I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Cam, do we have sunshine announcement?
Yes. Good evening, acting chair. Today is Tuesday, August 26th in the year 2025. This is a Jersey City Planning Board meeting with a scheduled 5:30 p.m. start time. And in accordance with the open public meeting act, notice of this meeting was given to the editor of the
Bergen record, L Espelito, and posted with the city clerk on August 22nd of this year. This meeting was also posted on the Jersey City Division of City Planning web page, and all distribution materials made available to the board were published and made available to the public. Thank you. Can we have the roll call,
please? Yes. Um, acting vice chair, Commissioner Torres. Yeah. Commissioner Stamato here. Commissioner Lipsky here. Doc Commissioner Dr. Desai here. And acting chair Gangaden
here. All right. We have five commissioners present. We have a quorum. Thank you. Can we swear in the staff, please? I see Matt, Joe, Matt, Ben, Eric, and Cam. You guys Thank you, Kim. Any correspondence?
Yes, chair. Um, we have under new business item 14, case P2024-0219, address is 115 Guiles Avenue for a preliminary and final major site plan
requesting to carry with preservation of notice to October 28th. And it was J. It's Giles actually. So that is uh carried with preservation of notice to October 28th.
Next it is item 18 on the agenda. It is case P2025-0108 a site plan amendment. Address is 6 uh 612 Pavonia Avenue. And they've requested a carry with preservation of notice to September 23rd of this year.
And then the very last item on the agenda that is item 19 case P2025- Z0027. It is review and discussion of amendments to the Bay Street redevelopment plan. Uh they have requested a carry with preservation of
notice to September 9th. September 9th. Yes. And that is the next regularly scheduled meeting. What is the second one? The second one is 18. 18. Yes. carried to September 23rd. And uh for the record, we've marked into
evidence the sunshine announcement as B1. Thank you. And that concludes correspondence. Thank you, Gam. Anyone from the public that is here for case
14 which is P 0 2024-0219 115 Gills Avenue is carried to October 28. If there is anyone from the public here for 18 which is case P2025-018
that is carried to September 23rd 612 Pavonia Avenue 19 which is case P2025-000027 is carried to September 9th if there is anyone from the public here for those cases.
Yes. I think it's worth saying that no further notice will be given. Yeah, there'll be no further not Sir, you're here for one of those cases. Okay. Which case are you here for, sir? All right. So, you got to come back on all three dates.
It's been carried to the to the dates that you just heard. Did you write those down, sir? Okay. Thank you. What date? Number 14. October 28th.
At this time, we'll go on to new business number eight, case 2025-00001, which is a section 31 and minor subdivision with variances. Address is 595 Norc Avenue, Jersey City.
Hello. Good evening everybody. My name is Britney Murray, acting corporation council for the city of Jersey City, representing the city as applicant in this matter. It was um a matter that required notice. I do have the notice packet. Would you like me to bring it up? Please, council. Thank you.
So, Madame Chair, this is the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application being brought forth by the city. It appears to be an order. We're going to mark it as A1 for purpose of the record. Thank you. Great. Okay. This is an
application. and we're dealing with block 8002, lot 1, 585 to 595 Newark Avenue. This is a subdivision application. Two things to note in the beginning. Um, this property is currently owned by the county. We do have an affidavit of ownership allowing
the city to proceed with this application for subdivision there. Um, I have with me Director Barka Patel from the city. She'll be speaking and testifying here. there were authorizing ordinances and resolutions passed by both the county governing body and the
Jersey City Municipal Council. Um so she will speak about those when she's giving her testimony. Um the entire purpose of the subdivision is that we want to subdivide the area to include um a vision for a park on one part of the
parcel. So this property is located in the Journal Square redevelopment plan. It's split between zone 9 parks and zone 6 preservation and it spans approximately 5.45 acres. Uh we do need a variance because the zone 6
preservation does prohibit um subdivision. And the other thing to note is that we did get a memo from the tax assessor that was included in what was uploaded that we need to change the designation of the lots before we sign everything.
The new designations 1.0 01 um is going to be the area that would be designated for the new future public park and then 1.02 will continue to house the U Brennan courthouse and continue um in the preservation zone. So we do need to note
that we did get that based on how the tax assessor reassesses and puts the new lot numbers. So at this point if I could offer director Patel to give testimony. Absolutely. And just for everybody in the public as well as the board, the Brennan Courthouse and the
administrative building at 595 is on one parcel. So the request by the city and the county is to create two parcels for the eventual construction of the park where the current 595 building is. So in
case anybody's wondering which piece it is, that's what we're talking about. It is one piece now and essentially they'd like to divide it but I'm sure the director will go through and 595 is currently occupied the administration building but it is um
there was the building of a new courthouse um right across the street. So the um idea is to shift everybody over and then the administration building would become empty and no longer needed and then we would continue um with the redevelopment there and into
a park. Okay. Hello. It's been a while. The whole truth. I do. Thank you. Hello, commissioners. Hello. Um, so the corp council covered a lot of
the major elements. You do have to state your name directly. Oh, I'm sorry. Burka Patel, director of infrastructure for Jersey City. Um the proposed subdivision map is on the screen and has been provided in the packet for everyone. You can see that
the long rectangular building that's on the left side of the screen. It is the Hudson County Administration building. Um behind that building is the associated surface parking lot and underground parking garage. So that's the area that we would uh seek to
convert into a public park. It would be an approximately 3.2 2acre park. We have done a number of community meetings and outreach and hired consultants to develop concept uh designs for the park and this would be the next step in
advancing both the transfer of the ownership so that the city could meet its obligations of demolishing the building, abating any environmental issues and then constructing the park itself. And then the agreements um between the city and the county are that
while the park would remain under city ownership, maintenance would be handled by the county. The um first ordinance that was passed by the city of Jersey City was in April 2022 and that was designating capital funding for the
design, construction, and construction management for the park. Later in February of 2023, the city passed an ordinance for the actual acquisition of the property from the county over to the city. And then the Hudson County
Commissioners passed a resolution in December of 2023, similarly to convey the property over to Jersey City. Any questions? No. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.
