternoon there's apparently a disagreement or misunderstanding as to what would be fire rated uh the windows above the third floor, but we are
representing that we will fire rate the second and third floor. Correct. Okay. Yes. Yes. And and that's that's the that's what we had discussed and we had agreed to in an email. There may be a misunderstanding of language of he's saying all I'm saying it's second and third. How many windows?
Two windows. Two windows. And I'll show them in the plan right now. I'll show the location of those windows in the plan. Let's do it. So we're talking about two windows on the second and third floor. One window on each floor. Yeah. So I'll I'll quickly show what's happening on the first floor just so everybody understands what's going on. I'll zoom in right here. Um, previously
our building was going basically straight here and then we had a small window well that was in here and we had windows in it and those windows provided light um and air into the office space um into both offices this office and this office and the window well
basically ended right here. In an attempt to basically work with our neighbors here and provide a safe environment, further egress uh condition, we've basically elongated our um setback and our well basically to be
about 20 29 5 in. We've eliminated all the windows on the ground floor and we have not proposed a a fence along the property line and that's something that we can accommodate in terms of if they have, you know, a lot of traffic on an egress, they could actually uh walk on
the property. If that's something that they opposed to and they would like for us to put a fence on the property, I'd like to get on that on the record as well. We have no issue of putting a fence right there. That's not something that we um have an issue with either way. There is no window windows in the building and there is nothing that we
would be doing on in that area. Um this is the first floor condition. The second floor so that's at grade that window well that is at grade correct and essentially it's your testimony that the length of that window well front to back
along the lot has essentially doubled from say 15 to 29. I I think it may have more than doubled, but yes, it's 295 in. And there were two windows located on the north and south side of that.
There were two windows, one that is perpendicular to the property and one that's parallel to the property and both have been eliminated on the ground or on the ground floor. Okay. Right. Which which you know the concern there was could trespassing can happen from both property into each other.
That's what uh we had discussed with their engineer. Um as well as just safety issues, what happens to the window if it gets broken or something like that. We had previously put a wall that's six feet high with a 4ft metal fence, but I think in discussions and and based on the transcript also I read
from board's um uh concerns last time, we've just basically decided to eliminate the windows completely. we can do away with them. And we've increased this window well to just create more of a space there um and separation between the egress and um and our building. That's
the window well has not gotten any bigger in terms of depth. Depth. No. Okay. Um and then the condition on the second floor remains unchanged and the agreement is this. Just I'm going to
zoom in even more. This window here that is perpendicular to the property line would be fire rated on the second and third floors of this of our building. Could you just explain what that means to be fire rate a fire rated window?
So sure um I've also read that in last time so I'd like to clarify that even though this is not really the topic for discussion in the planning in terms of building code but just to clarify that because I I did have this discussion with the engineer as well. The building code allows for a certain amount of openings within a certain distance of
the property line. And I want to stress on that point specifically. It's within a certain distance from an interior property line. Meaning a property line between two lots. Exterior property line is one facing the the public rideway, a street or an alley or a path or
something like that. In this case, this is an interior property line between two lots. Now, the fire rating of a wall um is is basically is based on the separation distance between the wall and the property line. I said that so many times because I'm going to explain this
in a second. If there's a building on the other property similar to this that's 2 ft away, 3 ft away, 10 ft away, 100 ft away. No building that does not affect the fire rating of my building's wall. The building's wall is based on the property line where the property line is. End of discussion. That's what
the code says. Um, that's one thing. The second thing is W4, this window right here is not regulated within what I just said because this is a perpendicular window, not a parallel to the property line. That's the that's our interpretation of the code. That's our reading of the code. To satisfy um our
our um the consultant we've been dealing with um um Mr. Yousef, we also sent an email to DCA which I have a copy of it today. they responded and it was very clear that windows parallel perpendicular to a property line are not
regulated under that. So to within all of these discussions I've had discussions with Magdi whom I know very well cuz we work on other projects together also. Um I explained all of this and and their concern was basically okay what happens if there is a fire on
your end and we're using our stairs and and within this understanding I basically suggested that our second and third floors windows would be fire rated glass. It's not required by code. It's not in the code but we're doing it as
basically just sign of being good neighbor and and good measure for safety on their side. That's the full discussion here. Um among other things obviously we discussed but those are the main things. There are other things that we discussed the SOE condition and other things that have to do with construction
which I don't want to um bring into here but this this is the main thing and I did agree with them and I did tell them in an email that I will be testifying to this today. And Mr. Harrington, in the event that it is
arguably determined that the interpretation of the code is wrong and that those two windows on the second and third floor, we're only talking about two windows, but if it's determined that they violate the code and cannot be
placed there because they are uh within a certain distance and argued to be perpendicular to that property line, If that were to be the case, they wouldn't be able to be constructed
and that would be the solution to if the interpretation of the code is wrong. Is is that fair? Yeah, that that that that's fair. Yeah. If uh because after any planning board uh approval, we have to go through the building department and they're the ones that review the building code. So, and I
I've had projects in the past where they get to the building department and say, "Well, this is not up to code." That's why you have a standard condition in all the approvals that if there are require uh changes that are required by the building department, the applicant needs to go back to the division of planning staff, review it and see if that's a
change that can be made at the staff level or we have to come back here. But just because the board, this board approves it, it does not mean it approves it as with regard to a building code uh requirement. I agree. I guess the only question I
have is is or are those two windows necessary for the two units that they are attached to? Um they are um and it's my my opinion and opinion that this is to code and if
the building department um interprets the code otherwise and they deny us from putting these windows here um we'll have to do exactly what um Chuck said. We'll have to either uh figure out uh actually in this specific case uh
we'll have yeah we'll have to figure out uh if we remove the windows if the units work uh and if they don't we'll come back to planning if planning says this is a planning level or we can talk about this right now if if if we were to remove these would you want us to come
back here or is this something that staff can uh sign off on so before we even get into that I'm just pointing out that if there is a question about the code, it's not for this board. Right. Right. But
sometimes when there's a question about the code and everybody takes a position and then the approving authority says, "Well, we don't agree with your position. You're going to have to deal with it." Yeah.
Is it something that you can deal with or is it something that's going to be problematic for you because you need this window? It's something that I can deal with that unit. That was the question. It's something that I can deal with. Okay. Okay. Just for the record, the U W5
windows are not fire rated. Correct. No. And according to code, they're far enough away from correct that fire escape that they don't have to be fire rated. Correct. It's it's not again not to go into it but the code says just the actual language is protected
and it's u it's sprinklered then you don't have to protect it the building is sprinklered the wall that the windows are within is a five rated wall because it's within a certain distance from the property line okay is that true for the W4 window further down in that unit as well yes
so all all windows within uh all all windows within the wall that's within 15 ft of this property line would be fire. The wall itself is fire rated. The windows are unprotected. The building is sprinklered.
So if we move south or I'm sorry, east on the plan. East is this way. Right. I'm sorry, west. Okay. So the other way. Okay. You're east. My west. There you go. There you go. That W4
windows, those are also fire rated. No, just the windows that are adjacent to the fire escape or the second means of igress. But the wall is fireated. The wall is absolutely fire rated protected because of the sprinkler
system. The windows are in this case we will protect these windows by fire rating them. But the code does not require us to protect them because the building is sprinklered. The Yes. Exactly. Exactly.
And that repeats on the third floor as well. That the same condition repeats on the on the third floor, but not on the fourth floor because you're above the building. Exactly. Exactly. Okay. Understood. Anything else? I think that's that covers.
I I do want to mention just one thing just so we're on the same page here. Um, since since I'm looking at this, um, that the ground floor now has no windows. Uh, no, that's not what I want
to do. Okay. The ground floor now has, sorry, the ground floor now has no windows along this entire run, basically against the church's um, property line. Uh, we do have this setback now that
allows for the eress. Again, the fence is something that we're happy to put in or take out. That's something that we can discuss. Uh, but we've we've now basically eliminated all the windows. We've had windows into the business center in the back, which is eliminated. The windows are in the offices are
eliminated. This entire wall is a fire rated wall along the entire height of it all the way to the 14 to the 11th floor. That's that's it. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mo. Any questions?
Anyone? No. Okay. Thank you, sir. Okay. That's all we have for tonight. Okay. So, chairman, uh you'll recall that we allowed the public to comment at the end
of the last hearing. Uh there were a lot of people from the public that were here. So, we heard probably two two and a half hours of public comment. So, uh, we have new testimony with respect to the two fire rated windows and the
enlarging of the window well. So, we need to open it to public, but it is only to talk about an comment about these two windows and the length of that window. Well, we don't need and we're not going to allow
people to repeat any of their prior comments or comments that should have been made uh about the other portions of the project. It's going to be limited to the new testimony that was presented here this evening. And I apologize. I
forget the gentleman's name, but I think it is uh only fair that we bring up the gentleman that we've been or the witness has been uh stating he's been speaking to and and have him give his his
comments. Yes, I do. Magdi Yousef M A G D Y Yousef Y O U S S E F Mr. Yousef, good evening. Go ahead, council. So, Mr. Yousef, you've heard the comments obviously of uh the applicant's
architect. Does that I guess is it accurate? Are there things that you feel you disagree with? So we have been working since the last meeting together and we really appreciate that
the changes in the first floor and we we accept the join but I'm not sure if it going to be usable to the church or not because the elevation of the first floor is not matching the grate might be tripping and hazards too. So we'll think about it and if we need a fence we'll tell him it just to prevent any tripping and hazard. But in regards to the
windows, as we discussed, we need all the windows near to the platform because we were worried about the fire rated issue to be fire rated and he selected to do second and third floor only, but we were asking for the fourth floor because we have another platform at the first floor too. We have been a meeting
today until 5:30 about this and he's still not agreeing to it. There is another point is the the mechanical equipment at the roof level should be burd 25 ft from the prow line. We asking him to confirm it. We asked him to show it us in the plans. There is no
confirmation till now. Um the these the the two items for the fire rated uh wind well and the uh equipment but there are many many items about the demolition plans about all the construction items that is still in progress and it's not addressed now as
we discussed last time and we hope we conclude it so we can reach to u any agreement or access agreement as as requested. All right. So, Chairman, if I'm hearing the gentleman correctly, uh, Mr. Harrington, correct me if I'm
wrong, you're willing to firate second and third floor, not willing to do the fourth floor or are we willing to do the one window on the fourth floor as well? We had a discussion on Thursday and we sent an email about second and third. I
got an email today from him. He's right about 5:30 or so, whatever it is, asking for the fourth floor. No problem at all. We'll add the fourth floor. It's next to the the platform if that's the case. It's one more window. Is it going to do anything? And then just uh cuz Magda
asked about the Oh, no. It's not here. One second. The mechanical equipment is 25 ft 3 in uh from the property line. I also want to remind Magdi that it's also 11
stories above ground. So there's not going to be any noise. Don't worry. No, it's a good requirement. We're not asking for any just I'm just saying there's no noise. Okay. Anything else? Mr. the the the requirement about the construction documents about the SOE and about
demolition about all these stuff we have been emailing back and forth is not addressed till today and we hope they will address it. For example, the fire not the fire escape the second means of figures for the church is located 6 in from the property line. They're excavating 15 ft below that.
We are asking for supportive excavation for calculations for proper uh construction there. So there's no movement or adjustment. If the second means of a closed, then that means we're impacting the use of the church itself. So Mr. Yousef, if that's outside this board's jurisdiction, I think obviously
what you're asking for on behalf of the church is not unreasonable. It's a valid concern. I am sure that the parties are going to be able to get this taken care of. Uh obviously, Mr. Harrington is very well aware of the responsibilities of
the property owner to make sure there's no damage to the church's property and I would imagine uh the removal of the lower level is probably something that's beneficial to that situation. I would I would think that but I'm a lawyer not I think so
an engineer right and yeah and uh for the record yeah we are I believe we're very close both sides both professionals for the church and and my clients have been working very hard and diligently on this they've exchanged additional plans. Uh we thought we were at the goal line this
afternoon and then you know as happens you know there there are some other issues that we really have to just clean up but we we look forward to working with Magdy and and the and the church to work that out. Okay. Thank you, councel. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. So, if there's no other questions from the board, I will open it
up for public comment. Go ahead. For the record, the oneinch gap because you wasn't here the last meeting. Yes. So, that oneinch gap you are going to take design something that that will be sealed.
I Yeah, I did mention it in the beginning. Yes, we would be putting a one in seismic gap. Yes. Yeah. That ought to be taken care of. Yeah, of course. Okay, that's all I have. All right, thank you, sir. All right, nobody else. No. Okay, so let's open it up for public comment. Once again, we can only comment
tonight on the testimony that was given at tonight's hearing. Pam, tonight I do. Thanks. My name is Pam Andes and I'm council aid to Councilman Rich
Bojiano. I just want to thank all the commissioners. I do not envy your job or time and I've I've known most of you. I want to say my daughter is 15. You put a cast on her when she was one and a half. I hope she's okay. She's Yeah, she's fine. She's fine. Um
but it's wonderful seeing you all. Thank you. Um, Councilwoman Rich Bojiano of WC would like me to convey the following on the changes for the property line between the new development and the church. I represent the residents. I'm not an expert on planning. Fire is a
real issue because it already happened. So, I'm asking the commissioners do the right thing. Residents from Highland Avenue, Dalb and Bergen, Bergen Avenue did not get a chance to meet with the developer about the new changes. We
tried to have a community meeting with Mr. Harrington, but unfortunately that community meeting did not happen. Um, there was a funeral and then there was a wedding. Uh, that's pretty much it. Um, please, you know, consider the strictest
standards there are for this church. Uh, represents a wonderful community as well as the Highland Avenue residents, the Bergen Avenue, the building on the other side, and then DeCal, the residence behind. Thank you so much. Thank you.
Okay. Anybody else from public? Please come on up. for you. Tonight is going to be the truth, the home, truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. For the record, you speak and give us your home address, please. Fed Habil, F A D Y H A B E L, 117 West
Noel Avenue, Rutherford, New Jersey. Zip code 07070. Good evening, sir. We have three minutes for you. Good evening. Um, I am a churchgoer. I've been going going San George for the last 15 years. I am also a licensed professional engineer in the state of
New Jersey and I've done thousands of applications in temporary protection and demo plans and just I want to be on record we've been working with the contractor and the architect but they have a demo permit without the proper documentation
uh approved by the city and we just want to be on record for following through while we finalize an approved document. to be seen and approved by the Department of Building. So we have
enough protection for churchgoers, neighbors, pedestrians through demolition and after until the new building goes up. Uh in addition, I have not seen the uh S so SOE plans or
calculations or any engineering documents supporting the fact that an 11story building is going to go up against two small uh buildings and just common sense the weight of the building will have a search charge on the two
other neighbors. So also I want to make sure that the proper engineering documents, construction documents is overseen by the uh planner or the city uh zoning officers and it's thoroughly
reviewed and approved. Okay. Thank you, sir. Council, uh Mr. Harrington, do you disagree with any of that? Th those documents will be in place before demolition, any construction starts, that will be on record with the building department.
Yes, that that's all part of the uh access agreement that we're working on. We've we've made those agreements already. Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else? Please come on up. Hello. tonight.
I do. Danielle D A N I E L L E Damo D's and David. A D's and David. A M O 72 Hopkins Avenue. Good evening. Good evening. We have three minutes for you. My concerns are rooted in the well-being
of our community, the safety of our residents, and the process that brought us here. First, the developer, like Miss Pam Ende said, did not meet with the community on revisions. This is not a small detail. It's a fundamental part of what makes development responsible and
inclusive. Residents deserve to have their voices heard before changes are made, not after. When the process shuts out the very people who will live with the results, trust is broken. Secondly, there are serious fire safety concerns that you heard today. Any project of
this size must be designed with the utmost care for emergency access, evacuation routes, and the capacity of our local fire services. Cutting corners or leaving questions unanswered puts lives at risk, and that is unacceptable. Third, there are construction safety
concerns like others have just stated, we have all seen the impact of large projects, dust, debris, blocked sidewalks, unsafe work zones. Without clear safeguards and accountability, workers and neighbors alike are exposed to hazards that could be prevented with
proper planning. Finally, I want to emphasize that the community is not against the development. We are against development that ignores safety, transparency, and accountability. Growth should strengthen our neighborhoods, not jeopardize them. For these reasons, I urge the board to take these concerns
seriously and stand with the residents who call this area home. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Anybody else? Whose laptop is this? That's the architects. I close.
You can put on top too. Whatever you want. Sure. K L O W SK K I Mike. Good evening, sir. Once again, we have three minutes for you. Yes. Uh there was no due diligence again after weeks this case being before this
board. Nobody but and I found a reason I think cuz I suspect there is a money laundering involved in this case. Now what I found I had the picture of the sir were were limiting comments to the testimony that we heard tonight. I didn't hear anything in the testimony
tonight about money laundering. But there was another person on picture on of your own paperwork here, Mr. A RV V I N D or Minas of Monro, New Jersey. And he's listed as
owner picture number 387 and he's not listed in the paperwork of Did he have anything to do with the testimony that we heard tonight? Yes. Now there is Please tell me what it is before asbestos. I suspect there was asbesto asbesus tonight. Why not?
because it's a safety issue that was brought up at other meetings. That's a demolition issue. Okay. That's not a planning board issue. It's not a zoning issue. No, it wasn't addressed that the Oh, it absolutely was. Well, not it was brought up and it's a building
department issue. Okay. We're limiting testimony to what was discussed tonight. Another thing to All due respect, we did not talk about moneyaundering. You're bringing a money laundering charge here. That's obviously
not the purview of this board. Yeah, but that's it's called due diligence, right? On part of the board, it's called for a reason. Due diligence. No, sir. Let's move on to Okay. Foundation. There's no way demolition can be done and construction
would. We were talking about two fire rated windows and the expansion of the wells. Yeah, but it's a wild goose chase. Mr. Harington sends us in the wrong direction. There's a big picture like asbestos, sir. Address the comments.