council. I suspect that we don't have any further testimony and we can open it to public at this point. Uh, no we do not. Thank you. At this time, I would like to open for public comments. You Yeah. Um, Councilman Biano, this issue
has been going on for the last three years. We'd like to get it over with. Uh, we understand there's some problems with the they built the new building too small. So, there may be some issues moving the people out, but let's get it started and get it over with the people in the community. The people in the
whole Journal Square area want the park. So, I hope you pass it. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public? Yes. Good afternoon. I do. state and give us your home address, please.
Mike Golovski, K U L O W SK K I 225 Liberty Avenue. Miss Gowski, you have three minutes. Yes. I would like to say I'm not opposing the park. I think it's a very good idea except my I have a problem ongoing for years. City has a policy of
not placing public notices about this hearing at the place. I'm I'm there every other day at this corner of of Central and Newark Avenue and at any given time there is no public notice of any new construction, of any hearing,
nothing. Why is this monkey business allowed to proceed in this city? It's violation of the 14th amendment. You have notices through Bergen record. Nobody reads it on the internet. Nobody reads it. But you can place on the
corner there right what's the problem to place any advertisement of any hearing at the place where which is involved in the hearing so I request that you you approve this but from now on you proceed
only after public notice is placed at the construction site where the proposed change will take place. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public? See, no one else from the public wishing
to speak. I move to close. Thank you, Ma. Yeah, if you want to come. Thank you, acting chair. Um, so staff prepared a memo dated August 15th, 2025. We also received um correspondence from the task assessor on this subdivision.
They asked that the the plat be updated to just switch the two future lot designations. So what you see on the screen here um the the left page left should be lot 1.01 and uh on the right hand side lot.1 I'm
sorry lot 1.02. Uh so the plat before signing should be updated with that change. And looking at this application um and expanding on the summary and testimony given um by the the by director Patel uh this application
requires a variance. Um staff believes that they meet the justifications for the C2 variance as uh given in the intro summary. Uh this is a site in two districts of the Journal
Square 2060 redevelopment plan in the parks district and the preservation district. The Brennan courthouse is going to be preserved by uh uh this. It's going to stay as is. Um and the park that's envisioned on the west half
of this property is going to be furthered by the granting of this subdivision. Uh the application furthers the objectives of the Journal Square60 redevelopment plan. It integrates open space into the area by incorporating a system of parks, plazas, and natural amenities. Provides for urban amenities
such as open space and entertainment that will attract new employers and a range of new residents to the area while sustaining existing neighborhoods. And uh we heard that it will um the people in the administration building are going
to be moving to the new uh facility. Uh and that building will be left obsolete. Um excuse me should be up now again. No. Uh so that is another goal uh or
objective of the redevelopment plan. with regards to justification for the C2 variance relief justation to so divide this property uh is reasonable um given that one of the zones is is a park um and the other one is preservation those
are two both being furthered uh the preservation zone as written doesn't allow for subdivision so on its face that's where the the variance lies um the variance however can be granted without substantial detriment to the and the variance will be not will not substantially impair the intent and
purpose of the zone plan. Again, the Brennan Courthouse is being preserved and not altered by this subdivision and the community benefit of the deviation substantially outweighs any detriment. The subdivision makes way for this public park. Staff recommends approval. Thank you. At this time, I would like to
entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve case P205. there 0001 as it was presented to the board tonight. Second. Second.
Acting vice chair Torres. Vice Chair. Uh I think this is uh really a great for that part of Jonah Square coming up North Avenue now. Um with all the new buildings and we get on top of the hill
and now we're going to see a park. Uh, and I remember when they built that building, uh, you know, as a going there as a kid, um, to the courthouse when it was first opening up. Uh, but it's going to be great to see a park there now with all the new construction that's going on
in the area and I think it's great for the uh, redevelopment plan. So, I vote I. Commissioner Stamato, I vote I. Commissioner Libsky. Yeah, just to echo Councilman Boiano's words, this has been
an ongoing uh process with the courthouse consortium. Orura Moss was at the council meeting last Wednesday to uh speak on it and director Patel, she has done a yoke person's job in engaging the
community not only with anecdotes but having professionals come to um the St. Joseph's um hall where or at the Brennan courthouse or at the anywhere in Journal Square there's been a very strong
community engagement. This is a park that will land in the center of uh Journal Square which is most needed and it'll be a very welcomed uh uh addition. So I vote I commissioner Dr. Desai. Yeah, there are
so many high-rise buildings and all the kids and everybody need a park there. So I I vote I acting chair Gangalan. Yeah. So I think the variance requested here is very um minimal and it's not a detriment. It's a it's a plus to the
community. Um having a park is something that adds a lot of value to the um community. My vote is I. Motion carries. All in favor on a motion to approve. Thank you. We're going to old business. I'd like to call in case P2025-0135.