Okay. If you have questions or comments about what was testified. Yes. Uh the traffic study is a fraud. Again, the traffic study was not discussed. Not discussed. You you did make public comments on all these things at the last meeting.
Okay. I haven't done about storm drain. We haven't discussed storm drains tonight. Okay. But that's sir, do you have any comments or questions regarding the three fire rated windows and the size of the window? Well, I would like to address the safety
mitigation plan which is not in place by design. So I request that before before developer is allowed to proceed would have to put a deposit and insurance to make sure that asbestos is removed properly. Cuz I caught Mr. Harrington
dumping his specus at 322. Did not catch Mr. Harrington doing any such thing. I did 3224 Kennedy. Mr. Harrington was out there dumping involved in dumping as including Mr. Minhas whom I caught.
Sir, at 3224 Kennedy. Sir, please do not say the types of things that you're saying about individuals. Okay? Unless you have some significant
evidence of what you're throwing out there. These things are actionable, sir. I just want you to understand this. Yes. Okay. Let's talk about the testimony that was here this evening, not Mr. Harrington, please.
Council, that was your time, sir. Thank you. Anybody else from public? Anybody else from public? Seeing no more public, I move to close the public. Okay, motion is made and seconded. Public is closed.
Matt, we're up to you. Um, so planning stance to review the revisions made by Mr. to the plans and um you know the changes still you know hold to the fundamentally sound planning principles that the
original proposal um presented and seem you know I'm not a building code expert and this is not a board that adjudicates building code but um there seems to be a good faith response to the concerns of the church um planning staff just asks
that the applicant agree to the seven conditions laid out in a memo dated June 5th, 2025. Uh the the applicant would agree to those conditions. And just for the record, dumping any Jersey City,
I'm not going to discuss that because Oh, yeah. We want that on record. Yeah, there there you go. Just for the record, I'm not dumping a specus in New Jersey City or anywhere otherwise. Uh I'm not sure where he gets all these comments, but but uh
sir, thank you, sir. Stop. And just I I did want to uh note um with regard to the community uh uh meeting uh and just just for the so the board knows uh with the uh the efforts we did we did make efforts to meet with the community
again. Um as part of a timeline, the last meeting was August 26th, the Tuesday before Labor Day weekend. Uh, M. Councilman Bjaniano's office reached out to me. Actually, he reached out to me and asked me to contact Miss Andes uh to
set up a meeting and I advised that we're not ready yet because we weren't sure what changes we were making. So, a the week after Labor Day weekend, I reached out to Miss Andes later in the week said, "We have some changes, you know, let's set up a meeting." Um, she
was reached out to the church. Um, so was kind of she was taking a lead on that. That was a Friday for a Thursday or Friday. Uh we we agreed let's try it the week of the 11th uh because the following week there were conflicts with council meetings and planning board
meetings. Um and I proposed the dates of the 15th, the 17th or the 18th. Um nothing came together at that point and actually that Friday the 12th around 3:30 I got a call from Councilman Biano saying Pam should not be setting up
these meetings. I should be setting up these meetings. So then I reached out to Mr. Shalin over the weekend asked him to reach out to his client so we could do this. And then I got a there was an email string that that said the councilman's office should be doing it
not not me. So at the end of the day we made ourselves available as well last night even though it was Rashashana. So there was not an intent not to meet again with the community, but there was a a you know this small change that that our professionals both sides uh work
diligently uh to complete uh so they could have it before you tonight. Okay. Thank you, council. Um Matt, not to cut you off, I do have a couple other conditions I want to discuss tonight. Certainly. Um, so at the last hearing,
uh, Commissioner Torres spoke about the one-inch gap and once that closed up, council, um, can we add a condition that that's taken care of? Yes. Okay. Uh, number two, to abandon the previous approval if this is approved tonight.
Assuming that there it it goes beyond the 45day appeal period with no appeals. Sure. Okay. And uh third, there's uh restrictions on the retail uses.
Can we define exactly what those are and put that in the resolution? Yeah, we had agreed condition. Yeah, I believe and we have a uh a side letter agreement with uh Mr. Sheldon. Okay. on that. Uh I believe it was no uh cannabis uh type of use, no um liquor
store and no adult uh store. Um and that we're okay with it being in the resolution. I was advised that that's something that the the board may not want to do. So that's why we have a side letter with Mr. Sheldon as to that. It it was discussed at our meeting. So I I'd prefer that it was in the resolution
and we would provide it uh in a deed restriction. Okay, perfect. Chairman Langston. Um it's the opinion of planning staff that this condition might not be an appropriate scope. Of course, the applicant is free to enter into any sort of private agreement with
um the applicant, but there's from my professional planning opinion, there's no nexus with the variance requests that condition nor with health safety concerns. So, we're going to highlight that the applicant has agreed to place a
deed restriction on the property. It's not a condition of the resolution, but the resolution will identify that the applicant has agreed to place a deed restriction for those three items. And then it'll be up to the applicant to place that deed restriction on the
property. But it will not be listed as a condition of approval. It'll just be having been testified to by the applicant. Understood. All right. So, it will be a finding of fact, not a condition. Okay. Yeah, I definitely think it should be reflected somewhere in the resolution
just being that it was discussed. School or any place of worship. Liquor stores are not permitted within a place of worship or a school within say 150 ft. That's the law. Yes. So, there are there are um land use
restrictions that would govern these as well. Yeah. you would you would need not to go down that rabbit hole, but you would need an exemption from the the church or school. Uh but we are representing affirmatively here that we'll put that deed restriction in place.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Harrington. Um that wasn't done. That's all I have. With that, staff recommends approval of conditions including the seismic gap condition and the um approval abandonment conditions proposed by Chairman Langston.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a motion at this time to approve case P205-000071 as presented to our board tonight with the conditions stated. Second. Okay, we have a motion made and seconded for approval.
Vice Chair Dr. Gonzalez, I appreciate the the work that was done by the two parties uh trying to collaborate is what we like to see. Um, I think that the variances requested are dimminimous in this in this case. And,
you know, I love that you really tried to work with the the uh public um and your church, the Coptic church that has a deep rooted, you know, um, spiritual connection to not only this community, but to to actual world religion. So, um,
I'm really happy that you were able to do that. Uh, I would I Commissioner Stamato, if we could get you turn your mic on the microphone. Again, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you guys for working together both with the community
along with the church and yourselves. I appreciate it. Um, and I'm sure this board appreciates it. I vote I. Commissioner Lipsky. Oh, com Commissioner Torres. Um,
okay. I want to just thank the um public for coming out of the Capt coming out um uh have a concern and um even for the developer with all the meetings and
trying to make meetings know it's very hard um to do um but it's nice to see that in Jersey City that we keep trying to do this trying to meet with the community and um in all different areas
Um the fact that they willing to work with each other, it's a it's a a thing, but um something is going to get built on properties all over Jersey City and um sometimes people are not going to agree
with it. Um, but there was something that was going to be built there that was similar and um sometimes we don't like change but we see that sometimes change does have a
good to it. Um, neighborhoods do uh develop and certain things start happening in that neighborhood that can be good. Um, I hope that's what happens here. And with that, I'm going to vote I,
Commissioner Patel. I vote I, Commissioner Gangadan. So, I just want to thank the public for coming out and um, speaking your concerns over the last two meetings. Um, we have heard your concerns and so is
the developer in good um, in good faith as well. Heard your concerns. And so based on the revised plan, I think um those concerns are very much communicated there. Um I'm very comfortable going forward on this. So my
vote would be I. But I also would like to say to the developer, be good neighbors to the church as well and work hand in hand and collaborate on every effort that needs to be done. Thank you,
Commissioner Wick. Yeah, I think it's it's great to see the passion on both sides and I agree with my fellow commissioners on everything they've also said and I'm also going to vote I tonight. And lastly, Chairman Langston. Yes. So, I I want to thank the applicant
for um you know, making the changes last minute. I think that changed hearts and minds on the board at least. Um th this project is really aside from the parking change that um
came up because city council, you know, inevitably passed an ordinance that said parking uh didn't have to be placed here. Um it's no different from the the previous approval. Uh these are
variances that are pretty normal for an infill project of this size um of this lot size. So um I think overall it is a good project. I appreciate everybody coming out and voicing their opinion.
Uh and my vote tonight is going to be I. Motion carries 71. Okay. Thank you everybody. Thank you. Thank you, councel. All right, let's move on to new business. Item 10 is case P2025-0165.
This is this is a bird friendly design standard. No, I was just kidding. Oh god, everybody. Mike, do we want to get your break in now while the room clears out? Okay. Yeah, why don't we take our uh our
break a little bit early tonight while the room clears out a little bit and we'll be back in uh 10 minutes. 025-0165 is uh an ordinance uh regarding bird friendly design standards.
Okay. Who's presenting here? Sophia, I will be presenting. Okay. Uh, good evening everyone. So, today we're looking at an amendment to the LDO concerning bird friendly design standards.
And to begin, I just want to give us some context. Glass collisions kill up to a billion birds per year in the United States. And this can happen for multiple reasons. Birds perceive reflected images in glass
as literal objects and will collide into glass when it's reflecting food, shelter, or escape routes. Birds also do not register the same cues as humans when identifying glass like window frames and will attempt to fly through
transparent windows in order to reach food, shelter, or escape. And finally, birds often fly through small gaps such as spaces between leaves and branches. And in instances where glass um has black space behind it, birds can
mistake it for a cavity or a passage to fly through. And so every building does provide a potential threat for bird and bird collisions. But due to the advances in glass technology and studies concerning bird
collisions, designing bird- friendly buildings is possible as shown on the examples on the screen. And so these bird friendly design standards presented here today will guarantee that birds uh buildings from here on out will create a safer
environment for our birds. So let's break it down. We are going to add three new definitions to our LDO. The first definition is threat factor which is a number between 1 and 100. One being the
least threatening and 100 being the most threatening. And this allows us to easily identify bird friendly materials that are being proposed in any new development. Then we define bird friendly material which is a material with a threat factor
uh equal to or less than 25. The American Burr Conservancy does have a database of these materials as shown on the screen, uh, which has a list of materials and their assigned threat factor. Or an applicant can use the
American Burr Conservy's prescriptive rating criteria to calculate their own threat factor for a material that may not be listed on the database. Some examples of bird friendly materials include windows with UV reflective
patterns only seen by birds. Uh windows with etched patterns and windows that have a low reflection. And you can see all of these examples on the screens with their threat factors. Sophia, was this posted to the portal? Yes.
No. So why don't we mark the presentation? Uh we marked the notice as B1 camp. Um yes. So let's mark this as B2. The I guess it's a slideshow. Yeah.
Okay. So B2 is the slideshow. Okay. Thank you. So, our last definition is uh bird hazard installations, which are structures that pose potential collision risks to birds.
And these include building corners where you can see in one corner and out the other. Uh they include glass railings, rooftop gardens, and also pedestrian bridges. These are a couple of examples.
And now let's get into the design standards themselves. These will be located in section 345-62 and section 34563 of the residential and non-residential design standards.
And we first talk about in these standards when they will apply. They will be applying to any new construction, rehabilitation, and additions that require site plan appro approval. In the instance that site plan
approval is not required, it will be encouraged except when we identify a bird hazard installation, aka those structures or portions of a building design that pose a significant risk to birds.
Now, where will these bird friendly materials be used? They will be used on all building facades from the ground level up to 100 ft above grade and on all bird hazard installations.
And finally, we do provide a reference and guidance section which include sources from the American Bird Conservancy and New York City's bird friendly guidance document to help applicants comply with these standards.
And that concludes my explanation of bird friendly design standards. And before we move on to any questions or comments, I do want to leave off with a sense of why this matters so much. Uh birds are an essential part to our
ecosystem. They do play significant roles such as maintaining insect populations and spreading seeds. Not only that, but they do have a cultural significance, too. There are a lot of people in Jersey City who enjoy seeing their birds outside their backyards.
There are groups of people who go out into our public spaces and observe these birds. You can see pictures of these birds from the Jersey City birds Facebook group uh where there are some birds um that were spotted in Jersey
City shown here. So, thank you. All right. Thanks, Sophia. Um couple questions and this actually cleared some of it up for me. I I didn't see this on the portal. So
the the presentation that you just gave. Yeah. I didn't see any of that on the portal. So I feel like I'm not prepared for this. I didn't see any of the design standard changes. The only thing I saw was the text. Yes.
That's being changed. So I I don't doubt any of this. We we've heard about bird strikes for years. The public started talking about it. Is there data to support this? Is are there studies
that have been done in the city that show Can't hear you. Sure. It's on. I'm sorry. So, I I'm just trying to find some kind of data that supports it. I don't doubt that it's real. I'm not a weird
conspiracy theorist, but um you know to make a change like this, I think we should have supporting data. So is there anything have there been studies done? You know, not a nationwide study because obviously
different topographies, different cities have different design standards. So is there something that's happened here specifically in Jersey City? I know that uh there are bird groups that are doing these studies. I have not seen any data
from these studies quite yet. So in the um I'm sorry, did I cut you off? I just wanted to add that a lot of these points that we have been using has come from the American Bird Conservancy which
lists a lot of data as to threats to birds that they are facing and how to address them. Okay. So I I did see web links on the the portal in the the text.
I don't want to go down a rabbit hole and look at data that I'm not supposed to be looking at that doesn't support this or that, you know, goes the other way against it. Um, so that's that's all I was looking for was just some kind of
data that shows the significance of what we're doing tonight, what we're proposing tonight. Um my other question so can I speak to that? Sure. Go ahead. So in the amendment to the ordinance
baked into it on section three part A there's a link to the American bird conservancy. Sure. And so when we click into that, there are model legislations which
include urban New York City and um a whole host of data. I mean it it says upward of a billion, but that's a projection. Sure. But they're saying at least half of like 500 million birds. So, um, so I think
there's at least sufficient reason or data produced from this American Bird Conservancy that brings this to the four. Sure. No, I'm not. I want to jump in. I don't mean to cut you off. Go ahead. Is this on a yearly basis that we're losing that that many birds?
We'll give we'll give everybody a chance to speak. Believe me, you don't have a mic either right now, but we want to hear from everybody. Um that would be my you know it's definitely my concern concern. Um you know I'd like to have that you know see if I can get that information also.
It is on a yearly basis. It is on a it's based on a yearly basis. Okay. Good. All right. Now again my understanding and based on how we're you know the height that we're asking for these changes to be at.
Yes. Why are we exempting projects that don't require site plan review? Because those are generally projects that are smaller in scale, but they fall within that same height. Yes. So why exempt them?
So our as of right developments which I actually also review um let's start with just the example of uh new construction as of right building
it's typically three stories 35 ft tall on a 25 by 100 lot. Uh these buildings are residential buildings which usually have windows with insect screens uh behind them and curtains and objects.
And so these are all factors that uh especially when it concerns birds colliding into glass will help prevent that. We don't really foresee uh in these types of buildings any hazards to
birds. Um but also in the sense in that instance if we do identify a bird hazard installation. So for example a glass railing on a terrace or a roof deck we will have every
tool in our toolbox every ability to enforce and require people to use bird friendly materials. Uh but we also wanted to be careful not to be overly burdensome to homeowners and to ensure that the review process can remain efficient because we have a
significantly smaller window to review these applications. No pun no pun intended. Yeah, but to the chairman's point, the American Bird Conservancy says that buildings that are four stories or fewer
uh represent the greatest uh or the greatest opportunity for birds to crash into. We did uh if it does reassure the bird have meetings with the American Bird Conservancy
and I recall that this wasn't a point of concern for them. It may not be, but I'm just saying is it that is our logic. All right, fair enough. So, from a a cost aspect,
yes. Um, again, a a building that doesn't need site plan review, that cost impact is, you know, percentage-wise, I don't know where it is, but, you know, just on a
projectto project basis, it's a much easier lift maybe for a a fourstory building with, you know, what are we talking about? eight windows on the front of the building. Something that wouldn't require a site plan review. Typically,
that's what you're talking about, right? Maybe eight windows plus maybe the back of the building. Yes. Well, a bird hazard installation would be
perhaps um when a three-story building is proposed and there are floor to ceiling glass on a whole facade. That is when we'll require a
bird friendly material to be used. Uh in other typical windows we will assume that insect screens are being put behind them. Yeah. I mean if question you know not every window
opens right on a a four-story building. Does every window on to the windows on the top floor open to the point where they would need insect screens? Um
so logistically the threshold is largely so planning department staff can vet it. But um as far as like the site plan review um you know uh threshold goes but I I I see what you're saying. Um
the the ability to enforce through zoning department reviews and and applications that don't go through site plan is is logistically something that we'll have to work out through in the future. But for now, this is the best like option
for us to to allow for this to to work. Um, but there are curtains and blinds and other methods that allow birds to see an object there so they don't fly through it. Um, and those actually are
cheap methods to prevent bird deaths as well. But are we requiring curtains or blinds or insect screens on the smaller buildings then? they won't be they won't be a specific requirement.