Address is 173 Academy Street. Okay. Good evening, members of the board. Veronica from the law firm Connell Foley on behalf of the applicant for P2025-0135. Um we have a one-year extension request for you this evening which I did notice for and I have the original if I may
approach. Madam Chair, receive the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the request for the extension 165-169 and 173 Academy Street here in the city. It does appear to be in order. Mark it is A1 for the record. Thank you.
Thank you. So, uh again, we are here for one-year extension request. The applicant for this property uh obtained preliminary and final approval with deviations under case number P21-026. Resolution was dated August 10th, 2021. We then obtained a 2-year extension
under P2024-0105 by resolution dated August 20th, 2024. That extended our uh protections to August 10th uh 2025 this year. So our final extension request tonight, if approved, would take us to August 10th, 2026. The reason being is that this
client is involved with the um requests for the amendments to the Journal Square redevelopment plan, which would pretty significantly alter their project if those do go through. So, they're asking for an additional year to see how that all shakes out. Okay. Thank you. That's that's all you
have for us? Yes. Thank you. Okay. I would like to ask the board if they have there is any questions. I'd like to open for the public. Is there anyone from the public? Mike Kulowski K L O W SK K I 225 Liberty.
Mr. Kowski, you have three minutes. Yes. Under the fifth and 14th amendment, there should be a public notice placed at the site at uh 173 Academy. Never was. And it's a policy of the city to allow developers not to place public
notices. New Jersey statutes annotated does not do not replace public notices under fifth amendment due process of law. I have a right and everybody else in the city to know when developer
applies for variance here or any changes. Therefore, I request that this will be will be tabled and proper notice public notice be placed at this site so people have a right to know at this
place in the vicinity of 173 Academy. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing nobody else in public, I move to close the public portion part of the meeting. Second. Thank you. Public is closed. Um, Mr.
Lumpy, is there any way you can comment on that public notice issue here? Because it seems like every case that I call it will be the same issue. The gentleman is free to feel the way he wants. The notice is provided in accordance with the law. There is nothing that requires the notice to be
placed at the property. And with respect to the fifth amendment of the US Constitution, I don't know what the reference is. Thank you. At this time, I would like to entertain a motion. I'm sorry, Matt. Um, staff just asks that um all
conditions from previous resolutions continue to apply. Yes, the client would agree to that. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve case P 2025-0135
as it was presented to the board tonight. Second. Acting Vice Chair Torres I. Commissioner Stamato I. Commissioner Lipsky I. Commissioner Dr. Desai I. And acting chair Gangadan
I. Motion carries. All in favor. Thank you. Thank you. Here for the next one too though. You are. I'd like to call in KP2025-0153. Address is 306 Newark Avenue. It's a um
extension site plan extension. Thank you again. Good evening, members of the board. Veronica from the law firm Connell Foley on behalf of the applicant for 306 to 3010 Newark Avenue. Uh we are here again for a one-year extension
under P2025-0153. We similarly provided notice for this application if I may approach. Madam Chairman, receive the affidavit nose proof of publication with respect to the application at 306 to 310 Newark Avenue here in the city. It does appear
to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for purposes of the record. Thank you. You may proceed. So again, we are here for a one-year extension. Uh the applicant here obtained preliminary and final approval with variances under P20-116
approved by resolution dated July 20th, 2021. We thereafter got a 2-year extension under P23-102 resolution dated August 8th, 2023. That extended our statutory protections to July 20th, 2025 this year. Uh if
approved, this extension would then take us to July 20th, 2026. Uh the reason being in this one our applicants um experienced some delays in getting their demo permits with the review through historic which I'm now helping them work through. Um so they are asking for an additional year to be able to finalize
that process. Thank you. Any comments from the board? No. I'd like to open for the public. Is there anyone from the public? Mike Kulowski. K U L O W SK K I
have three minutes. Fifth Amendment due process of law. We have the right to know what is going on in our city. There's a plentiful case law about placing public notices at the construction sites that cost almost nothing developer to do
so and and absolutely nothing nothing for the city to require developer to do so. So what's the point? Well, the point is to hide from the public what is going on in the city and allow people to challenge it. So, I'm requesting that this will be denied for the sole reason
that there was no public notice placed at this specific site. And by the way, I'm suing the city over the very thing, not placing notices at construction sites about the proposed changes. So, what's the point? Can somebody explain
what's the reason developer never placed the public notice at the construction? Because the law does not require that, sir. It does. It Okay, sir. a supremacy clause of the Constitution. New Jersey statutes do not supersede the Constitution. End of the story.
That's definitely not the end of the story. Google it. That's how you do legal research. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else from public? Seeing anyone else from the public wishing to speak, I move to close. Thank you, Ben.
Staff recommend. Staff recommends that all conditions of approval remain in full force in effect and staff recommends approval of this motion. Client would agree to the prior uh conditions of approval. Thank you. At this time, I would like to um ask for a motion.