They won't. So that might be problematic, right? So while it may be cumbersome to deal with the enforcement aspect of it, you can still make it a requirement and
put it on Yeah. the applicant, right? I don't know that the planning department is reviewing for compliance purposes of all building
materials. Are we? We do review building materials, but the planning department doesn't review all development. It's the zoning department that does that. and they take on both actually site plan applications after
approval and any other development as of right. But so a single family house goes to zoning and is reviewed for a single family house. We also uh just the same as construction or architect architectural plans
presented here, we review the same. When you say we, we're talking about the zoning branch. Yes. the division of zoning. So the division of zoning gets a single family house and the question is does this comport with the zoning ordinance
which now would have this amendment to the ordinance about bird friendly or bird threats. Yes. So in the instance that we're enforcing it,
we have every right to require material details that prove that bird friendly materials are being used and we will ask that of the architect
and that will be what is required to move on with an approval. But I use this single family house as the example because it's exempt from site plan, right? It's a single family house exempt from site plan, but they still have to go through zoning. Yeah. They still have to go through a
review to comply with every zoning standard, right? And if they don't, if there's something that isn't complied with, it gets flagged. In theory, they are denied, right? And they are given comments to address. they have to address all of those
comments and then they come back to us and we make sure that they address everything that caused the denial and if they do they get approved. So I guess to the chairman's point and the other points of the commissioners
were already reviewing it now we just would flag it for non-bird compliance. Yes. Right. And then that would be a denial and it would probably get complied with
it once it gets out there, right? Once it gets out to the public that you have this requirement that's new, right? Right. So, whenever there's something new implemented, all of a sudden, uh,
kind of like our preference to see balconies less than 4 in, right? The rail of a balcony less than 4 in. All of a sudden, everybody now is starting to to get it and they come up
and they say, "Okay, the balcony railing is going to be less than 4 in." Goes 4 in. is going to be less than 4 in because they know that that's something that we're looking at. So, I think once it's implemented, the ordinance,
once everybody understands that there's been a change and this is a new standard, the architects adjust to that, right? The homeowners adjust to that. Yeah. And put that into their their drawings is all I'm I'm saying. So, I don't think we should be necessarily
uh distinguishing between site plan and non-sight plan applications. I think that's problematic. But, of course, this would have to go back up to the the council for their
uh consideration. We're just making comments. So, I I think that's that might be problematic. Okay. Um I have one last question
and th this kind of speaks to this is in line with what I'm talking about here. Is there an appeal process? So the the concern is largecale glass. Correct?
Yes. Okay. So, let's say a larger building that requires site plan approval comes in and they don't have floor to ceiling glass. It's predominantly a
brick building, smaller windows. They're still held to that same standard. Yes. is so it's an automatic you're putting bird safe glass on there uh from zero to 100 ft
and then from 100 ft above it's not required unless it's a bird hazard installation. Okay. I my confused personal opinion is let's go all in.
Okay. If we're going to do bird friendly, you know, there there's projects that don't need site plan approval that fall into obviously 0 to 100 ft. So, let's you know, I don't know if I want to make
a floor amendment putting it in there, but I think my recommendation is let's just do it all across the board rather than just buildings with site plan reviews. Now if there is an appeal process where you know someone can say well we don't
really fall under a bird hazard well that shouldn't be just for smaller scale projects that should be for every project. So, if I understand correctly, um, say we take out the applicability section
and say I'm reviewing an as of right application in the division of zoning and it's denied because they're not using bird friendly materials. Yes, they can appeal that denial. So, there is correct that appeal process that exists. It does exist.
Yes. Okay. So, it's not frequently used, but it does exist. Who do they appeal that to? the um zoning board. Okay. That would be an appeal of the zoning department's decision. It goes to the
zoning board. It's 72A appeal. If you want the reference, thank God it doesn't come back. Can I get Can I get a clarification on something? I'm a bit confused. I won't lie. Me, too. Um
I'm a bit confused on just I wish we had all this information prior to this meeting. Yeah, I just had that text. I didn't have any of the the presentation and you know obviously we vote on what's presented to us. We
don't go to outside websites. So, you know, I wish we had this presentation in our package. I I think I'm clear on obviously the um the utilization and why we're doing it. I'm a little unclear of the division of
the you know the plans that come before here and then that that line. Sure. If that makes sense. Yeah. So the the site plan threshold was in there because it made it a more
palatable and easier task for the department to handle and review. Now when you make it everything it it encompasses a lot more and it it but doesn't that it can be done. The board can certainly
make that amendment right now. They can n that language if they want, but doesn't that make it an easier lift for staff just to across the board say everything needs this now from zero
to 100 ft. It would incorporate I don't think it would make a difference with or without. I don't think it makes a difference in terms of what
the effort. It would in either division in city planning or zoning, it would not make a difference if there is this applicability section in there and if it's not. We all both do the same thing when we review architectural plans and
we all have the capability of doing it. So just for everybody's edification whenever plans are submitted whether a site plan or a permitted use with a
Cvarian which comes before this board uh or a site plan with Dvariances that go before the zoning board. Those plans obviously all get reviewed
and they get reviewed and determined what the variance relief is, which board has proper jurisdiction. So that happens in the zoning division. Right. Right. So the zoning division says, "Okay, you need to go either to the
planning board or to the zoning board and here's why." But then in addition to that, the zoning division is saying you don't have to go to either board. You can get building permits. You have
to go to the building department. In order to make that determination, there has to be a full review of the plan submitted to determine is a site plan necessary? Are variances required? Does this comport with all of the
requirements of the land development ordinance here in the city? If we add this to that ordinance, this being the bird friendly requirement, that's another item that has to be looked at in those
plans when they come in. So that is the answer as far as the route in which plans go and how right but my question 200 files a year come here why 200 feet not the 150
as far as yeah ISIS I don't I guess they're more common lower I don't know that's my question too that I have a just Let's be clear. Um when we talked about fourstory, fivetory buildings, we
we jumped into residential. Mhm. Uh curtains, things like that. Screening, there'd be screens. But what happens to the office buildings that are four seven stories? Is that included in there? Because yes,
even on the especially on the waterfront, your what's going to looks like what's going to be built over by Caven Point Road and stuff like that. Um studios and things like that, they're all glass. Um my experience at Fort Lee,
fivetory building, we're picking up birds off the floor every day. That's right. Now, I can tell you where the building is. you could go there and you're going to pick up a bird off that floor from the glass that they hit, you know. Uh but it's a five-story building.
So if we're just I think we should have not just residential if anything that does comes through this office through the plan without smaller building or even an office building. Yes, they should have that requirement. So to clarify this these standards will be in
both section 345-62 which is the residential design standards and 345-63 which is the non-residential design standards and so office buildings are non-residential they will still have the same standards
to comply with. Okay. And it's my understanding that most bird strikes happen below that 100 foot threshold. Correct. Yes. Collisions are concentrated in the first 50 to 100 ft.
It's because when birds take off and they're flying out, that is where the danger zone is. Okay. Is there a is there a percentage that happens above 100 ft? I do not have that data with me.
Okay. I do not know. I would like to see that, Mr. Chair. see what that percentage would be because if anything to cover ourselves well how to see it go up if I can uh quickly explain the 100 ft
is what is recommended from model ordinances and the American bur consery and so that is how we have modeled this amendment to be all right now what about a cost factor to put this bird whatever it is bird
control or protection. It does come at a minimal cost. Yeah, it's less than 1%. 1% of what? The total cost of the construction of the building.
It's still a big number. Wait a minute. 1%. Well, it varies, too. I know whether you use parachute cord or tempora paint or Was this the bird? He's got a parachute. No, I'm saying Sophia, can you put up that'll help them? Can you put up the
screen that shows three different um three different buildings or these materials? That one. Yeah. These are example bird friendly materials. But to give you a hard number, um because I know that's what the board
wants. Um, studies show that an $8 million building, it would cost roughly $30,000 versus what? That's not a bird friendly versus just regular windows. That would So, it would be an $8 million building
and then you're adding another $30,000 to it. So, here's kind of the the I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Go ahead. Um because but we do sort of have to think about this and I just had this question real quick. If we're looking at these three things, are there I I don't know
if you know the answer to this. You're saying it's going to cost an additional 30 for that that example that you just gave. Um the design of this, does it look different? Is there is it a is it a huge difference from what
people wouldn't really know? No, you wouldn't even know. Yeah. For example, if you're using the if you want to put up the image, if you're using the UV pattern windows, which are now shown, uh this is a
material that goes in between two glass panels. It is shown uh as blue for birds, but it is not seen as blue for humans because it's using UV material.
And so that is a way to have windows on a building that aren't perceived as bird friendly, having patterns on them wherever, uh, but are still safe for birds. And the etch pattern to me is not
attractive. The etch pattern is just a different option but of course it's there there are many materials that are available to developers and this would be on the first roughly seven to eight stories first 100 ft it
would not go above. So the the the UV pattern on the left that's not technically visible, right? To differentiate that other glass.
Yeah. For birds it would look blue and then for us it would not like anything. It would look very clear. So how is that identified by the inspector that has to go inspect
that building now? Is there a a UA listing that's stamped somewhere on that window and is whose responsibility is that now to follow up to make sure that those things are being put in? And let's be honest,
we do have a zoning inspector who inspects every building that is approved by both zoning and construction code. He goes through buildings to make sure that for zoning standard purposes everything
has been complied with. And so he will be responsible for ensuring that uh any bird friendly materials that were proposed were used and we will have to work with the zoning inspector to make
sure that that's poss. um he is trained for that and is able to identify them and work with the developer to make sure it's there. We all know that there's going to be bad actors that
yes just present paperwork that say hey this is bird friendly glass. So if if there is some kind of you know marking on the window itself on the glass somewhere that says it's bird
friendly I think that goes a long way because if we're giving that option that a human can't differentiate that glass from regular glass that's a problem there there needs to be some indicator
that it's bird friendly. That's a good point. if we're going to require this. That's a very good point. How do we know? Because we're we're now putting that burden on an inspector. Yeah. They're going to have to be trained in it. It it's regular practice for the design
professionals licensed by the state to provide the division of zoning and the building department upon CEO affidavit that they've the building's built been built as approved. uh if it shows on the plans that it is
bird safe, then that is that's taken at their at the value of their license. So, how many attorneys in the room right now have represented a client that has used Ephus after the fact that it was
approved as brick or stone and that this this is this is a problem regardless of bird friendly design or anything else. I mean, this this runs across as you're saying this runs across this can't be solved with this ordinance. But I'm just
or this proposed. My question is what's the indicator on the glass? They they do they have like little insignia stickers or that are on them and then that's that's their marketing. Okay. Okay.
All right. As long as we have some proof, I guess if they're being marked like that. But it's 100 feet is the max, correct? Yes. Okay. Okay. Any other questions? Yeah. One one more question. Again, this
goes back to the um and I don't know, that's why I'm asking this. The color of the window like downtown you have these buildings on 77 Hudson and 70 Green that have that blue green sort of I think
it's beautiful kind of glass look. um adding this would not change the in other words if I'm an architect am I other than the cost because obviously it's going to be more costly and if we're saving birds then
that's great but is it going to is it gonna is it going to kind of limit my artistic sort of design of a building because now I can't use a really cool clean green you know cla glass or a blue grass um
class. So, this was not necessarily a big concern for us when writing these standards. We did work with the KRE group um and emailed with an architect who did
provide us comments and they stated that they are familiar with bird friendly materials and use them in their designs of their buildings. And I would think that say for example if the green blue glass
wasn't bird friendly and they would have to switch to a different type of glass that just is a sacrifice for saving bird lives. That's all I can say to that. Yeah. But then the look of that building is going to be a totally different if
the architects designed, you know, in their mind. It's obviously that now you're changing the way that building is going to look. That is also why I did provide I I did provide some examples here of buildings all located in New York andor
New York City. Uh to just exemplify how the buildings don't necessarily have to look very different to be bird friendly. Okay. Thank you. So, what makes the building on the left
bird friendly? They have blinds and insect screens behind them. Okay. Okay. Understood. Anybody else? Any questions? Okay. Thank you everybody. Uh, is anybody here from the public that wants
to comment? Please come on up. I do. My name is Angelene. A N G E L I N E. My last name is Jacques. J A C q U S. I live at 28 Parkplace, apartment 2, Brooklyn, New York 11217.
Good evening. We have three minutes for you. Good evening. My name is Angelina. I'm a licensed architect and a member of the American Institute of Architects. I'm also an avid bird watcher who has birded all over New Jersey. I love coming here. It's a beloved destination for birders across the country. Every spring and
fall, nearly 13 million birds migrate through Hudson County alone. Window collisions are the second highest factor in that 1 billion bird deaths that we get every year. As heard earlier, to answer one of the facts earlier, yes, the majority of those come from four stories or shorter, but that's because
the majority of buildings in the country are four stories or shorter. If you walk down downtown Jersey City on any given day, you're going to see dead birds at the base of large glassy towers. As an architect, I have experience working on residential developments across New York City. I've worked on many tall glassy
towers that were subject to NYC's local law 15 requiring bird safe glass. And I have experience with industry research and providing recommendations to developers who are generally concerned about cost. While birds safe glass used to be a niche product with an expensive premium, the last decade has seen
innovations in the glass market largely due to birds safe legislation and the proliferation of new products. Um, you already got the 38% fact, so I'm going to go ahead and skip that one. But it is true that you have to consider the cost of birds safe glass is a fraction
of the cost of glass, which is a fraction of the cost of your whole project. Additionally, I've installed UV glass on projects and seen it installed. So, I just I want to clarify something there. You can tell that it is UV glass if you stand very close to the glass on an overcast day when it's rainy in
certain lights. You can see very light striping on the grat glass that indicates that it's UV. It does not look perfectly like clear glass, but it is for most intents and purposes clear glass to people and not to birds. Uh there's also lots of other acid etching options that are like small dots
or thin lines that are maybe more palatable than the artistic uh pattern that was shown in the presentation. So just to clarify, you can tell it is UV glass when installed if you're inspecting. Uh so cost uh not as bad and getting
better every year. And in return, birds safe glass aids in developers abilities to seek sustainability credits for their projects. For example, Bird Safe Glass is a qualifying credit in a lead system that evaluates building sustainability. A study from 2020 showed that leadcertified buildings are 11% more
profitable and have reduced vacancy compared to non-certified buildings. Birds safe glass can also aid in energy savings. When the Javit Center retrof retrofitted their building with birds safe glass, the energy savings were reduced by 26%. Additionally, the bird collisions were reduced by 90% at the
Javit Center. While the whole construction community is concerned about cost increases pre preventing new housing or new development, we can look to NYC for reassurance. Local law 15 was imple implemented in 2021. In 2023, NYC saw the largest annual growth in new
housing units since pre- pandemic 2018. In 2024, NYC achieved the highest annual growth in new housing since 1965. I would argue that the new birds safe glass requirement is not preventing new housing in New York City. The proposed amendment is common sense, reasonable legislation that's backed by research
and recommendations from the American Bird Conservancy. Cities across country, including both NYC and Newark, are adopting similar legislation as best practice for buildings, and Jersey City should do the same. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay, anybody
else? I do. Uh, Katherine Chen, K A T H E R I N E C H E N, 96024th Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, uh, 111209. Good evening. We have three minutes for you.
Sorry. Uh, good evening and thank you to the Jersey City Planning Board for hearing my testimony today. My name is Katherine Chen and I am the senior manager of collision reduction at New York City Bird Alliance. I'm here today to talk about the science behind bird friendly buildings. My organization, an
independent chapter of National Ottabon, protects birds and biodiversity through science research and community engagement. While our work usually focuses on the other side of the Hudson River, birds are not limited by city or state lines. And what affects New York City's birds also affects New Jerseys birds and its people. Birds are a
critical part of a healthy functioning ecosystem. They control pests, pollinate plants, and disperse seeds. That's true even in urban environments like New York City and Jersey City. More than 300 species of birds either reside year round or pass through the metropolitan
area as they fly along their migratory route. But birds are in steep decline uh here and across the country. And our urban landscapes post serious risks. Collisions with glass and built structures kill over 1 billion birds in the United States each year. That's billion with a B. Bird collisions affect
humans as well. For most uh for most people, birds are their first connection with nature. It's a distressing experience to enter your home, business, or school and have to step over dead birds on your way in. Property owners also face additional costs, needing cleaning crews to remove the dead birds,
and buildings, rentals, and sales are affected. Collision collisions happen because birds don't perceive glass as a barrier the way humans do. Instead, they see a clear path or the reflection of vegetation sky and try to fly through, colliding with the glass. The resulting
collision usually leads to the bird's death. Bird collisions are a big problem, but fortunately, one that's easy to fix. By using glass that has an embedded pattern, or by applying a pattern adhesive film to the outside of the glass, we make the glass visible to birds. Humans can't see the pattern from
far away, but the birds do, and they avoid the glass. Our collision monitoring efforts in New York City and other collision monitoring efforts across the world have shown that bird friendly glass eliminates up to 90% of bird collisions and it does so without compromising the aesthetics of the
buildings or the view. If you visited the Statue of Liberty Museum or commuted through uh the Brookfield Eternal in lower Manhattan, you've seen bird friendly structures before, perhaps without even realizing it. These individual bird friendly buildings make a difference, but one or two buildings is not enough and we need
legislation to protect birds at a broader level. In 2019, New York City passed the most comprehensive bird friendly ordinance in the country requiring new and uh renovated buildings to use bird friendly glass. Portland, Oregon, San Francisco, Washington DC, and other cities have similarly passed
bird friendly design laws. As legislation spreads and usage goes up, the cost of bird friendly glass goes down and people start to recognize the importance of protecting birds. It's time for Jersey City to join this effort. Thank you for your time. All right. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Anybody else? Please come on up. Good. I do. My name is Palish. P A L L A V I last name Shindai S H I N D E um office address is 920 Broad Street, Newark, New
Jersey. Good evening. We have three minutes for you. Good evening board members. Um I am Palvish Shandai. I serve as the planning director for the city of Newark. Um thank you for your time and I really appreciate this opportunity to speak. In
2023, Newark adopted a new zoning ordinance and as part of the new zoning ordinance. A small but significant piece was the bird friendly building design standards for Newark. We did have the
evidence, we did have the data and we did have the on ground proof of how many birds die every day um due to the glass towers that we have in downtown. So it was really the right thing for do to do in Newark. Um
most of the solutions are pretty straightforward. The implementation is also straightforward and as someone mentioned technology has really evolved. So really the simple fix is to have pattern glass um sometimes some kind of
screening. Um there's also some shading devices that can be easily implemented that prevent these collisions. Um, as you heard here tonight, uh, millions of birds lose their lives all over the US every single year. Northeast is no
different. We have also lost thousands of birds. Um, really they're injured or when they collide or they there's fatalities. Most of these birds are pretty special and rare. These are migratory birds that that fly thousands
of miles, but yet lose their life in an instant when they collide with the building. Um I think one of the concerns that's always brought forward as has been uh discussed here very very elaborately is the cost. Someone
mentioned that the cost is only 3%. I'm no subject matter expert on this but from having implemented the new ordinance in Newark in 2023 and having seen some of the towers go up I think that has not deterred the developers or
the development community. Um also you need to understand this that some of the um solutions that I just mentioned they also double as sustainability features. For example the shading devices or other features that I mentioned they kind of
score sustainability goals as mentioned earlier um by some by one of the speakers. the the solar heat gain of the building is pretty less than a normal or traditional building and there's a lot of energy saving and costsaving that happens as part of the imp as part of
installation of these devices. So really it's a win-win situation. Um I would also say um and I lost my thought here but um but I would say that yes New York City has also done it through the law uh
15 local law 15 2020. Newark has also done it and like I said I've seen smooth implementation and I think Jersey City can also join this leadership by adopting the ordinance today and really showing that growth and development is not just equitable and sustainable but
responsible as well. So thank you for your time. Okay, thank you. Anybody else? Please come on up. Hi. Yes. testimony you give tonight. I do. Give us your home address, please.
Uh Kim Carrero, C O R R E R O 110 Magnolia Avenue, Jersey City 07306. Thank you. Good evening. We have three minutes for you and thank you for being from for being from Jersey City. Thank you. Um board C.
Thank you, Bo C. I um I am Kim Carrerero. I am on the board of the Native Plant Society of New Jersey. I am on the board of the Jersey City Shade Tree Committee. And tonight I'm here because I'm a volunteer for Jersey City Birds and the Feminist Bird Club. And I
am part of the group of people out there in the mornings retrieving dead birds and injured birds. So, I'm just going to read a little statement that the feminist bird club has asked me to to read tonight. In 2014, the Smithsonian
researchers reported that collisions likely kill between 365 million and 1 billion birds annually in the United States. American Bird Conservancy, as we've heard tonight, believes that that number is closer to a
billion or higher because of the steady increase of glass use since the study was conducted. After colliding with glass, some birds die immediately, but the number of bird carcasses found around a collision site
represents only a fraction of the eventual victims. Many of the birds die on impact are never counted. They fall on inaccessible rooftops. They fall on grates. They fall on landscaping ledges
and inside dense vegetation that we can't get to. Um those birds that uh they deserve that they survived the initial impact often sustained lifethreatening injuries including
internal hemorrhages, concussions, fractured bones, damage to their bills, their wings, their eyes, their skulls. While adrenaline may prop them up to fly away a little bit temporarily,
birds with even moderate injuries are much more vulnerable to predators, uh, environmental dangers, and they need to receive medical care at a wildlife rehab facility, um, either in New York City
or, uh, the Raptor Trust is where we've been taking birds. We know that the number of dead birds that we recover on this monitoring project represents only a very small fraction of the number actually being killed here in Jersey
City and we are collecting that data for you. Um, tragically the list includes many of the birds uh threatened species and some of those victims are our favorite birds. The victims include
yellowbuild caku, clapper rails, hermit thrushes, rens. We've picked up rubythroatated hummingbirds, dozens of varieties of warblers, including yellow throats, yellow warblers, chestnuts, Tennessee warblers,
worm eating warblers. So, and the list can, you know, continues to go on. We don't know what we're going to see tomorrow morning at 5:30 a.m. when we're out there. That was your three minutes. Are you close? That's all I have to say. Okay. Thank you very much for your time.
Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Anybody else? Please come on up. Good evening. I do. Yes. Uh Lauren Morris. Um M O R S E. And I live at 63 Sherman Place Apartment B6, Jersey City, New Jersey.
Getting more. We're neighbors almost. We're neighbors. Yes, absolutely. Okay, we have three minutes for you. Thank you so much. Um, I just appreciate the opportunity to speak and I'm speaking on behalf of the 501c3 nonprofit, Jersey City Birds. Um, Jersey City Birds was founded in 2020 at the
beginning of the pandemic. It started as an online group with a simple aim to create a place where people could show their appreciation for and love for and learn more about our Jersey City birds, posting photos, engaging in conversation. It was something incredibly positive that came out of that time and it's just been a platform
to appreciate the beautiful diversity of birds that Jersey City is home to. Jersey City Birds has grown quickly and organically into a large and vibrant community. As of 2022, we are a 501c3 nonprofit with the mission to make Jersey City better for birds and
birders. We believe and scientific studies prove that people benefit from interaction with the natural world. That connection to each other, to our environment, to the creatures that coexist with us, and even in such a dense place makes us mentally and physically healthier.
It increases our happiness and well-being. I've seen that when we go on youth bird walks, so Jersey City birds and other orgs, we take out youth and they get to interact and see the wonderful wildlife. And just hearing those gasps the first time they see a redwing blackbird fly by or goldfinch is wonderful. But there's less of those
birds every year. And this is a major reason why. and we can do something about it and that will help people in this community especially youth as well. So we want birds to thrive here and we urgently need to protect them from window strikes. It's a clear problem and there's a clear solution and I just want
to note as well that large buildings are special hazards. Um so that is why the legislation is targeted at those. So we are committed to making our buildings safer, more sustainable and more environmentally friendly. And this is not just for the birds. It's going to give us a better city for all of us, our
children, and the generations to come. We want buildings. We want Jersey City to reflect the commitment to sustainability, climate action, and a greener future. When this pending legislation was announced, there were concerns about costs. Um, assuming that bird friendly buildings would be too
expensive and that it would limit affordable housing. And that is absolutely not the case. We've heard from experts here tonight, and we've consulted with many more that can attest when implemented at the design stage, the cost of making buildings birds safe is minor. It will continue to shrink as
more cities adopt these policies and options increase. And in fact, as others have noted, birds safe buildings can save money by reducing energy costs. There are many strategies that are costneutral or even cost-saving. You can use less glass overall, use external screens and sun shades, and implement
smarter lighting design that cuts bird mortality and cuts energy costs. There can be multiple good things that come out of this amendment. So, we believe Jersey City Birds, we believe that this proposed amendment supports and strengthens Jersey City's commitment to sustainability and advances the city's
climate action goals while also helping save birds from horrible injury and death. And we have an open invite for any of you to join our walks in the morning. Um, it is really horrible to see a living animal crash into a window, fall down, and their chest starts heaving because they're trying to rush
oxygen to all the injury sites. You're not selling this walk to me. I I was in a second ago until you went there. Also, you can come on a fun walk, too. But we do just want to understand like the SC the individual that lost their lives, I think, is really helpful for us
to see. But please also come on another walk so you can see why the living and what's the name of the nonprofit? Um, I'm testifying on behalf of Jersey City Birds. Okay. And where would I find your information? They have a Facebook group and they have a website and you can join an email list. Okay, great.
Absolutely. Um, so we just look forward to seeing this ordinance enacted here as it has been in dozens of other places as well. Thank you. Thank you. We appreciate it. Anybody else? Please come on up. Sure. Danielle D an N I E L L E Damo D
is in and David A D is and David A O do you need my address? We have already and we have three minutes for you. Perfect. Okay. Good evening. For the record and for the record, I serve as a Jersey City Environmental Commissioner for W C. I'm here tonight in strong
support of the of the proposed amendments to adopt birdfriendly building standards. These standards matter. Jersey City sits on the Atlantic flyway and countless migratory birds pass through our skies every year. Sadly, glass collisions kill up to 1
billion of birds annually in the US alone. By adopting proven measures like requiring materials with low threat factors and addressing bird hazard installations, we can save lives without sacrificing architectural beauty or development potential. This is not
theoretical. Just this month, NY Yimi reported on the massive six tower project planned for 180 Baldwin Avenue in Journal Square. Over 2,000 units with sweeping glass facads and podiums. Projects of that scale are exactly why
these amendments are urgent. I hope this board ensures they pass before Baldwin breaks ground so that developers are held accountable to standards that put responsibility and sustainability at the center of growth. These requirements are radical. They're already being used in
cities like New York like you heard tonight. They reduce glare for pedestrians, make neighborhoods safer, and integrate seamlessly with our design standards for scale, proportion, and neighborhood character. Bird friendly design isn't about saying no to development. It's about saying yes to
responsible development. By moving these amendments forward, Jersey City signals that it values both progress and preservation, both people and wildlife. I urge you to pass them without delay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Anybody
else? Please come on up. Good evening. K. L O W SKI again. Okay, we have three minutes for you, sir. Yes, I would like to sell uh say uh this. The 1 billion is being recycled time again. Your mic just went off, sir. I'll I'll
pause your time. Can you hear me now? We got you. Okay, I'm starting your time again. The 1 billion number is recycled time and again, time and again, time and again. And I ride a bicycle in New York City metro area every other day. I'm the worst offender according to bike shop
guys in in in the city with regard to miles and I see maybe five birds dead birds a year. So now think about it 1 billion number right how how preposterous this is 1
billion you subtract migration spring and uh and autumn right so you have not much time left so you would have to squeeze that number 1 billion into into time where the birds are in our area
right so you would have to have a dump truck after dump truck after dump truck holding all the dead bodies from 1 billion birds. That's preposterous and but and nobody questions this. Now the
with regard to pictures uh Mr. Langston uh you correctly pointed out that these were not provided to us prior. So I request that this will be will be rejected just on a on account of violation of due process on the 14th
amendment. Now they going Ronald Reagan president says the government is not a solution. Government is the problem. And we see here now they selling us instead of snake oil new new number of of rules.
Now you have only how they going how are they going to enforce it? Okay we have we have six building inspectors in the city on I'm guessing 2,000 projects, right? So what do they do? And one of them is dumping
stupid who doesn't know nothing. So how are you going to enforce it to begin with? So this is like snake oil selling us. And casing point is uh 223 Liberty and 37 cliff slums. 37 is Cape Cot. The
three families live in the basement and in the attic. I complained for 10 years already straight and nothing has been done. So how are you going to enforce this? uh uh glass stuff. This it's preposterous again. Now, the
Javit Center was mentioned. I would like to point your attention. It's a big center in on the west side of Midtown Manhattan. This is a money pit owned by the state of New York. So, don't calculate them. They can spend as much
money as they want. Nobody's going to question them. And they're not representative of cost, actual cost. in Oregon. I went to Oregon a few years back. I took the Empire Builder train from Chicago to Portland. I exited the
train station. Trust me, 15 15 tents on every street block in downtown Portland. Beautiful city, beautiful architecture. People cannot afford to live in Portland, Oregon. Thank you, sir. That was your three minutes. Thank you.
Anybody else? Please come on up. [Music] testimony tonight. Yes. I'm Jackson Shane, J A N S H A I N. Uh my home address is 258 Highland A,
Newark, New Jersey 07 uh 104. Good evening. We have three minutes for you. Hey, thank you. Um so I'm here on behalf of uh student club RU Eco. Um we uh we have I mean we work with a professor that advocates for birds and um they
have a pretty large study um there's been hundreds of birds that they've um documented that uh have died to um have died on campus. Uh and you know just walking around I see birds very frequently and it doesn't take much to
see like dead birds. Um, and so yeah, we care about we care about birds and um, we'd like to see a safer environment for the birds. Uh, to me it makes sense uh, I mean cost analysis wise to invest a bit in our environment uh, at the moment
and birds are are very important. Um, I got a statistic from a grad student named Ren. Um, and the New York City metro area is uh the top 10 most dangerous cities for birds uh in both fall and spring and um top five in the
fall. So uh this is a significant area uh for the birds. Um then I have a a story from my grandpa. Uh he was looking out the window uh on his like deck view and a bald eagle comes and slams right uh like right in front right like right
in front of him and falls onto the ground. Uh and so yeah, I mean I I think birds are um birds are important and I'd like to see this pass. All right. Thank you. What was your grandfather's name? Uh Lewis. Lewis Shane. Okay. Gotcha.
Yeah. He he has studied uh forestry. All right. Thank you. Anybody else from public? Anybody else from public? Come on up, guys. Yeah. Uh Rachel,
I swear. Rachel, RGL, Emme 114 Summit Avenue. Thank you. Good evening. We have three minutes for you. Rachel, if you're going to show that, we're going to mark it. You're gonna have to leave it. Leave it. Yes. Maybe if we show.
Do you want to just describe it? If if we look at it, it's an exhibit. You can't see it. Okay. Well, I can just leave it for you guys after if you want to take a look. These are local Jersey City birds. I'm a volunteer here with Jersey City Birds and Feminist Bird Club. Um, waking up at 6:00 a.m. every morning to try to count these birds
before they get cleaned up by the cleaning crew every morning. Um, these birds die in our hand. Uh we see a lot of them. Um and yeah, I just wanted to share some of my pictures. Um so you could get a sense of the local Jersey City birds that we found. Some of these are found at Journal Square around uh
Journal Squared, which is the new tower there. If we'd had that legislation before that was built, I wouldn't be waking up and picking up these birds every morning. Um same thing for some of the terrible sites we have downtown, 40 Washington. A lot of these construction sites could have been done differently
and we have a chance to change it in the future. So I'd ask you to do so. Thank you. All right. Thank you for your time. Anybody else? Please come on up. I swear. Uh Justin Moscara 601 Ocean Nav, Jersey
City, New Jersey 07305. Uh M O Qu U R A. Good evening, sir. We have three minutes for you. Yes, thank you. Uh I mostly want to speak on the bird safety materials. Uh I just want to say that I've been working at the Port Authority as a sustainable
design engineer. So I focus on a lot of materials especially steel, glass um and aluminum. As for glass um some of the traditional most used um bird safety materials is something known as ceramic fritting which is pretty cheap compared
to the other uh examples presented in this presentation. uh UV is more on the expensive side and requires applicability uh reapplicability while ceramic fringing lasts for the whole lifespan of the glass. Other strategies include acid etching as mentioned previously and sand blasting which is a
cheaper alternative. Um all three have their pros and cons including UV. Um as for uh even cost neutral I mean cost neutral uh alternatives you can for like if you're concerned about buildings uh less than 100 ft uh even storefronts you
can use just like oil paintings or vinyl wrappings as well which is super cheap. You can get them for like $5 or something like that and the community can come together. There have been murals as well painted on those glasses to uh support uh bird friendly standards
as well. Um as for um uh cost uh sorry I lost my track. Um but there are other alternatives for BF design. I know one of your concerns was the aesthetics of the building. Ceramic frittings are just white dots on the
glass um spaced 4 in x 4 in apart. You can hardly tell the difference. Um it's one of the most widely used practices for bird friendly. And they also are used even before bird friendly was a thing they were used as energy saving uh strategies as well to prevent sun glare,
sun absorption, refle reflection, all those kinds of things. Um so there are other alternatives, many other alternatives, some expensive, some not expensive, some that people can do on hand and some more uh used for commercial and non-residential purposes.
So there's a wide variety. Um, I can't give you all the numbers right now, but if you look it up, there's a lot of different practices in the engineering field right now. Uh, thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Mascara. Really quick, Mr. Mascara. Mr. Is that your name? Mascara? I think Mascara, you said the you I know you're
not speaking as a an expert, but you said something that caught my attention. You said UV has reapplyability. Yes. You have to reapply the UV. You have to reapply the UV once every few years. Um, which is why it's more on the expensive side. Um it's pro it's mostly because it's a new innovation
probably like I mentioned just a few years ago. Um but even now your ceramic fringing will be and your acid etched and sand blasting as well. Acid etching and sand blasting give you more creativity possibilities. Um and can also use and sand blasting can also be
used with uh recycled sand as well. So from other old glass so even more sustainability uh applications with that and energy savings. Your ceramic fringing is more for your commercial purposes. All right. Thank you. Anybody else? Please come on up.
Tonight, the whole truth. I do. Robert Fu, last name F as in Frank U. 414 Fairmont Avenue, Jersey City. Good evening. We have three minutes for you. Good evening. Uh, my name is Robert Fu.
I'm a licensed architect in New Jersey. Speaking in support of the proposed bird friendly amendment. Um, as we've already been um told, the bird death toll from building collisions is astronomical. I I've seen it myself as part of Jersey
City Birds uh waterfront uh collision survey. Stresses on wildlife in um in today's world are only increasing. Jersey City with its rapid rate of construction as well as its location along major migration routes has a
special responsibility and opportunity to set an example. Uh this need is just heightened by the present federal government's total abdication of envir environmental responsibility. Um it's been pointed out that the uh
proposed ordinance is not overly burdensome costwise. Um there are numerous studies showing this um showing the small incremental cost of uh bird friendly features such as bird glass rather than a constraint
on creativity. Um there are numerous creative options for designers to reduce risks to birds and there's a wealth of available um technical info for guidance from sources such as American Bird
Conservancy. The proposed bird friendly design requirement should be re viewed as an opportunity for for Jersey City for developers and designers to set an example of environmental responsibility when it's needed more
than ever. Um, I ask the board to recommend the proposed ordinance to the city council. Thank you, sir. We appreciate it. Anybody else? Hello. Yes. The whole truth.
I do. Jeffrey Train, J E F R E Y T R A I N like Choo Choo and 402 Madison Street, Hoboken, New Jersey. Good evening. We have three minutes for you.