Chair, I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to make a motion to approve case P 2025-0153 as it was presented to the board tonight. Second. Acting vice chair Torres
I. Commissioner Stamato. Hi. Commissioner Lipsky. Hi. Commissioner Dr. Dai. I. Acting chair Gongadan. I. Motion carries. All in favor. Thank you. Thank you all. At this time I would like to call in
case P2025-000071. Address is 829 Bergen Avenue, New Jersey City. Sure. Chuck. Okay. Thank you. Uh for the record, Charles Harrington of Connell Foley uh on behalf of the applicant. Um this matter was uh before the board or
started before the board uh on July 15th wherein we presented uh testimony with regard to the civil engineering and architectural. Uh tonight uh and notices were were obviously preserved because it's carried. But tonight we have uh our
traffic engineer and our and our professional planner to testify. But um I would note before we begin I think I believe all the commissioners were present except for Commissioner Torres at the July 15th hearing. So council if he could I believe that is correct. Uh,
and um I did um read the transcript and watch the video of the pre the meeting um prior to the last August 12th meeting. So I am You were ready on August 12th.
I was ready on August 12th. Yeah. Thank you. So just maybe as a reminder of of the project before you before I I jump in, it is uh a proposed 11story building with 77 uh residential units of which
10% will be affordable. So at 7.7 rounds up to eight uh affordable units. uh it is similar uh in in uh size and scale as to the project that was approved by this board in in 2024. Uh there is a new
owner uh of the property. Uh also the zoning changed since the last uh proposal where parking is no longer required. So that is really the crux of of the project before you tonight. The changes are that you now have um no parking within the project. Same number
of units, same bulk. Although now the affordable units, no, it's no longer 5%, it's 10%. And you're going to have uh retail on the ground floor instead of a parking ramp uh that cuts across the sidewalk. Uh we are uh requesting the
variances with regard to the minimum lot lot area and the lot width. uh those are hardship variances and that those are the existing conditions. Uh those were approved as part of the last approval. Uh we are also requesting a rear yard
setback now as a result of the zoning um because it changed same same building but now we would require a rear yard setback under the new zoning and uh for relief on the permitted rooftop coverage. So, with that kind of um
recount of of the project, um I'll move right in unless the board has any questions uh with our traffic engineer just to address, you know, any, you know, concerns even though there's no parking. Thank you. Good evening.
Good evening. Sorry. I do. Sure. It's Nicholas Kennedy. Ke y Mr. Kennedy, have you testified in front of this board before? Not in front of this board. many others in New Jersey, but I haven't had the
pleasure of being in front of Jersey City yet. Okay. You want to give us a brief um history of your background? Sure. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. My license is current and in good standing. I hold a bachelor of science and civil engineering from the University of Hartford. I prepared over 300 traffic
studies throughout the state and have qualified as an expert in the field of traffic and transportation engineering in front of over two dozen boards throughout the state. Thank you. You're qualified. Appreciate it. Okay, Mr. Kennedy, uh, just to begin, you did prepare a a report in connection
with this project. Is that correct? We did. Okay. Can you uh, you know, give the board the benefit of your expert testimony with regard to the traffic conditions at the property, uh, and and any reference to your report?
Sure. So, again, our office prepared a traffic impact letter report that was dated April 7th, 2025. And just for kind of a brief background on the site itself, um again the site's located along Bergen Avenue. Bergen Aav uh provides one lane of travel in each
direction. Has about a 12T um striped median in front of the site and then a two-way bike lane on the opposite side of the um on the opposite side of the property. So essentially you have a southbound travel lane, a 12-oot striped median, a northbound travel lane, and
then a two-way bike lane going from our property across the street. Uh for a little context on the area itself, the site's located about a 5 to 10 minute walk from Journal Square and the Journal Square PATH station. Um it's located about um 5 to 10 minute walk
from nine different NJ Transit bus routes, generally taking you throughout different parts of Essex and Hudson County. Um again, this is a very a very walkable area. There's multiple retail, restaurant, uh there's a pharmacy nearby, some local grocery markets, um
multiple churches. So, you know, other than the different um transportation routes, buses, the path, uh it's also a very walkable area. Um we are providing uh bike parking on the site, both indoor and outdoor, and I think that bodess
well with the uh two-way bike lane that's provided along Bergen Avenue. So, again, this all taking all this into account really um plays into that this is a site that a resident might not necessarily need a car. Um again the the changes from the previous site plan are
that we removed the access we removed some of the or the parking that we were providing on the site. Um but when you look at this area it's one that an overwhelming majority don't use a single single occupancy vehicle to travel to work. Over 80% of people don't use a car
to get to work and over 50% of people in this census tract in this area don't own a car in general. So, that's really just to give a sort of a background on the area itself that's directly surrounding this property. Uh, again, not to get too into it on
some of the changes, but we're providing 77 units. That's consistent with the uh the prior approval for the site. And then the big change is that we're removing the access and parking. Um, also the building is slightly set back from the property line. I think this is a benefit. It provides, you
know, kind of a wider um pedestrian area. That's about 20 ft from curb to the front of the building. So, at least with the short frontage we have, you do have a wide area for pest for pedestrians to maneuver um along our site frontage.
Uh moving on to what actually changed about the project. Again, it's really it comes down to the access and the parking. Um starting with the access, um again, we we fully removed it, so there will be no cars going into or out of the site directly into our property. And I
think when you look at this, you're you're looking at a safer condition along Bergen Avenue. Obviously, you don't have vehicles interfering with other vehicles trying to get into and out of the site. You're als you you also have vehicles not interfering with pedestrians walking along Bergen Avenue.