Thank you so much. I just want to tell you a quick story. Uh, so I live in Hoboken, but I bird in Hudson County, New Jersey, and New York City. And a couple years ago, uh, my son and I went to Brooklyn Bridge Park to
see a bird, dimminionative little bird called the Swainson's warbler. Brown bird with a white ice stripe. hangs out really lives and nests down in South Carolina. North Carolina is not supposed to be here. Made its way up to Brooklyn
Bridge Park. It was really, really close. My son and I joyful at seeing it. We go home. The next day, the bird was reported in Jersey City. It had struck a window and died.
This legislation, this this opportunity, please don't bulk at it. Um, you are going to save birds lives. Uh, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We'll get there. The cost, the cost, the
cost. I can imagine that when fire sprinklers were being mandated to be put into buildings. People were saying, "How are we going to pay for this? This is going to drive down development." Lives have been
saved. It's it's something now that we think about as part and parcel to development. Uh I have advocated for numerous projects in Hoboken and uh there's actually a uh person in uh a business
owner in Jersey City who owns Allesios um who has put beautiful uh fritz on his service to solve a problem. and he says that as a business owner, he recognizes the importance of balancing operational success with environmental responsibility and the installation of
bird protection measures at our establishment was a deliberate decision to ensure that our facilities are safe for local wildlife while serving our community. These tools are essential in reducing the risks that modern buildings can pose to bird populations, which are
critical to maintaining ecological balance. People care about this. I do want to address uh some of the questions that came up. So we do have data. Uh for example um McCormack Place in Chicago had a really huge uh
thousands of birds dying and uh they have uh put um material on the building and they've seen a 95% uh drop in window strikes. uh 2013, the Javit Center also addressed their issue.
Uh and they have since seen a 90% reduction. Uh it it's you're going to see the same results here in Jersey City. Um I think a lot of people are bird blind if they don't love birds the way that some of the people who tonight here spoke. Um
I have seen I hear the timer 200 species in Hudson County. uh many in Jersey City. Uh let's let's keep those numbers high. Thank you so much. I have a question before. Sure. Sure. How the building in Chicago, how tall
the building was it or is it taxing me? Uh more than 200 feet, 100 ft. No, it's not uh I believe it's like a a big glass cube and so it definitely falls within the zero to 100 ft. Okay. Um, and certainly in my
experience, um, collecting birds myself, I've seen that it's it's really those low levels. And that data is out there on you can find a graphic that shows how I believe it's 65% of U window strikes are going to be zero
to 100 ft. It's it's a pretty big number. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Anybody else? Anybody else? Mr. Chair, seeing no Seeing no public, I move to close the public. Sure. Come on up. One more. One more. Yes.
Okay. Um, Adrien Gonzalez. A D R I E N E. Gonzalez. G O N Z A L E Z. My address is 70 Ridgewood Road, Clifton, New Jersey 07012.
Good evening. We have three minutes for you. Good evening. Um, and I'm here as a student from Rutgers University in the Newark campus. Um, I want to say that I've been birding since I was a
kid. And because of my love of birding, it's welcomed so many opportunities into my life that I never would have thought would have happened. And I just really appreciate these birds so much as much as many people in this room do. Um, I
want to say that I really believe implementing these design measures would really save the birds. As somebody who's been on campus for so long, I've witnessed so many so many dead birds on
campus. I've seen woodcock, American woodcocks that have hit windows. I've had to help. And even though I can't really help because I don't have that knowledge to help them, I've had to watch an injured woodcock. Its right wing was broken. It
was disorienting, disoriented, bobbing its head. And I've seen birds in inaccessible places as somebody has mentioned in the top floors of the library. Sometimes I would see small piles of dead birds,
mostly migratory birds, but sometimes it's not even just migratory birds. It can be birds that are that live here as residents. I've seen a northern flicker at the bottom of a bottom of a building.
And all of this has really just made me so concerned about the safety of all these birds. And I would really love if you guys would really implement these measures. Thank you. Thank you. Excuse me. Whereabouts in Clifton do you live?
I live in um the Allwood se near the Allwood section. Allwood section. Yes. I grew up in what they call Montlair Heights. It was Montlair Heights. Holy Face Monastery. Uh uh Vincent Drive. I think I might know that place a little bit.
Great. Great town. Yes. All right. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Anybody else? You're welcome. Anybody else? Mr. Chair, now I'd like to uh move to close the public. I second. All right. Motion is made and seconded.
Um Sophia, we have your recommendation. Obviously, would the board, since it was discussed, um the applicability portion of the design standards, would the board like to do a floor amendment and remove it or keep it
in? Um, yeah, it's it's still got to go to council for for adoption, but um you know, I don't want to solely drive this thing. I Chair, can I I don't know whether I'm
talking out of ter make a recommendation that it would go. Let council make the decision. I mean, I think we're all in favor of this. I I mean, they could remove the floor amendment if we passed the floor amendment, correct? Mhm. Yes. Okay. So, so here's my thinking on the
floor amendment is, you know, do we A care about bird strikes? Yes. Yes. B,
do we care enough that planning staff or zoning staff is going to have extra work to address the buildings that don't have site plan review?
I I don't think birds know the difference, do they? I don't think so either, but I would include that. Well, yeah, but I mean to We're going to do it. Let's do it. Yeah, I agree. Included. So, I would blend it and just remove, you know, site plan versus non-sight
plan because there's two lines in either 62 and 63 that say site plan. So, to council's point, your point earlier, I would just say, you know, uh, let it be applicable to everything. Yeah. And I think, you know what is made by
Matt earlier in terms of saying, you know, look, I mean, I drive down Kennedy Boulevard, right? And there are red lights. Does everyone stop at them? Okay. So, um, uh, that's why I don't drive on Kennedy. I mean, right.
Well, enforcability in Jersey City is a, uh, open for question, but I think that a lot of people would take this for goodwill. I think it's a step in the right direction. And but to the applicability question, I think you're spot on, chairman. Let's take it out. Let's go. Yeah.
Yeah. I agree. I totally agree with that. Mhm. Same. Okay. So, it will be modified and it will be applicable to all new construction, rehabilitation, and additions. All right. Thank you. And I didn't even have to mention
Grandpa Shane. I wrote that down just for this moment. So, uh this will be in honor of Grandpa Shane's great white eagle. Yeah. Bald eagle. Bald eagle. Okay, Mr. Chair, at this point, I'd like
to make a motion to approve and accept the uh bird friendly design standards amendment to the city of Jersey City land development ordinance to include birdfriendly design standards to prevent bird injuries and fatalities uh with the floor amendment discussed and forward to uh city council for formal adoption.
Okay, motion is made and seconded vigorously by Commissioner Stamado. vice chair Dr. Gonzalez. It's a win for the birds today. Uh clearly uh so yeah I mean I was a little initially I'll be honest I it's not that
I don't want to save birds lives. It's that the the information the way we we I got it anyway and received it was not the normal uh way that we receive information. But I think this is a good uh direction for the city. I think this is where city um development is going.
Um, and um, I'm from the I'm from New Mexico, South Southern New Mexico. So, uh, grew up in the Messia Valley, which is a big, I'm sure you guys know, uh, a huge bird watching area. And, uh, we love birds and, uh, I think they're
beautiful. We have bald eagles all time. I was going to include your grandfather in my little testimony. Um, he's, is he with us today? I mean, okay, he's still with us. Good. Um but um so yeah, this is a this is a good vote. I think this is good for Jersey
City and I'm going to vote I Commissioner Gangadan. Yeah, I just want to thank um the public and the advocates here for coming out this evening and sharing with your information with us because that enables us as well to make an informed decision
based upon your data and your presentation. Um the only thing I wish is that we had this presentation prior to this meeting. So I would ask in the future when these things comes up that we have a copy of these presentation in the future so that
we are informed as well. Um we care about birds as well. Um we're all Jersey City resident. Um my vote is I Commissioner Wick. I feel like I learned so much about birds tonight. So thank you so much. Um
it was great listening to all of you. Um, and I'll never pass up an opportunity for Jersey City to be a part of an environmental change. So, I vote I. Commissioner Samato. Oh, you're gonna love this. He's changing his windows to bird
friendly glass as of tonight. Um, I've had two birds in my life. One was both parakeetses. I missed them dearly. My last one's name was Tracy. She was with us for a number of years.
I did graduate the school of falconry up in uh Lake George and uh I've had a lot of fun with birds. I vote I. Commissioner Lipsky. Yeah. So I think that the modern day
ingenuity and creativity in America is great and I think that design standards will exceed those that are currently in place like the Jabit Center and the One Hotel at Brooklyn Bridge or the Aqua Tower in Chicago. And after hearing all
of your chirping, I think that a birdened hand is worth more than two birds splattered on a glass. I vote I. Commissioner Torres. Wow, that was a good one. I have to say that was good.
It's a hard act to follow. Um I just This is a long long overdue. Should have been done a long time ago. Commissioner Patel and Chairman Langston. Yeah, I want to thank everybody for coming down tonight. Um I I apologize
for my initial apprehension. We didn't have the data prior to this night. So, thank you for giving us all your data and all your experiences. Um,
you know, this has come up in front of us before on on different site plans and we can't enforce something like this unless it's in the land development ordinance. So, this is the first step.
Um, actually this is our first step. Uh, so thank you for educating us on it. We really appreciate it. Um, I'm going to try and make it out to one of those Jersey City birds walks and see what's going on there. But, uh, can I
bring my dogs? They're little. They're little. All right. Um, so it's still an I even though I can't bring my dogs, but congratulations. Thank you guys for coming down. Uh, and yes, a positive
recommend recommendation to city. Yep. Motion carries. All in favor with the favorable recommendation to city council with floor amendments. All right. Thank you. Did you need five? You need five. Okay. Uh, I'm sorry, guys. We need uh five minutes.
Oh well. Oh boy. Everybody cleared out, huh? Should go fast now. All the controversial stuff. Yeah. My bird. Pretty boy and Tracy. Everybody the Hey chairman, looks like everybody.
Uh, [Laughter] Chuck, how are you? All right, could we come to order again, everybody? And we'll call item 11. Case P2024-0117 is a preliminary and final major site plan for 24 Bright Street.
Okay. Uh good evening. Uh for the record, Charles Harrington of Connell Foley on behalf of the applicant. We did provide public notices and I gave them to council to review and mark into the record. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to receive the affidavit of publication proof of
mailing with respect to the application at 24 Bright Street. I've had the opportunity to review it. It does appear to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for the record. Thank you, council. Okay. Thank you. So, real briefly, this is a um very straightforward uh application. It's taken a while to get
here, but we think we have a terrific uh um project here. It's an existing building um at 24 Bright Street that's located in the Vanvor Historic District. Um it is a shorter building. Uh we were going to extend it out. Um and uh we're
still going to keep it as three residential units. We've been working extensively with uh staff and with the historic preservation uh office. Uh we were before the historic preservation commission and we received a certificate of appropriateness from them which is
the first step in that process. So we're here before you now to present it because it does uh it does reach the level of a site plan approval because of the size of the addition. Um but uh it is kind of you know really just expanding the building out. uh no
variances um are are being requested. One of the initial uh iterations did have variances and that's we kind of got to where we are tonight. So with that I have one witness um it's uh Kieran Kelly uh from MVMK and he's can take you through the project.
All right. Thank you councel. I do. Kiron Kelly, C I A R A N K- E L L Y. Mr. Kelly, good evening. Uh, is your license in good standing tonight? It is. Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. All right. Thank you all. Um, I would like to run through a brief set of
slides. There are 13 slides. I'm going to be quick. I I won't take too long. I know everybody is uh tired tonight. Um, so A1, if if that's a A2, A2, A2, you can read that in my body language tonight. Okay. So to give everybody a
very quick uh overview of the site uh on the image on the left is just obviously an aerial photograph. The site is the outlined in red. It's a regular lot 25 foot wide by 100 foot deep. It's on the north side of Bright Street in the center of the block. That's block 14106 which is bounded by Grove Street to the
east and Barrow to the west. Um to the on the left hand side of the image you'll see a kind of a Google Earth uh 3D massing. Uh that's our property in the center. That's the existing building which is 30 ft deep on a 100 foot lot. Um the building directly to the east of
it is um at 22 Bright Street which recently underwent a full renovation similar to what we have done 60% lot coverage. Then directly to the west is a vacant lot at 26 Bright Street which is uh not in the Vanvor uh historic park
but rather under a redevelopment plan. And then the building directly adjacent to that is a five-story multif family residential at 28 uh Bright Street. So this is the existing front facade. Uh I'll get into it in further detail a little later on. Obviously, as Chuck had
mentioned, we had gone through an extensive, you know, coordination with historic and also with staff. And the intent is that the addition that we're proposing will be a four-story addition at the rear, will not be visible at all from the street. And we will do a fateful restoration of the existing
facade uh under the um st secretary of the interior standards. Um I'm just going to quickly jump to a site plan image and then perhaps I'll go back. But the image on the left is the existing survey. The build existing building is 30t deep. Then we have an additional 30
feet of imperous concrete slab ongrade. Then we have a pathway that leads to a one-story structure at the rear. Now our application what we're proposing is to remove the hard surface and the one-story structure and to extend the existing building up to the permitted 60
foot uh line 60% lot coverage uh but not increasing the density as described. So we have three units currently and we have three units to remain. We do have an additional 10-ft uh piece at the rear there. That's the brown element. And that is a raised deck at the second
floor level for private space. Uh but it's pvious. Uh so we're not increasing the impervious coverage beyond the 60%. The rest of the lot is uh landscaped uh open space. Uh in addition to that, just in green uh on the at the front of the building, we are proposing a new street
tree and also we are renovating an existing planter there which currently in disrepair. So, we're reinstating that. Um, I have the plans here and these are the plans which were submitted, but I've colorized them for the uh for the presentation. Um, but I think perhaps
the easiest way to talk you through the plans is just simply to describe it. So, it's a fourstory building. Uh, right now there are three units. There is a duplex unit at um what is basement but more than 50% above grade and then the first floor and then there are two individual
units above that. What we are going to do is obviously we're extending the floor plan back. We're going to have one unit at the garden level which is a two-bedroom, two bath uh unit at,230 ft and that has a 400 square f foot
outdoor space at the rear. And then above that, the three floors above are going to be split into two duplex units. The lower of the two duplex units are the second floor and the front half of the third floor. Uh so that that unit has both front and back aspect and that
has the uh uh raised deck, the 240 foot raised deck shown here in brown at the second floor, but also has access to the rear of the landscape uh first floor rear yard. And then the upper unit occupies the bot back half of the third
floor and the entirety of the top floor. And that unit measures uh 200 or 2,140 ft. But that unit also has access to a private roof deck. That roof deck is pulled off the rear perimeter of the roof by three feet on all sides. Uh but
it's also, as I say, it's at the back half. It's not uh near the front half. It's over 30 ft from the street and not visible. And in addition to that, as I'll show you in a section, the um bulkhead of the stair that rises up to give access to that deck additionally has been sloped to follow the line of
the stairs kept at a minimum. So again you'll see that that is not visible from the street. So this is the existing facade as I described. Uh you know a traditional brick rowhouse. Uh there are caststone lintils which have been painted over the brick in some areas has
been maybe broken out and repaired but not perhaps in the best uh workmanship. Um so again we're going to follow very strict secretary of the interior standards. We're going to clean and repair and repoint all the brick. We're going to replace the front door to the
front door as we see it on the 1938 tax card. Uh we're going to strip the cornice, but keep it in place and restore it. Um and so a very faithful uh uh restoration, I guess you would say, of the front facade. This is just a very simple rendering. Doesn't show you
anything different because the building stays the same, but obviously it's going to have a new life brought to it and that new new or the uh front door is going to be replaced. Um, so these are the drawings again which were submitted and approved by historic. This is sheet Z1 of our set. And just to draw your
attention to the rear uh facade. The rear edition is going to admittedly be a slightly more contemporary look and feel but in traditional materials. It's in a lap hearty sighting. One of the comments that historic made was we had proposed the uh wood texture on those uh on that sighting. They would rather it be smooth
and of course we're going to meet that condition along with all the other conditions of the cert certificate of appropriateness. Excuse me. But the rear edition is more contemporary in its style. Um, one thing I just want to touch on. One of the comments from the planner was that that second floor uh
deck accessible from that uh uh lower of the duplex unit. It has that rear deck. They've asked that we enclose the three sides of it in a six foot high privacy screen, which we are more than happy to do. And of course, just to reiterate, that deck is not pvious. It's open deck
deck boards which allow uh for drainage. This is just a very simple uh side view because the vacant uh lot adjacent to us at 26 Bright Street is vacant. Uh this side can be seen currently from the street and so it's important. Um so we
are res restoring the side elevation of the existing portion. We're providing the lap siding on the rear portion. Um, but we all expect that that lot will be redeveloped uh fairly soon and so maybe it's a mute point, but nonetheless, special attention was paid to that
facade. Um, that concludes my direct. I'm happy to take any questions. All right. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. I have no questions. Anybody else? I don't have any questions, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you. Thank you, council. That's your presentation. That's our presentation and and there was a planner report that was provided
by Mr. easily and we would um agree to all the conditions within that report which carry over the historic preservation commission uh conditions as well. Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Uh is there anybody here from public that wants to comment? Mr. Chair seeing no public
who's here. Good evening. Good evening sir. We have three minutes for you. Okay. K U L O W SKI. Uh, was the public notice placed at 24 Bright Street at this site for the public to be notified?
You're asking, sorry, the board. We keep going over this. Yeah, but this is your policy not allowing Mr. Harrington not to place public notice. The law, the New Jersey statute, New Jersey statutes do not supersede US Constitution and the 14th amendment
right amendment. Cite which section of the 14th amendment right reflected on the record due process. Where in the 14th amendment does it talk about due process. It went through the Supreme Court many times over. You have to place the public notice at
the site. There's a Supreme Court says that there has to be public notice of this hearing at the site. What case is that? What? Which case says that? I don't have on hand. Oh, you don't have the Supreme Court.