As the site was designed before, you had to come up the ramp from the garage, uh see a pedestrian, see a car, and then turn out of the site. Really the same thing coming in. And what we're doing by removing the access is removing any conflict points with just not only vehicles but also the pedestrians
walking uh along that site frontage. Uh moving on to the parking. Again, I I think I kind of explained this, but we're located within 5 to 10 minute walks of both the path and multiple NJ Transit bus routes. This is an area that again has an overwhelming majority of
people who use public transportation, whether that's the bus, whether that's the path. over 50% of people don't own a car based on the latest census data. So, I I think you're looking at an area where residents don't necessarily need a car and residents might seek out a place
where they don't have to have a vehicle. Um, obviously, there's other opportunities within the city where you might be able to park your car if you do feel like you need one. But, this is an area that's very well um equipped for people who commute to work via other modes other than a single occupancy
vehicle. Um, just kind of as a conclusion, the project from a traffic and transportation p perspective in my professional opinion is safer. We removed a driveway on Bergen Avenue um and removed any conflicts with residents or other vehicles. And again, just to
get back to the parking, this is a site that does not require parking. that was changed when the ordinance changed and likely contemplated because of all the different options for public transportation because of the walkability of the surrounding area. Um and again just to to really understand
this is an area that somebody who is living in this building would not necessarily need a car to do their you know daily um commute to work or daily activities. Uh any questions from the board?
No. Okay. Then I'll I'll move uh along with Miss Horste. Thank you. Good evening. Good evening. I do. It's Carolyn Worstelle. W E L.
Morell, is your license still current? It is in good standing. It is current and in good standing this evening. Thank you. You may proceed. Thank you. Um, so, uh, I'm here again to to, uh, sort of close out, um, the the direct
testimony on this application. Um, as, uh, Chuck mentioned, you know, this is this is a project that was previously approved, um, on a very similar project was approved on this site back in May of 21st of 2024. That application was very
similar, 11 stories, 77 dwelling units. Um it had 5% affordable or four units uh with 20 parking spaces and it was approved under the CBD district. That district has since been discontinued. It doesn't exist anymore. Um and under that
CBD district, that project was required and was granted variances for minimum lot area, minimum lot width, and minimum front yard setback. Fast forward to today and to the current like the current application. This is a new application um because we removed
that parking. But other than that, the the bulk of the building, the the number of units, those are all basically the same as what was previously approved and granted. Um we're still 11 stories, still 77 dwelling units. Uh but we now
have increased the number of affordable units from 5% to 10%. So that's now eight affordable units. Um and when we removed those parking spaces, there were those changes to the seller. Um you know, we were allowed able to add more
residential storage and when we removed the the need for that ground floor space for the drive access, we were able to add over a thousand square feet of commercial space. So, we think that that really, you know, it creates a a a better facade and a better pedestrian
experience for this particular building, this particular site on on u uh Bergen Avenue. On the upper floors, there were just very minor changes to the facade. Uh we did actually increase that front yard setback. Um we had um some very
minor changes to residential layouts um to address affordable housing requirements. We removed uh some rear yard balconies um and some changes to the roof deck layouts. Um and then we were also able to now add a street tree because we removed that driveway. So all
in all, it was very some very minor changes to this application that resulted from from the removal of that parking. Um today this property is now zoned in the neighborhood commercial district 3 NC3. Um it has uh with that
change uh we we still need that lot area and lot width um variances. Uh but now instead of a front yard setback, we need a rear yard setback. Um so we now with the project as approved, it is conforming front yard uh with a minimum
of 15 feet measured from curb to the building line. So we are conforming with that. Uh but now we need a rear yard setback. um under the CBD district there was no requirement for rear yard setback. Now there is um so that's why
we we need that uh variance. Um getting into those the positive criteria um looking at the minimum lot size and lot width. We look at this as a a C1 a hardship classic hardship. Um the subject property has a lot size of 6,841
square ft where a minimum of 10,000 ft is required for all uses. Um this lot property this property has 40 feet of width where a minimum lot width of 100t is required in the CBD or in this uh N
in the new uh NC3 district again for all uses. Um we we can't be compliant. we are have buildings on either side of us. Um so there really is no opportunity for additional land to be acquired in order
to become compliant. Um and there really is no uh other oper you know there are no other uses. This is the minimum requirement for any use in this district. So uh really without the variances being granted there is no use
that is allowed at this this property. Um and again this is this is exactly the same situation we were in um under the previous application and again those variances were granted. Um and so we hope that you feel the same that that this is a hardship and and can be
granted again. Um moving on to that minimum rear yard setback. Um so the the new NC3 district requires a minimum rear yard setback of 15%.
Um we are proposing a temp a zero foot uh rear yard setback um along approximately half of the rear wall and then we are sort of setting in and providing a five foot setback along the remainder. So we we are sort of setting
back a portion. Um this uh rear yard setback at zero feet is consistent with the previously approved structure which was at zero foot. Um because at that time the C uh C CBD district there was
no rear yards requirement and and so we were conforming. Um the uh there's an existing structure on this property that does have a zero foot rear yard setback. It's for a one-story garage. Um so the lot currently has uh
you know there's no in increase in impervious coverage as a result of this uh variance being granted. Um and uh but we are going to be providing a little over over 2,000 square feet of green roof which will help again to
mitigate uh coverage. Um this setback is consistent uh with building depths uh on some of the adjacent residential structures including the Madrid which is to the south of us. Um and in terms of light and air impacts directly to the rear of us is a uh cemetery.
uh we will have uh some shadow impacts uh to that cemetery in the morning hours. Um but again these are consistent with the setback the the shadow impacts that were um on that under that previously approved project. Um
I don't see there's really any substantial detriment. Um you know it's very similar to that the impacts previously approved. um we are with this triggering the ICO and that and that's how we get to that 10% and those additional um affordable housing require
or the additional four units of afford of housing. Um and uh so I I think that here we are um there's not really a substantial detriment and we are providing the benefits of again that additional affordable housing and and the green
roof. Um and then finally we are uh this is sort of a new one uh is a request for rooftop coverage. Um so the the LDO permits 20% of rooftop coverage.