So you think you think Hold on. You think New Jersey statutes annotated supersede public knowledge? I asked you to cite the case from the United States says notice has to be provided at the site.
I will provide it to you later. I mean, you've been saying this now for weeks, so I would think you would have obviously city. Nothing is obvious, sir. That's the only city that you're up here saying the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution
requires notice to be placed at the site. You then say the Supreme Court has ruled on that. I say, "Okay, tell me the case you'll provide it to you. I don't have You tell me you don't know. I don't have an hand." But isn't it obvious the only city in the US, large city,
that allows this crap to go on? You're hiding from the public. I don't know that. Well, I'm telling you, I travel a lot. Where are you getting that data from? I travel a lot and I can tell you every How many You've been to every city in this? Not every, but many, many, many. And I talked to developers and they said they
wouldn't be allowed to proceed without public notice. Okay. Okay. So, let me uh that's LLC owned by another LLC. So, who is applying actually is a physical person? Is this physical person
investigated? If if that person or two people are in good standing if they were I'm sure you would have if they are outstanding citizens or fraudsters possibly. I don't I don't say they are but it's called due diligence.
I I don't know that you're not a fraudster sir. Okay. Yes. I'm not applying for anything. That's the difference. You're speaking in front of us on record. You could be a fraudster. I don't know. So what is your diligence on this project? What what are you looking for
to find out who is the applicant? Have you gone through the documents? Yes, I have. Okay. Do you know that law on an LLC means that you can go uh that's your three minutes. Um you you can go online and find out
who's involved in LLC. The city has 2,000 employees. Please. Yeah, but one of them doesn't do their job. You told us in the last application, one one of the inspectors inspector and and a construction code official
quit quit the very day I s I I summoned him before the federal court. Okay. Anyway, okay. I requested local employment on local people. Sir, your time's up. Your time's up. We'll see you in a couple minutes. Okay. Anybody else from public? Mr. Chair, no public. I move to close. Second. Second.
All right. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Eric, you have anything you want to add? Sorry about that. Um, council already agreed to the conditions um requested by staff. Um,
the staff also has determined that uh there aren't any variances um associated with the proposed addition. Um staff also found that the proposed addition aligns with the legacy neighborhood section of the uh land use
element of the master plan. So staff recommends approval. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a motion at this time to approve case P204-0117 as presented to our board tonight. Second it. All right. Motion is made and seconded for approval. Vice Chair Dr. Gonzalez.
I. Commissioner Gongadan, Commissioner Torres, Commissioner Torres. Hi, Commissioner Stamato. Hi, Commissioner Lipsky.
I, Commissioner Patel. Hi, Commissioner Wick. I, and Chair Langston, I. Motion carries. All in favor? All right. Thank you. Let's move on to item 12 is case P2025-000019
is a preliminary and final major site plan with C variances for 54 Jones Street. Okay. Good evening. Um for the record, Charles Harrington of Connell Foley. on behalf of the applicant. Uh we did provide public notice um consistent with
the MLUL and uh I provided them to council for review and this this was uh originally scheduled for August 12th and carried to uh today's meeting. Chairman see the affidav publication proof of mailing with respect to the property at 54 Jones Street here in the
city. Uh council is correct. This was carried from the prior meeting. Had the opportunity to review the notice as well as the mailing list. It does appear to be in order and in compliance with the
New Jersey municipal land use law. That's the MLUL. We're going to mark it as A1 for the record. Thank you, council. Okay. Thank you. So, uh, this project before you, um, is a result of the most
recent amendments to the Journal Square redevelopment plan with the, uh, accommodation floors and the affordable housing. Uh, this particular, um, applicant, uh, has been designated as a redeveloper by the JC. He actually purchased the property from a prior
designated redeveloper and they they were working handinhand with the planning department and the JC uh with those prior amendments with this in mind. Uh it's an irregular lot. Uh it's a flag lot that that's on the corner of
Jones Street and SIP Avenue. So that's when when you see the the variances listed it it you know they they seem like a lot but they're really a direct result of the tower on base uh deviations because of the the shape of this lot. But this is something that
that was envisioned as part of all those those amendments and and how we got here. Uh it will have yeah 190 residential units of which 21 will be affordable consistent with the ICO and and the redevelopment plan. Um it is a
actually a 29 story uh building but uh in conversation with Mr. Dilva last week the the amenity level um actually falls within the definition of an an additional story. So same building but that's all part of the uh the variances
uh being requested. So um with that said I I have two witnesses uh tonight. I'm just going to have my architect present and then Mr. Height uh will give a a review of the requested uh deviations. So, Mr. Romera is our architect who was here previously and I'm going to bring him up.
Okay. Thank you, council. And just let the record show, Mr. Mayor has been uh sworn in and qualified already tonight and is still under oath. 37. All right. Good evening. I'm already under oath. As you mentioned, this is
the presentation for 54 Jones Street. Um, also be called CASA 54. Um, this is A1 and it's 37. uh sheets. Yeah. BA2 BA2 I'm sorry. Yes. A237
37 slides. Yes. 54 Jones Street planning presentation dated September 2025. As our attorney has already mentioned, this is uh 54 Jones, the corner of SIP and Jones. As you're familiar with it,
it's uh between it's on the block between Summit and Sip. This area is across from the zone one um core area within the journal square 2060. It falls within the zone 3 um as
part of the accommodation uh zoning um b uh affordable accommodation uh providing one affordable unit prov accommodates for 5,000 square ft of additional gross square footage that you can add onto a building up to 20 stories. This
application um uses that accommodation um as uh uh our attorney has mentioned it's 190 units uh with 21 affordable u units. This is a break up uh of the massing of the building. I just wanted to give a overview of what we're going
to be talking about. The ground floor is the entrance floor. It's the lobby and it's also the retail space. then the building and then we have the base residential uh which is second to eighth floor uh and that'll come into play in a few minutes as I show you this the
amenity floors are the ninth and 10th floor and then we have the tower residential above uh as well as as well as the roof deck amenity level and the bulkhead mechanical. Uh this is the breakdown of the units. We have uh studio uh one bedrooms, two
bedrooms, three bedrooms, and we do have one unit that's over uh three bedrooms. Uh 34% is studios, 57 are onebedrooms, and 6% are two bedrooms as well as the 3% 3bedrooms. Uh the breakdown of the affordable units has been shared with
the affordable housing authority and approved by them. Uh this is the building that I'm about to present. This is the entrance of the building on 50 on Jones Street and that uh crossing street over there is SIP.
The site plan um as uh Chuck has mentioned this is an L-shaped site with the width of the site being 40 ft and the length is uh approximately 98 feet. I do want to mention a couple of things in the front here is that um and I'm
actually going to uh go back a few slides just to mention a couple of things here from the uh the civil site plan. The existing site does have a straight sidewalk here and it turns uh onto SIP. And what's being proposed here
is um this uh extended sidewalk basically flared out and um curved back here to allow for parking back here. This eliminates parking u close to the stop sign which is something that um we've run by traffic um and they were
very fond of and uh very supportive to do this. Um I do want to mention that as part of the preparation for the meeting and and working on the project, we did get um engage in intensive extensive talks with PSENG regarding the vault location in the building and how we
would power the building. And you as you see on the sidewalk here, there's three transformer rooms basically under the sidewalk that are being put into um this area. And that's part of why this sidewalk is going to be extended outside. We are proposing two trees, one
along the frontage of Jones and one along the frontage of uh SIP with this part here being a planter um bed, but not no trees in it because it's right next to the uh transformer vaults. Um I
do also want to mention that the tree bed along Jones is a depressed tree bed which would allow storm water to collect in it as well. Uh jumping back to u the unit plans, the the this is the cellar of the building. We do have some
amenity spaces in the back here like a golf simulator and the music room. Um a laundry lounge. Uh but also in the front here, right across from the vaults that would be in this area is the cable room which is what's um specified by PSNG
within the building. uh the first floor, the stone two main areas here, the lobby and the retail space. The retail space is envisioned to be a um cafeteria or a coffee uh space uh that would be uh
visible from the corner of Sip and Jones. We do have two entrances to the building and we envision this being used more for the retail and this by the residents of the building. This is the mezzanine uh u level of the
building and it's mainly used for storage. As I go up and I'll I'll show the uh typical floor plans. As we go up, we have um some floors with seven units and some floors with eight units. This is one of the floors that has seven units on it. And the unit here in the
corner are the three bedrooms. Uh this this is the unit. This is another floor with seven, but these are two bedrooms in the light green. Uh the ninth and 10th floor are levels that have been set back here to create
this outdoor space and also a separation between the base and the tower. Um and this um is actually matching 57 SIP which is a historic building right next to us in terms of height which you'll see in the elevations as we come to
them. Uh these are the levels above and then uh this is the amenity level that the attorney mentioned. We do have the amenity uh space in the back here. And then this is uh mostly utilities and trash room and storage. And then we have
our outdoor roof deck here, which does have a pool and barbecue station. And this is the mechanical level on top. This is the roof I was just describing with the pool here and the corner of the building and the barbecue station. And
then the mechanical level above right here. It's another view of the pergola. And that's another one. The height of the building um I mean the base of the building matches the base
the top here of 57 sip which is something that we worked with um uh Matt on uh as part of preparing this application. So the double level here actually measure matches the double level here on top of um 57 sip. So that
penthouse to the setback. So we do match the setback and we also have a double height space to break up the the base building which has a brick finish on it from the top which is more of a metal panel uh structure and these are the side um elevations. We
have been we've reached out to Jersey City mural program and Matt is helping us with this because this is I we believe that this there's a good opportunity here um on the interior corner uh which is not not in this rendering but it's in the um elevations
before that here facing SIP about maybe 15 stories of uh space that we could do something beautiful on. Do you think uh this is that uh tower they're proposing and goes back to again the base that has the brick in it and then the two levels and then the tower on
top. This is the entrance of the building and I think you saw it in the in the rendering. I uh it's going back to the variances we're asking. One of the variances is the 80% transparency on the ground floor and we we fall around 64%.
But I believe based on uh what we've done here with the design that there is uh enough transparency to meet the intent of the ordinance and the and the amendments um and then still create enough visual appeal and and um and
interest on the ground floor with the stone being the material here, veneer stone on the ground floor and brick starting above. This is that level of the amenity floors. the two amenity floors being set back and having more of a a glass look
here with wood warmer colors. So I do I am sharing the materials here. The cedar woods brick which is the white and gray bricks and then the more of a brass metal panel, the uh the greystone that is shown below and then the wood finish
right here on the columns. This is um what we hope to see u in that location hopefully soon. Um open to any questions. All right. Thank you. I have no questions at this time. Anybody else? Yeah, I have a question in reference to
the mural. What type of mural are you thinking about putting up? We were discussing it with uh actually I reached out and Matt put me in touch with someone who is no longer there. So, I'm going to talk to someone else that's there. We're open to ideas to see what
artists are working in Jersey City and what kind of um usually they they'll come with a proposal and we'll evaluate it, see what, you know, what can go on the building. And we're looking for something hopefully um honestly beautiful and and natural like green
looks and maybe something with depth three-dimensional because it is an interior corner. So look, you know, look in that good in that area. All right. I was just curious. Yeah. All right. Anybody else? Any questions? Okay. Hello.
Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay. Then our next witness is uh Mr. Height who will address the uh requested deviations which as I noted earlier most of them um center around the tower on base requirements. Okay.
All right, I'm set up. Yep. Uh, yeah. on Charles Height. Last name is spelled H E Y DT. Mr. Height. Good evening. Your license is current tonight. Current tonight. Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. Okay. Um I'll jump into the planning
testimony. Um I think it's helpful for the board to be reminded uh about the unique nature of this site. It is an existing lot uh at the time of the adoption of the plan, a single lot. It's an irregular L-shaped lot. You can see a lot of the layouts from the architecture
follow that Lshape. Uh in terms of size, we're dealing with a property that's uh approximately 6,000 square ft. Um where the minimum standard for zone 3 actually starts at uh 7,500. So, I'm just going
to jump up back to the top of the zoning table. Um, and one of the other provisions that not that's not represented here, but at the time of the adoption of the redevelopment plan, all existing lots are identified as conforming with respect to lot size and
and whatnot uh and and width and and depth. So, um, we do have pre-existing non-conforming attributes about the property. Uh, I will say even though it's an L-shape, we still comply with the shape factor. So, it is still a reasonably shaped and sized property to
accommodate development. Uh it's a vacant lot today. Uh it is in zone three uh in Journal Square along Sip Avenue and and Jones Street. Uh and what we've done with this application is try and
implement the standards for uh zone 3 while also uh making taking advantage of the mandatory affordable housing um which is the additional 20 stories. Um I was uh in attempt to give you all a visual to follow some of the
justifications for the deviations. I think we can always refer back to the um presentation that Mr. Amara just shared, but um we wanted to characterize or classify the requested relief in terms of how they all relate to one another.
Uh so I'll just go through this in order as they come up. Um in terms of the overall stories uh we are uh dealing with a 30story structure where 28 is permitted. Uh this is really a compilation of all the base stories of
that 28 but also um setting back the ninth and tth stories to provide for that break in terms of the base and the tower above. Uh some of that loss in floor area is then being folded into the upper stories. Uh on the 29th is the
penthouse story which has a substantial setback to Sip Avenue. Uh and then above that there's an amenity deck which has technically by the land development ordinance the enclosed amenity space exceeds 10% of that floor area. So that
technically has to be counted as a story as well. Uh but that uppermost story uh is substantially set back from the main foot plate of the floors below. Uh so that's the story relief uh that's being requested. Um in terms of some of the
setbacks at the ground level, there's a front yard setback that deals with the minimum width of the sidewalks, minimum being 15. Uh we're proposing to reinforce some of the the the existing widths at 10.9 and 10.4, albeit make
some critical improvements. We have a drop off lane. We have new street street trees. And ultimately uh there's what's considered a bumpout uh in terms of the curb which actually helps reduce the travel path for pedestrians. It's it's a
nice enhanced feature. Uh we coordinated with the division of transportation uh at the city to make sure that that um the design for that was able to be incorporated on the project. So uh substantial upgrades at the street level. Um we are also implementing the
required re uh retail along Sip Avenue um which is is part of the overall plans. Um that really is part of the justification from a design standpoint in terms of the main zoning and zone 3 highlighted in red here. Uh moving along
with respect to uh building design requirements that apply to the whole journal square redevelopment plan. There's two uh two aspects in terms of the of the design. Uh both occurring at the ground floor levels. Uh one being
the uh uh transparency of the the retail space on the ground floor. The calculation uh is 64% where 80 80 is required. It's quite often when you have the foundation required, the columns uh going down into the ground, they take a
certain amount of width along the facade. Um, we do have two facads, but it's not overly long. So, we're not able to make it up in terms of the calculation, but the intent, as was shown in the presentation, is to provide for a high level of visibility for the
ground floor in the retail space as well as the lobby. Um, the other aspect is the uh minimum non-residential ground floor, floor to ceiling height. Again, that's shown here in yellow as a second component, two feet shy of the minimum
of 20. Uh it's really just a product of of how the design stacks in trying to meet what would be the contextual base of the building adjacent to us on SIP. So we shortened up that ground floor 2 feet to make sure we can match and keep
all the other residential floors consistent. Um moving ahead, uh I won't go into these individually unless the board does have specific questions. Um, I mentioned the shape of the property, the size. Uh, we
felt as a design team in coordinating with, uh, city planning and and the JC that, uh, effectively to allow for an appropriately sized floor plate on this property. Um, we were going to need relief from the setbacks for tower on a
base. Um, one thing that I think makes sense in this application and and I always routinely discuss tower on a base requirements with proposed developers and development uh in Journal Square and and really trying to enforce them on properties. But one thing I think that
makes sense in this instance is both adjacent existing residential buildings allow for uh the side lot lines to be developed at a zero lot frontage. And what I mean by that is adjacent on SIP
the side the windows facing the sideyard that we share are set back approximately 3 to 5 feet. Um it runs at an angle but that's that's the setback. So, they allow for appropriate light and air to meet building code. Equally, our adjacent property on Jones uh does have
a light well uh that allows for the light and air and that also sits at a zero um sideyard setback where there's no adjacent lots on that lot, adjacent windows on that lot line. So, we're kind of essentially meeting the two adjacent
structures uh and requesting the relief uh interior to the property. Um, one other thing to add, uh, or or another, um, contextual element to add in terms of why we're requesting relief from the setbacks is the adjacent structure to
the rear is actually 425 Summit Avenue. Um, I don't think we were able to show it in the rendering, but it's a 26story tower that this board approved. It's actually the the other corner lot on this end of the block. Um, so that
property uh is a different size. Uh, it used to be an old parking lot um that kind of was across from the motor vehicle. Uh that property does have a substantial setback in the rear that does allow for a little bit more light and air to the interior of this end of
the block. But essentially the existing structures in addition in including this structure there's still amount a certain amount of separation between all the buildings on the interior of the block. I hope that's a sufficient amount of
justification for um the relief being requested. Um but uh I believe there's two other small variances from the LDO and I mentioned I referenced one of them earlier in
context of the stories. Um the lower one here if if the board can see that. Sorry. Um is the maximum enclosed rooftop amenity space. That's what triggers the additional story. Uh so
we're proposing a 53% coverage of that enclosed amenity space. Uh it's a really nice amenity given the height that it's at and the views of the city. Um we are also proposing uh a certain amount of mechanical uh square footage. More often
than not, the reasons we request the mechanical square feet variance from the LDO is because we actually have an MEP on board to help scope out the sizing and spacing and location of mechanical equipment. When we don't, we just simply represent that we will comply and if we
don't comply, we'll have to come back. In this case, we know that at this point in time, uh, and we are requesting that relief from the maximum mechanical equipment. Another thing to keep in mind, we're dealing with a 6,500 square foot property, so it's it's on the
tighter side and we're utilizing as much of the available space to accommodate the equipment for a 20 30 tower structure. Um, that being said, uh, I do think that we advanced the purposes of
the MLUL, um, in terms of, uh, guiding appropriate development. This has been a highly uh, coordinated application. Um, I do believe we're uh establishing appropriate population densities in Journal Square in the heart of uh a very
walkable uh mass transit village uh mass a transit village if you will. Um, and lastly, I think we're uh improving overall aesthetics for this corner. It's a vacant lot today. Um, and we're we're really in filling it with an appropriate
multi-story mixeduse development. Um, in terms of the negative criteria, uh, I don't believe there's a substantial impairment. Uh, we did do the light and and and shadow studies and given the adjacent tower on 425 SIP, um, there is
light that in in is introduced into the um, interior of the block. Um, but it's not a scenario where this these are single family rear yards. They're all other multifamily buildings where a lot of the bu a lot of the properties are developed and improved with the building
itself. Um and more importantly, we we designed it to not encroach in any sort of uh legal light and air for the adjacent properties. Um with respect to any impairment of the zoning plan or zoning ordinance, um I
don't believe we have a substantial impairment. Uh notwithstanding the relief. I think it's a rebalancing of floor area, um we are also uh it's it's very nice to be able to say being able to incorporate the mandatory affordable housing with this project um which will
result in 21 affordable units. Um and uh I think with that uh I'd be happy to answer any questions or go into any more detail. I know I was trying to be succinct with my testimony tonight, but
um any questions? Happy to answer. All right. Thank you, Mr. High. I have none. Anybody else? No, I don't have any. Okay. Thank you, sir. We appreciate it. Council, is that your presentation? Yes, that completes our presentation.