Um we are proposing about 44%. Um and that has to do with um how we're providing the mechanical equipment on this pro proper uh project. Um the facade in the building has designed so not to have any PTAC units. So we do
need additional mechanical equipment on the roof. Um and so we need that additional coverage in order to be able to u put the mechanicals necessary for all of the units uh to be on the roof. Um they won't be visible uh from the
street. they are set back um in con uh compliance with um the rooftop pertinent setback requirements in the LDO. Um so I think there the the benefit which is the visual of no P tax outweighs the need for that additional
coverage. Um I think this project is advancing the purposes that municipal land use law. Um it's an appropriate use. It's uh you know a new now it's a mixeduse building. It's got ground floor commercial and residential above um on Bergen Avenue
which is very much in proximity to the Journal Square area. And so this is really a a use uh and development style that's consistent with the character of Bergen Avenue. Um we are going to be uh providing the with uh those eight uh eight affordable
units. Um you know we are uh continuing to provide an adequate light air and open space uh with the by maintaining the setbacks that are consistent uh with the surrounding area and consistent with the previously approved project. Um we
are uh creating uh appropriate uh space for residential and commercial uses uh consistent with purpose G and uh promoting that a desirable visual environment consistent with purpose I.
Um you know this is taking what is um you know a one-story commercial garage with a with a sort of a driveway um and we're going to be turning this into a new um a multi- mixeduse multif family
building that's really consistent uh with the the development that's happening here in this neighborhood and in in Journal Square in in general. Um I don't see this resulting in a substantial detriment to the public good or general welfare. Again, we're we're sort of replacing uh
you know that that sort of uh existing uh commercial building with a new attractive mixeduse multif family building. Um, we are going to be providing new curbs, new sidewalks, a new street tree, um, and removal of an existing curb cut. Uh, so overall, this
I think improves that pedestrian safety along this busy corridor. Um, it's going to meet, uh, current building code standards, um, and provide, um, you know, uh, improvements in storm water with, uh, you know, that, uh, additional
2,000 ft of green roof. Um, I don't see this being a substantial impairment. to the intent and purpose of the zone planner zoning ordinance. Um, it's consistent with the purpose of the NC3 district, which is to foster the development of a vibrant and accessible uh citywide activity district that is a
center of commerce and civic activity. Uh, function as a local and regional destination for business, retail, education, government services, entertainment, and transportation. um and it contains numerous residential, institutional, government, public uses in a high intensity urban context. Uh so
I do think that this building really is consistent with the intent of that sort of highintensity urban context. Um so I think overall this project can uh those variances can be granted and that both the negative and positive criteria have
been met. If anyone has any direct questions, any questions from the board? Okay, thank you. Okay, then that would complete our
presentation to the board. Mr. Harrington, are all your witnesses here this evening in case anybody has questions? Yes, we do. We we have um our architect and and our civil engineer. Okay. Appreciate I had a not I did have
a question for the architect. Um just to be cl I want to clarify something that I've caught very good. Okay. And just for the record uh the architect that testified at the first hearing was Amed Ara. He's he's not he's out of the country tonight. So this is
his partner. So if he'll get sworn in Well, he should be able he should be able to or even the staff might be able to answer my questions. Oh, I'm sure I'm sure he can. Just for the record, I wanted to have him uh sworn in and uh and um qualified. Good evening.
Yes, I do. My name is Ephraim Gabriel. Uh E F R A M. Gabriel is G H O B as in boy r i a l. Mr. Gabriel, is your license current? Have you testify in front of this board before? I have and uh my current my license is
current and outstanding. Yes. Sure. All right. Um I just had a um well I was listening to the video of the previous hearing um at the planning board meeting that I wasn't at. Um the architect
mentions something on the building to the left when you're looking at the property face on the property to the left that there is a one in gap in between the property. So, when I'm looking at the drawing,
I can't tell if that is just a um the drawing or is there a 1 in gap in between the existing building and the building that you're going to build. So, uh around the first uh I believe it's around the first 50 ft of the
property, there's about a 1 in gap which gets wider towards the end of it uh to about maybe 6 in. I I've been there and I looked at it. Why would we put a 1-in cap? No, the 1-in gap is on the neighbor's
property, not not our property. You're Oh, yeah. You You mean and it's one inch our property. No, you're going to put a building up against another building with a 1-in gap in between them. Is this is what I'm understanding. So, part of this is for
the question then is how do you maintain that? How do you prevent water damage from going through there? How do you how is it sealed at a 1 in gap? And well, we got to look at this as a 20, 50 year
project, you know, something that's, you know, there another 80 years, not something that's built right now. You right now there is no water damage, you know, but what happens in the future? And um so is there any way of sealing
that where that building meets that there is not a 1-in gap in between that's open to any elements cuz it seemed that's what he said. So to clarify the gap that I mentioned
um it's mostly on the property next door the Madrid. So, you know, their wall is is set a a little bit further from their property line on our building. Um, it's mainly resulted from the SOE uh that we
are anticipating. Um, so just because we're going to have to, you know, drive down some piles. Uh, I guess, you know, that's that's the reason why that uh gap wind up with a one gap. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, I understand that. Okay. So
then um maybe with staff or with um with because the building was built many years ago. Sure. Okay. So the owner of that building is not shouldn't take the hardship of
sealing that. You know, you you're building a new building. His buildings existed. Mhm. Um, if there's some type of agreement you can make, I think it would be to his interest to have that sealed that there's no
problems and I think it's best to your interest. Sure. Because like I'm said, like I'm saying again, 20 years down the line, 40 years down the line, what do we do with that when something is damaged, there's no repair, there's no fix it.