And for the record, uh there is a planner report that was was prepared by Mr. Dilva. And in the event this is approved, we would um accept the conditions of approval. Okay. Thank you. Uh is anybody here from public that wants to comment?
Okay. U L O WKI again. Okay. Three minutes. Yes. There's no public. I'm I'm in this area about uh at least once a day, twice, sometimes even three times a day. No public notice had been placed there.
Mr. Harington is currently under investigation by federal prosecutor for fraud when he claimed to to to Duncan is a headquarters of local business which was a lie. I have now told you multiple times to
stop claiming that Mr. Harrington is under federal investigation. He is. Stop saying it. Okay. It's actionable. Now, there is no due diligence on this project. Why? I'm requesting that due
diligence be performed on every developer because Muain vers Central Hanover Bank and Trust Company from 1950 established that notice must be reasonably calculated to inform interested parties. Mailing is sufficient.
Supreme Court law, sir. For whom? For local people. Law. Okay. This is uh now affordable housing is a fraud. There's absolutely no way that this is affordable. So if you if it's affordable, please calculate against
earnings of people actual earnings, not a number out of out of nothing. Traffic is a fraud traffic study there because it's it's shows on one of the pages there's a fire track 38 ft long which is
not used by the fire department in Jersey City. They're using 100 ft long and conveniently the drawing there shows empty street to make a swing. So it's it can make a swing only because you provide a track that doesn't exist and
makes a swing and then that's how you allow for this extra extra sidewalk to be provided to developers transformer and the public. What are security of these transformers uh will be there? I mean what do you
require from the developer? Any insurance for the private transformer under the public sidewalk? I'm invoking my fifth amendment right sir. Thank you. Now this is now this this is an EPA uh violation of consent
consent decree with the EPA. You cannot accommodate this this development by connecting to the old serious system because system cannot cannot handle it. So I request that's why there is no due diligence because otherwise it would not pass. Now
local employment I'm also saying if you provide any favor to developer why don't you demand that there will be requirement of local employment of local people because 20,000 people can work in the city on local uh developers
developments and you have illegal aliens being brought thank you sir that's your time including Mr. Mr. Harris knows about it anybody else from public Mr. Sure. I'd like to make a motion to close public. Second. Okay. Motion is made and seconded.
Public is closed. Matt, do you want to wrap up? Um, certainly. Just just sort of respond to the public comments for the record as I can add another count to my slander complaint and the emotional distress that he's creating here. Um, like immediately can
apparently I'm living rentree in his head. Um, but all of everything he said is is absolutely lies. Thank you. Um yeah, Chuck, have you announced that and posted it publicly? Go ahead.
Um yeah, certainly. Um I guess just quickly before I get into um just my planners analysis, I do have the report from the Jersey City JCMUA in front of me with regards to this project. They found um
they found no structural issues with the ability of the existing infrastructure here to accommodate the building. Um they asked for some accom um confirmation of certain calculations. Um so it's the MUA's opinion that the infrastructure can accommodate this
building. And two, um I believe the consent degree that Mr. Qualsski referenced um does not preclude development but imposes um actions upon our own MUA to improve our infrastructure which they've been doing diligently
on on time and under budget over the past several years. Um sometimes government works anyway. Um as Mr. Height said, this is sort of a classic hardship case. the pre-existing lot is very small and very
narrow. Um, and to apply the tower and a base conditions to this parcel would um runs not only into practical constraints but well physical constraints. You would have a uh a building with negative width.
The um really the intent of those tower and a base regulations is to ensure in Journal Square we maintain the street wall of sort of the classical mid-rise um commercial development that
was the previous and continuing urban fabric there while allowing for uh slender highrises that don't necessarily um you know crowd out the sky to make sure you know if you're imposing that 100%
lot coverage for that street wall. It's not going all the way up as you build the highrises which are now allowed in this neighborhood. And so you're ensuring a slender tower. As you can see in the renderings, this is a slender tower. And um especially with that 10th 11th floor step back, they are reinforcing the pre-existing street wall
in this location which there's currently a gap in as it's a vacant lot. Um that being said, um staff recommends approval with conditions. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion at this time to approve case P2025-000019 as presented to our board tonight. Seconded.
Okay. Motion is made and seconded for approval. Vice Chair, Dr. Gonzalez. Yeah, I I you know, there's a lot of variances here, but I think that given the location, these are all, although not all dimminimous, I think they're all called for and the uh the testimony, you know, proved that that that way. So, I
vote I Commissioner Gangadin. Yeah. Uh great presentation. Um the variance is requested um is not detrimental as compared to the affordable units 21 units that will be affordable. So I vote. Commissioner Wick
I vote I. Uh Commissioner Stamato I vote I. Commissioner Lipsky I. Commissioner Torres I. Commissioner Patel I. And Chairman Langston. So Mr. Heighten um made his assessment
and I uh I agree with his reasoning for the variances. Um my vote is going to be I tonight. Motion carries. All in favor. All right. Thank you. All right. So, let's call item 13. Case P2024-0203 is a preliminary and final major site
plan with C variances for 975 Newark Avenue. Let's give Mr. Harrington a break here. Huh? That's good. [Music]
Almost. It was 54, right? Okay. Good. Okay. Are we ready? Yeah. Okay. Um, council. Good evening, chairman and board. Jim Burke representing the applicant. I've
handed uh proof of notice to uh council. Uh, we can give him a minute to review that or I can continue. And it's chair received the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application 493 Newark. It does appear to be in
order. This matter was previously scheduled. 475. I'm sorry. 475. That's the LLC. Yeah, but it's listed. It's 475 to 493 is the address.
This had been previously listed. It was carried from the August 26th meeting with preservation of notice. We're going to mark this as A1 for purpose of the record. All right. Thank you, council. All right. Thank you. Uh before I introduce our architect, I want to just
point out this is a triangular piece of land and that does present certain challenges to the architect and the developer as you just heard before. Um, and I also want to point out the developers here in in the audience and um, several years ago, actually more
like five years ago, uh, this board approved uh, pardon me, the the zoning board of Jersey City approved a very similar uh, property um, uh, approval for a property at 33 332 Newark Avenue.
Um, that that one I'm holding the resolution in my hand. That one consisted of 18 units and same same uh challenge which was a triangular piece. So I only mention it because the developer has experience in this type of uh project. Um so
the uh so let's uh let's proceed. Um the architect is to my right and we can swear him in. Yep. Yes. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Thank you everybody. Uh so again as always I'd like to start with just
familiarizing people with the site uh as described. It is an irregular lot but um you know it's interesting in many ways because it because of its shape. It's obviously a very acute triangular lot kind of like an arrowhead is the way I like to describe it. It's a corner lot because it's at the uh junction of
Newark and Pavonia. Um but it's also incidentally a cap lot because it's the lot at the end of the block. And that's interesting because while there's no front or or sideyard uh setback requirements, there is a rear yard requirement which I'm which we're asking for a variance for which I'm going to
describe briefly in a moment. But just back to the property itself. So it's it's 4,652 ft which is uh 0.11 acres. It's in the NC1, the neighborhood commercial uh zoning district, but flanked on either
side across the two uh flanking streets. It's Mr. Burke, was there any was this all on the portal or do we need to mark it as apologies this will be uh A2 an exhibit A. Oh, these are Yes. Thank you, council. Number of slides 17.
Date or title? Uh 475 Newark planning board presentation today's date. Thank you. Okay. Um, so this leads me to my next slide, which is kind of a standing back slightly. Obviously, the side is
highlighted with the the red triangle, but again, it's bounded on both sides by R1, but this slide just really illustrates, you know, this isn't um Newark Avenue f or the neighborhood commercial further to the east. uh this uh the development that we see uh so so
predominantly so uh numerous projects approved down there is slowly trickling up the hill but uh to the left of the image we have 461 Newark which was done a number of years ago now but it's six stories 25 units uh across Waldo from that we have 473 Newark at four stories
14 units and then further up the hill beyond our site uh recently approved is uh 511 Newark five stories and 40 units and that's just really to show that there are other buildings ings of the type that we're proposing multif family in the five and six story range uh in
the immediate area. So on the property right now there's a one-story auto uh service garage or repair garage which we are proposing to uh demolish uh as part of this application. So in order to then move forward, I I just briefly want to show this which is
a an illustrative diagram because I want to talk about that rear yard setback that we're asking for the variance for because it's the cap lot. Uh there is no rear yard in this condition, but essentially there's a rear yard point and that is midway along the side
property line and the rear yard requirement is 15% of the lot depth. And so when you apply that in both directions both vertically and horizontally I guess shown in blue is the area that would be required to be removed from the footprint of the building to provide that rear yard setback. Now on a lot like this this
shape this configuration clearly that doesn't make much sense because it wouldn't be of benefit to anybody uh and in fact it would really hamper the ability to design an efficient footprint on this building. And so we're asking for relief from the rear yard variance
as a result. Um to briefly talk you through the plans, this is the first floor of the building. All the way on the upper right in shaded in yellow would be the main residential lobby. Now that's deliberately placed on Pavonia. Pavonia being the quieter of the two streets. And so it just gives a little bit more
privacy to the main building entrance. Um, but the main area in the white of the plan is an indoor parking garage, off- streetet parking for for 10 cars. Parking is permitted but not required. We're proposing 19 residential units. Um, and our client and ourselves agree
that uh in this area, again, you're not further down Newark. You're a little bit further away from downtown. The parking is certainly a big positive for the design of the building. Eight of these parking spaces are mechanical. uh one of them is an ADA space and the other space is a standard space. I will just point
out in addition to this the rear yard uh variances, we do have a number of variances that I'm going to talk about in the parking garage. The drive vial for a two-way drive is typically 24 ft. We're asking for relief of that at 22 feet. Now, it's for two reasons. One is obviously the the difficulty of the side
the the lot and trying to provide enough space for the other use, namely the retail use on the corner, but also because these spaces are used by the residents of the building, people who know uh where they're parking, they do it every day. Um there's familiarity there and we find typically from all of
the multif family residential buildings that we have done over the years, typically 22 feet is more than enough for people with knowledge of where they're parking to park. And so we're asking for relief of that. Um, further over the area in blue is a 678 square
foot retail space and that opens out onto a covered uh outdoor space uh to uh provide support or give a bit of outdoor space for that potential retail use. I'll just show you a quick rendering. This is kind of a street level view of the corner of the building. You have
that outdoor space on the corner. It has a low wall and a planter around it just to give it a certain sense of enclosure. Um and in the front door of the retail space is is accessed on the corner. The retail space also has doors uh on both street frontages.
Uh the building has a seller proposed. It's directly underneath the main residential lobby and its function is really just for utilities and a small amount of storage. Um not resident storage, more service or storage for maintenance of the building. This is the third second through fifth
floor plan. These floors are typical on each of these residential floors. You have four units. Um the biggest unit is the yellow unit, the one on the corner. That's a 1393 ft three-bedroom unit. And that has its own private outdoor space on the corner. Um
the red unit on Pavonia is an 118T two-bedroom. We also have in green a 530 uh square foot studio fronting onto Newark. And then at the back corner we have a 742 uh square foot one bed. So again that's typical until we reach the
top floor. The top floor uh we are reducing the interior footprint of the building because we're proposing outdoor spaces on each of the three corners. Uh I should talk about those outdoor spaces. They're private outdoor spaces for use by the units that obviously uh you know access them. But in addition to
that, I know and it was discussed tonight in terms of railings of these outdoor spaces there there's no space less or more than four inches obviously as per code. Also, there's a rounded handrail at the top so nobody could inadvertently sit a glass on it and you know it could step. uh we've we've taken
that into account. But in addition to as I described the rear yard setback and how we were enclosing or I guess taking back that 210 square foot per floor, that wouldn't have done us any benefit as a rear yard. I just want to point out that when you accumulate that up to up
through the permitted five floors, it comes to 1,50 ft. When you take that in addition to this the sixth floor footprint which we are asking for a height variance for the additional floor the uh the total amount of floor area is still below the 5,000 ft and as such the
ICO ordinance the affordable housing ordinance uh would not apply. Um obviously the building has elevator access to stairs for egress. It's fully ADA compliant. Um and we also have a trash room and a trash shoot to a compactor room at the first floor uh
directly accessible to Newark Avenue. So that can be brought for collection at the curb. Uh as I we're on that slide, I'll just for the record 19 residential units in total of which four are studios at 530 ft. Five are one bed, one bat
units ranging between 740 to 780 ft². Five are two bed two bath units ranging between 900 and,00 ft. And finally, we have five threebedroom units, two bath, uh ranging between 1395 and uh 1515 square ft.
So then I'll just take you up to the roof of the building. At the roof uh there is a small amenity space. That amenity space uh is the 10 ft permitted uh by the code. Um so that complies and that opens out onto a common access outdoor roof terrace which is uh set
back from the edges of the roof by 3 ft. Uh and you can see there's a substantial setback at the corner where we have extensive green roof. Um we are seeking two minor variances for the roof. The one is that rooftop appertinances are supposed to be set back 1 ft 1 in for every foot in height that they rise
above the roof. uh because of the shape of this in order to have some semblance of a usable space up there even though it's small on on one corner on the Newark side we are it's supposed to be at 10' 7 in or yeah 10' 7 in sorry 10'
10 in and we're 10' 7 so I think we're sorry what's that three inches off so um we're seeking uh I guess relief for that and then also there is a requirement that says that when you take all the bulkheads and the pertinances they can't be more than 20%. That includes
mechanicals. Now in this case we we we deliberately did not want to provide PTAC units on our facade. So we wanted rooftop mechanicals and just the amount of space they take up and when you consider access and maintenance um we're we're 1% over. We're 21% where 20 is
permitted. So we're we're seeking for a relief there. Um to the aesthetics of the building. Uh so this is a slide taken from New York Avenue. Hang on before you do that. Did you mention the uh any what happens with rainwater that's that's caught? Very good point. So, we are providing a storm water detention system that's
beneath the drive in the in the parking garage. Uh and there's enough capacity to meet the requirements of the city. Okay. In addition, we have street trees and we obviously have green roof. So, we do have quite a bit of green infrastructure throughout. Um so, this is the facade uh shot. Now, clearly, you
know, we have decided to take a more contemporary approach to the styling of the building. Um, I think the things that kind of say that or or that show that is really the fact that there's not a rigidity or an order to the facade. It's a very familiar pallet of materials. We have brick, we have
composite aluminum panels, but there's a kind of a playfulness there. The panels are staggered and random both on the vertical but also on the horizontal. And those horizontal lines kind of, you know, extend all the way and reach out into the corner. And that's kind of
although this lot has hardships in in some areas in terms of planning the interior, it also is kind of a really neat thing as an architect because it produces a very dynamic form. It's a very kind of shardlike building. And so we wanted to have a design that kind of celebrated that in a way. It's a very
key location. Everybody knows this site as they drive up Newark. And so we feel that the building should be somewhat iconic and should be recognizable. And that's what we're trying to achieve. Um the materials as I said are brick, aluminum on the on the uh rear facade. The facade which is on the property line
and presumably will be built up against at some point. It's a very similar composition but it's in uh opaque panels. It's in fiber cement board panels but in the same color palette as the street facads. Um we've done a a shadow study. Um essentially we found
that you know the shadow study doesn't have any real negative impact on the neighbors except for that uh you know property directly to or uh uh I guess what is it it's the west it's the northwest um which is currently a surface parking lot um presumably will
be uh built uh to the same level but if a building was built on that property those units would be fronting the street and would not be overshadowed or overlooked by our building anyway. Um, so this is just an image to kind of show that idea about that corner lot being uh almost shardlike. We want to celebrate
the acuteness of the angle. And it also helps to make the comparison to the building that Jim H talked about at the start of the presentation. Our client here previously developed and completed this project at 332 Newark, which again was on a very very acute angle corner.
Um, in terms of the design, we leaned into it here also. It was we felt it was very effective. we've gotten and many compliments. Our client was very happy enough to come back to us to do the this project. So, um it just also shows that given the constraints of the lot that construction uh is is obviously
possible, but it's can be efficient and done well when the right person is doing the job. And in this case, we're very confident that they are. So, that's the end of my direct. I'm happy to take any questions. I'm just going to add um u Mr. Kelly's partner attended a meeting with myself and the developer and the neighborhood
association. And this was some time ago. Uh but many of the changes you see uh in the revisions were reflective of comments received from the and input received from the neighborhood. Great. All right. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Uh I have no questions. Anybody else? Uh chair, I just have a quick question
in regards to the parking. Is it for the residential um end of it or the commercial? For the residential. Okay. Thank you. And the commercial there, the first floor, you you said you have an entrance on both sides, both streets. Yes. Uhhuh. Yeah. Do you want to see it on the plan? There's one on the corner.
Yeah. There's It has It has maximum flexibility in a way. There is the ability to enter the retail space from three sides. Okay. Okay. I have a couple of questions for you. Let's go. Let's start with the balconies.
Um you said that the balconies um on the top glass you have a round. Yes, there's a round so nobody can be sitting things on top of it. bottom part of the balcony is the glass goes all the way to the ground or how
it does. It sits in a sleeve which is on the balcony top surface. It's not set out to the front get rid of the rain water. Uh there well these balconies will all have drains within the area have drains. Yes. Cool. And that's on all the balconies
even the ones in the back. All right. Cool. Um next question. Your parking. Do you have a variance for you to said 22 feet? Uh yes, the drive width. That's the depth of what's the width. That's what I mean. The width. So from
the back of one space to the back of the space opposite is 22 feet. The width of the drive valve where where it would normally be 24 or under a lot of the redevelopment plans in the city right now 23 is more standard. So,
it's the width of the entrance into the drive into No, the the garage door. I am afraid I don't have What What is is Are you the width of the parking spaces? This the parking spaces are 18 ft deep
and they're 9 ft wide. 9 ft wide. Yeah. And so maybe that's the confusion because I describe the the the width of the parking space whereas I describe the depth of the sorry. Okay. So the wide area in the center the driveway.
Yes. The drive the drive aisle is 22 feet wide from the back of one car to the back of the car opposite is 22 ft. So that would be the So basically Okay. So we're not talking the width of the parking spa individual parking spaces. No, individual parks space are all
standard. Yeah. No, I I I know some place else that that they did that they made it minimum. Okay. And it's just people bumping into cars all the time. And then you mentioned that you got to be a good driver. And I'm like, okay. No, I didn't say that. Well, you said that.
No, what I was saying is that most people they park there every day and so they're good at it. It's just if you park at home in your own driveway, you know. Well, you ask my wife. I'm good at it very few times. Yeah. Tell me about it. Thank you. That's That's all I got. All right. Anybody else?
No. No. All right. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. We appreciate it. My pleasure. Thank you all. Going to note um our second witness is our planner. Uh we also have a civil engineer. He our civil engineer if if needed. And uh um the uh our traffic
expert uh is not here because of the holiday, but he did submit a report. Sure. I do. Carolyn Worstelle, welcome. Miss Worstell, good evening. Your license is current. All right. Current and good standing. Yes.
All right. Thank you. You're qualified. Okay. Um, so we're here for a couple of variances this evening. Um, I will jump right in. The first one is that and my my colleague did I thought a really good job of going through all of them. So I I try not to repeat what he said, but um
so we're here for a couple of variances. The first one being that minimum rear yard setback as was sort of discussed. This is kind of an irregular lot. You know, it's a corner triangular lot that's not really envisioned. It's not really addressed throughout the code. So
we end up having to, you know, to to ask for some relief for that. Um, we do have two front lines, one side lot line, and a uh rear yard point. And so that creates that unusual sort of little cutout in the middle. And I think as was
very eloquently shown and stated, it really doesn't provide any benefits to create that rear yard setback. The property adjacent to us to the north, that's their side lot line, and they're a through lot, right? There is no rear yard that we would ever be matching for
another building there because they're a through lot. They're going to build from front, you know, from street to street. So, we think that it's a better um layout. Um and it it's it would be a better condition to use that space for
this building to create the better internal layouts. Um, and we don't really think that there's any substantial impacts to light and air cuz as I said, whatever gets developed on that property in the future, that's their sidewall they're going to be building up against it. You know, they're they're not going to be trying
to create, you know, a spot in between, you know, the middle of of their lot. Um, so we we think that overall this is a better condition. Um, we are asking for height variance. Um the ordinance uh permits 5 stories 55
ft. We are proposing six stories 60 ft 2 in. Um overall this additional height um is less than the maximum permitted in the uh the zone. It does permit a height of
up to 64 feet for buildings that are completely nonresidential. Um, but when you look at this building, you look at where it's located. It's located on this really prominent corner. So, from an urban design perspective, we
really do think that this additional height is appropriate here. Um, you know, and it uh we don't see there's going to be substantial impacts in terms of that additional 5t of 6 in of height um in terms of uh buildings uh shadows
cast uh because again, they're really primarily falling on parking lots. building rooftops or adjacent streets. So, we we really don't think that there's going to be that substantial impact from that additional height. Um, we are requesting the minimum rooftop a pertinent setback variance. Again, I don't see a substantial
detriment here. It is for to the closest corner. The vast majority of all of that space meets that setback. We're asking for three inches, right? It's three inches. Um, so the the majority of that space is definitely meets the setback.
It's because we have this unusual triangular lot and we have these sharp angles that we end up having that small corner that's three inches too close to the facade. So we think overall um again no substantial detriment. You're really not going to have a substantial uh
visual impact from that uh uh for that uh rooftop aertinance. And then finally is the rooftop um coverage. And again, this is the the coverage. We're we're asking for additional coverage to allow for additional space for those mechanical systems. Um, and again, these
um are uh you know, allow for the the uh building to not have to have PTAC units. Um, and it will be appropriately screened on the rooftop. And so again, we think the aesthetic benefits here of providing, you know, those rooftop mechanicals outweighs any detriments uh
for the additional coverage. Finally, we're asking for that minimum parking aisle width um where it's 22 feet is for the parking aisle where 24 pe 24 feet is required. Um this is 10 10 off streetet parking spaces. Um we think
that this is going to be adequate for the limited number of vehicles that'll be utilizing the garage on a daily basis. Um so again, we don't really see a detriment here. Um I think overall this project advances the municipal land use law. um you know it's promoting that general welfare through the creation of
a appropriate mixeduse multif family building consistent with purpose A um it's providing uh setbacks that provide for adequate light air and open space uh consistent with purpose C um and I think really this is going to be a more desirable visual environment consist of
purpose I you know this is going to be a signature structure at this corner where right now it's a parking lot and onetory you know um car, you know, service station. So, this is really going to be that signature, you know, um, uh, architectural element
here for that corner. Um, and we are going to be providing new sidewalks, new curbs, uh, new street trees. You know, you're going to have a little bit of that open space at that ground corner for the commercial space. So, really, I think this creates that pedestrian
friendly corner that you really want to be seeing here. Um I think overall there's I don't see any substantial detriments to the public good or general welfare. Again it's an appropriate use in terms of scale and the uses uh for this site. Um it's
providing that new retail opportunity at a prominent corner and you know again the really the improvements here to the the um streetscape. Um and I don't see results in a substantial impairment the intent purpose of the zone plan or zoning ordinance. uh you know the project's consistent with the purpose of
the NC1 district which is to provide ground flooror commercial and mixeduse buildings to promote walkability and I think that's exactly what this project does. Um so I think overall the the um variances be granted and they meet both the positive and negative criteria and
that's the end of my draft unless anyone has questions. All right. Thank you Miss Worstell. I have no questions. Uh anybody else? No. All right. Thank you. So Mr. Chairman, u the hour is late. I do have the civil engineer here if any question is needs to be answered. Uh and
if not, then I'll conclude um uh our testimony. Okay, let's um Does anybody have any immediate questions for civil engineer? No, we'll keep them on deck just in case. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right, so at this time, let's open it up for public
comment. If anybody's here from public, please come on up. Good evening. K U L O W SK K I Three minutes, sir. I'm sorry. Three minutes. Thank you. Uh there's no public notice uh at this location again violates the
due process of law, the 14th amendment. Sir, next time you raise that, I expect to hear the case. So you've now said it every case. I'm referring to every hearing I want to hear the case. Yeah, this is about the case. Another issue I have
Supreme Court case, sir. Thank you. I will deliver it to you. Another I had I do not have a problem with the development of this property except the the extra parking garage. This is deadly intersection. It's been
known for years. It's on a big slope downhill. People driving like crazy. There's only one traffic line and a bike lane on uh Nurak side and people drive like crazy also on the Pavonia side. So
this is not suitable to have any more cars and entering right next like very close to the intersection of Pavonia and uh and Noric Avenue. So I request that it will be rejected just on this ground
on these two grounds. No public notice and uh extra parking garage. Otherwise, I have no problem with the with development. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else from public? Mr. Chair, I'd like to close the uh public portion. Second. All right. Motion is made and seconded.
Public is closed. Um Matt, this is yours. Um yeah, I really don't have much to add beyond the fact that um staff substantiates the accuracy and validity of both Miss Worstell's and Mr. Kelly's testimony. Um staff prepared a memo dated
August 22nd, 2025. When that memo, staff recommends uh five conditions. Um the applicant agree to those conditions. If the matter is approved, yes, the applicant agrees. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a motion to
approve case P204-0203 as presented to the board here tonight. Seconded. All right. Motion made and seconded for approval. Vice Chair, Dr. Gonzalez. I I mean, I think the variances requested again are dimminimous and they're they're called for in this situation again with a with a lot uh
size. And thank you for bringing 332 new work up because every time you I was looking at the picture, I was like, I think I've seen something like this before. And and um it's it's beautiful. I think you did an amazing job with the the lot size and um and I think it is
going to be iconic. That's a perfect little corner there. Um that that that building I think is really going to stand out. So um I vote I thank you. Commissioner Wick. I vote I. Commissioner Gangadan. Yeah, I think it's a great addition to
the neighborhood. Um the variances requested is uh not detrimental to the public. Um it's a very good looking building I have to say despite the um lot coverage. So I vote I. Thank you. Commissioner Patel.
Hi. Commissioner Torres. You know on um that lot there on Pavonia Street on that corner. Um there's a garage across the street that is always in business. There was a garage where this building's going to be at. always
had cars coming in and out of that lot on Pavonia Street. And then there was Ran's Ice Cream. We had always had cars coming in and out on the thing. So all my life I didn't see nothing on that corner but cars coming in and out. And I never seen it to be a hazard, you know,
to anybody in the community. So with that, um the fact that they did supply some parking spaces and stuff like that is a nice building. It looks more like a ship to me, but With that, I vote on Commissioner Lipsky.
Yeah, I agree with Eddie. It resembles a cruise ship. Quite frankly, the MV narrative being made by Storylines. I think it points in the right direction towards the Hudson so that when you're going east, you're thinking you're going to sail away. Uh I think for the kids at
Dickinson High School, it'll be a great reminder of the greatness that what can be achieved in our great city. and I uh look forward and it's one of the three transacts. You've got North Avenue, Montgomery, and Commun that goes east to west. And I think coming uh from
Palisade Avenue going east, it's going to be a really great uh visual uh to remind us and point us in the right direction. So, I vote I. Good job. Thank you. And Commissioner Stamato, I vote I. Motion carries. All in favor?
Oh, Chairman Langston, my apologies. No worries. No, you called it already. It's fine. And there's no P tax chairman. Yeah, I know. Um, yeah, I agree with uh I agree with uh Mr. Worstell's testimony
and um I I don't see any uh detriment to the community or the zoning plan. Um Mr. Kelly, great design. Um, I don't want to jump on the ship thing, but I I used to play laser
tag in a building that looked like that back in 1986. Um, I I want to say it was on Route 22, but I'm not positive. Don't quote me on that. The flag is flagship. The flagship. Yeah. So, it has a name.
See, there you go. So, uh, with that being said, my vote is I and, uh, thanks for bringing that memory back for me. I got to tell you, 30 seconds. I know the flagship used to have Denninsson's clothing where money talks and nobody walks and they used to do late night ads
on CBS radio and I was a kid. I was listening, you know, Beatles, all that stuff and fall asleep. Turned out they were all sending codes out to ships in the harbor to bring drugs in or not, depending on the the code words they used. Oh my god. Yeah. So the whole place was shut down.
They made more on one type of product than they did on the other. That was good night. Condition number six, no drugs. All right. Thank you. My family bought um their first computer at the flagship when it was the Whiz in
the '9s. Um if we're doing anecdotes about the flagship. Um and with that motion carries all in favor. All right. Thank you. Um Mr. Lean, Mr. Harrington, the time is over 10:05.
Uh, do we want to put an appearance on the record or can we just carry for you at this point? Um, there's no possibility I can start. So, I'm carried as old business. I would hear your appearance. That would be about it.
Okay. Um, then I guess we'll do that start. So, uh, let's call a case P2024-0236, preliminary major site plan with deviations for 660 Rose Street. Uh, good evening, commissioners. Tom Lean on behalf of the applicant. This is a
notice application. Uh, notice was posted on the city's portal. However, I will provide a copy to council for his review. Council, this is the same notice that was posted to the portal. This is the same notice. However, uh I renoticed for
tonight's hearing. In light of that, chairman um and receive the affidavit publication proof of mailing 660 Grove. It was published and noticed for this evening. Does appear to be in order A1 for the record.
Okay. Thank you, councel. Mr. I don't know if you'd like me to proceed with an intro or just request that this be carried to a date certain at this point. Let's request for carry at this point. Okay. All right. Um this is the second time uh we've we've gotten to the end of the night here. Um and we were next up.
I I I would ask if there's anything on for the next meeting. Um if not, I guess we will be forced to carry to October 28th, but I leave that up to the discretion of your board secretary. I um
[Applause] looks like you got 11 things on for October 7th according to the first five pages of tonight's agenda. I think we can do that. October 7th. Yeah.
There's no way. Yeah, we'll actually do October 7th. That would be great, especially since we started testimony. So, I I appreciate that. And we will be that. Okay. So, we're breaking our own rule. All right. Thank you, council. Thank you.
All right. Mr. Harrington, case P2025-0108. Um, German was today. This one if that can I get on October 28th? My I know my client can't I mean my architect can't make the October 7th.
Okay, we're not offering October 7th. It was just an exception for him. But October 28th does have PY Homes on it. So what's the next one? That would be okay. Um I'll have to look at the calendar.
It's November um 22nd, believe it or not, I believe. Don't don't quote me yet. One second. Um, I'm sorry. I wasn't I wasn't thinking to November already. I think I'll I'll still try the 28th and
see what happens. Yeah. Okay. All right. Makes it easier and and well, we didn't call the other one first, but obviously with preservation of notices and, you know, extend any timelines. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you, council. And I I have
the last also have uh item 16. Correct. Case P2024-0215 for 231st Street. Correct. Cam, do do you want to also do the 28th?
The 28th. Okay. I mean, both of these I know you hear it all the time, but they're they're quick. They're you know, we can get them out of the way in probably 10 minutes. Okay. We can about that. Yeah, I know. I'm gonna try to convince him to adjourn PY.
Okay. Thank you, council. Thank you. Let's move on to memorialization of resolutions, please. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to memorialize the following resolutions. I have nine today. Resolution number one of the planning board of the city of Jersey City. Applicant is 829 Bergen A LLC for a preliminary and final major
site plan approval with C variances at 829 Bergenav, Jersey City, New Jersey, block 13302.22. 22 case number P2025-000071 resolution number two of the planning board of the city of Jersey City
applicant Vasant Properties LLC for extension of final major site plan approval with 165-1693 Academy Street block 12308 that's 12 and 13 case number P2025-0135 third resol Resolution of the city of
Jersey City, case number P2023-000099. Applicant is 129 Logan LLC. Address 129 and 133 Logan uh LLC Avenue, New Jersey City, New Jersey block 102013
and 4. Decided Tuesday, August 12, 2025. Application for preliminary and final major site plan approval. Number four, resolution of the city of the plan the planning board of the city of Jersey City. um is case number P2024-224. Applicant is Carney JC LLC. Address is
220 222-228 and 230-236 Carney A, Jersey City, New Jersey, block 20902, lots 8 9 and 10 decided uh Tuesday, July 15th, 2025. This was an application for
a major subdivision approval. Number five, resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City regarding amendments to the Bates Street de Development Plan. Case number P2025- 027. Number six, resolution of the city of
Jersey City Planning Board, case number P2025-0028. Address 71 Crescent A and 10 Brinkerhoff Street, Jersey City, New Jersey, block 16902. Lots 31 and 39. decided on Tuesday, September 9th, 2025. Application for a
minor subdivision approval. Number seven, resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City. Applicant 111 Realy LLC property is at 111 Cen Street, Jersey City, New Jersey, block 13801.78 for major preliminary and final major
site plan approval and 1C variance. Case number on that was P2024-02. Hearing date, August 26, 2025. Number eight, resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City. Case number P205-0136. Applicant is Christian Via Nova. Address
at 178 Montichello Avenue, New Jersey City, New Jersey, block 16802, lot 67. Decided on August 12, 2025. Memorialized on September 23rd, 2025. This was an application for extension of existing approvals. And final resolution is
planning with the city of Jersey City is for approval and recommendation of amendments to the zoning map and land development ordinance regarding the reszoning of properties in around Route 139 and incorporation of the ICO compliance provisions. Second. All right. Motion made and seconded.
Roll call, please. Can Vice Chair Dr. Gonzalez. I. Commissioner Gangadan. Hi. Commissioner Wick. Hi. Commissioner Stamato. Yes. Commissioner Lipsky. Yes. Commissioner Torres. Commissioner Patel and Chairman Langston. Hi. Motion carries. All in favor to
memorialize resolutions. All right. Thank you. Uh executive session. Anybody? Motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. Second. All right. Thank you everybody.