Sure. You know, so um just something to look at. I it caught my attention when I was looking at the transcript and I was looking at it and it just caught my attention. So, um maybe we're speaking with the owner of the building and
seeing somehow when you seal the building's roof what you could do to prevent that from being I think it's a very valid point and we can for sure communicate and and uh deal with that. Yeah, that's the only question I have. So we yeah we we could as a condition of
approval agree to pursue that with the adjacent property owner. We don't have any right to build on their property but we could absolutely pursue it. I know my client is in discussions with them already. They they have an agreement in place for access uh during construction
if if this were to be approved or ultimately if the prior project was was built. So they they already have a line of communication open. Okay. that. Thank you. No problem. Thank you. Any other questions from the board?
Yeah, just uh to council lamp. If just so for clarity for the public more so than even on the record, if this um proposal goes forward and it's um declined, uh there is a current plan for
a similar uh type uh building for that parcel. Is that correct to say? Yes. So, what was previously approved by this board, I believe it was in the spring of 2024, is a valid approval.
That approval has not been touched by this application. And despite what a lot of people believe the law provides, you can have more than two, more than three, more than four. There's no limit on to how many valid approvals you can have
affecting one piece of property and then ultimately choose from whatever has been approved which one you're going to build. So, uh this application does not abandon the prior approval by by the applicant. And yet, if it's approved, it would
supersede that one. If it were to be approved uh or if the board were inclined to put forth a resolution, I suspect that it would include a condition that the other approval is deemed abandoned and no
longer valid in full force and that the applicant is asking to go forward with with this project. Is that correct, Mr. Harrington? I I agree uh with councel. Thanks for the clarity.
At this time, is there any other one to testify? No, that that concludes our presentation. Okay. Thank you. At this time, I would like to open for public comments. Fell asleep. All I got to say is I can't believe any
one of you would believe that a building this size is not going to have any nobody's going to have a car. come to my neighborhood where I live and see the dra the disaster every day with all the people in those big buildings in Journal Square parking on Magnolia Avenue,
parking on Chestnut Street, parking on Newark Avenue. That is the biggest BS I've heard in a long time. And the gentleman who got up and spoke, I guess he's not from Jersey City and doesn't know anything about Jersey City. All right. First of all, the city did not do
a traffic study there. They did their traffic study. That area is horrible with traffic, especially since they put in the bike lanes. All right. We have a demolition problem there because if are you aware of the church? That church is
one of the busiest places in the city of Jersey City. And kids are out there. Loads of kids. Nothing has been done to protect the people or the of the church while they're doing this construction. All right. And uh all I could say is
that this is wrong. There has to be parking. They have to have a park in the garage and the people because that is absolute BS to say nobody in that building is going to have a car. And I feel sorry for the church. That church is one of the busiest, nicest churches
in Jersey City. And Father David has been a friend for years. And believe me, I wish uh I wish you take into consideration the church and they have to have parking and they have to do other regulations that have to go along
with what uh you know the traffic study to sit by the city. All right, Councilman, just one. Yeah, you know this uh 6,800 square ft with 77 apartments, that's
such a small space and they have 11 stories and that Bergen Avenue is so small. You know I pass by there every day and you know when you pass by there is one parking here, one parking and two cars to go. So where are they going to
park the cars? Are they going to make sure that none of them have a car? You can't do that. All right, hold on. Hold on, commissioner. Hold on. Councilman, let's clear the deck. There's no parking requirement with this project. The
council passed an ordinance where parking is not required. Councilman, I didn't vote for it. Okay. I didn't say whether you voted for it or not, but the council passed that, not this board. So, this board doesn't have anything to
do with parking at the site. They're not asking for a variance for parking. They don't need any based on the ordinance from the council. We don't have any jurisdiction to address parking. But you know what? to the councilman's
point and what I think he's speaking to I will never in try to put words in your mouth council Ojiano is that he just stated that while it was a approved by the council that he voted against it and
his constituents which I'm one of um he fundamentally has a problem with this because it doesn't have parking is that correct rich yes there's no question that's the council min I get that. And so and so long story short, they're asking for a variance
which we don't have to approve, but not for parking. The variance is not tied to parking commissioner. So it's not fair to say anything differently. It's not fair. But no, it may not be, you know, in life isn't fair. But at the end of the day,
if uh if that is a concern from the community, it may not be borne out in the way the council approved the the plan, but you know, again, this is an as of right application that we're hearing. It's asking for variance. So,
yeah, the original building was supposed to have parking. Yes. When they sold the building to this new owner, they changed it. And believe me, uh, that is such a I agree with all of that a lie when they say nobody's going to have a car. As I
said, come to my neighborhood. It's a disaster. And we're sick and tired of it. We're sick and tired of these buildings being built. And nobody cares about the residents in the area, the one and two family homeowners. And it's about time. And the things are going to change, believe me.
Thank you, Councilman. Again we are in public's comment section. Good evening. The truth the whole truth. I do a t a l 59 chestnut street alington New
Jersey. I'm a deacon of creation for San Georgia church. Thank you. You have three minutes. Yes. uh for respect for our commissioner I want to just speak about the barking not for the church I'm a community
leader of Jersey city I go visit people to serve the people around the church so it's too hard to bark in anywhere anywhere around this area I want to just
treat the resident of uh Bergen Avenue as you treat uh manor area section. Last last meeting, the word from the lawyer, the word from the engineer, they make project there. Same
lawyer, same engineer, they do the project here. They say we not supposed to do barking because the zoning is changed. But we listen to the resident. less number of the floor, less
apartment, less traffic in Manor area than Bergen Avenue. So I'm not speak about Barkin. Barkin is be the city problem. But the the planner he not want to take the Barkin because he want to
give you 10% for Ferber houseer. He want to save money because digging and make this parking cost him a lot of money. So only he looking for business. He don't look for the resident around.
So I consider you to put consideration to treat trade uh Bergen Avenue resident as manner section please. Thank you. Thank you. tonight is going to be the whole truth. The truth. I do.
Hi everyone. Thank you for spending the last week. Pam, you have three minutes. Oh, he have to state your name. Pam Andes, 191 Van Horn Street. And they have to swear. Okay, you're good. Um,
no, I forgot. No. Okay. Um, just some notes from the councilman. um a lot of his meetings um he has been asking for parking uh amendment uh and he's told by city planning that as licensed
planners they cannot require parking in the journal square60 redevelopment plan. So I'm just letting you know the fight for parking is real but we're constantly told no. So if there's another way to do
that, we would like to do that. Um before I started working with Councilman Bojano, he and a group of residents during pandemic formed this development watchdog group. The goal of the development watchdog group is to examine
density, height, parking, sunlight, and any changes that would destroy or complement their neighborhood. Below are some of their So here are some of their comments. The residents on Bergen Avenue, Highland, Decalb, and Vroom have
been complaining about parking. We get all of those calls. Developers really need to work with the community. The councilman has been requesting that meetings with the community and the developer be mandatory and not a
courtesy. for two years. The former developer or the former owner of this property met with residents in the community. Council President Joyce Waterman was there. Council person Meera Prince Array at the
time was also there. And for two years, we had all of these meetings. They were not lovely. But at the end of those two years, the the developer and the community had an agreement and that was to put in onsite parking for residents
because everyone is tired of fighting each other over street parking. The councilman also spoke with a traffic engineer who could not be here and is requesting to do a traffic study that they are requesting that the Jersey City
Municipal Code 345-17 requires a traffic impact assessment be done on all major site plans and they they see this neighborhood this is a major site plan. This has been the main
concern for all of the residents. Other concerns are height, public aesthetic. If you look along the street, the proposed building does not complement the church. There's also a historic value. The this location is the site of the former Raymond Glass Company, which
is described as the oldest glass company in New Jersey that is still operating. So before demolition occurs, please take photos, video of the existing glass
ceiling at 829 Bergen before demolition. There has also been a fire at this site. I'm hoping one of the residents will talk about that and it affected the church next door. Commissioners have legal counsel. Residents would like a
public legal counsel. So, the councilman is working with his legal counsel and to make these improvements, including public notice, be physically posted on the site. He just submitted that. Note,
the councilman also wants well, not the councilman, but everybody, the development watchdog group thinks you should treat these applications like a murder case. The burden of proof is on the developer. If there is just a thread of doubt on this
application, vote no and ask the developer to work with the community. Thank you so much. Um, Chair Gangaden, before the next commenter, could I just um respond to some just because uh Miss Andy's quoted
our land development ordinance. Absolutely. Um so 345.17 requires that the developer furnish an assessment of traffic um which the developer did. Um their traffic engineer submitted a report um that's been available to the public and their
traffic engineer also testified to the contents of that report. The city is not required to perform their own assessment. They just validate the assessments done by the applicant. Um and also just as a further reminder that
the municipal land use law um creates objective standards for how to evaluate a variance request and um that has to do with the preponderance of positive and negative criteria. This isn't criminal court. There is no uh re it's not like reasonable doubt or
anything like that. Um, I just wanted to make sure um the board has um understood the facts on hand and understands the responsibilities. Thank you. All right. Next. Hi.
The whole truth. Yes. I swear I'm Moren Nally. I swear I'm 59 years resident here. I'm not leaving. Moren Nally. M A R E N. Last name N is in Nancy A L L Y. Your home address?
47 Highland. I really didn't want to tell everybody, but hey. Um, yeah, I live, you have three minutes. Sorry. Three minutes. Quick. Um, I I'm living on 47 Highland, but currently I am displaced due to a ba massive house fire. So, I have experience living in a
16story building on Jordan Avenue. And let me tell you, traffic study guy, there are all kinds of cars parked there. people that live in the building, they come with their cars. Even 55 Jordan also has parking available. It's
too expensive. Because I'm a member of the community, we have community meetings. And one of the major points of topic and conver and complaints are the lack of parking for the residents of the whole area because 55 Jordan is there parking inside and outside on the
regular streets. So, that's just sidebar to everything else. As far as um that that the study that was also done, I I've sit here and I wasn't really going to speak, but I'm a little irked over the fact that the lack of the the driveway that we met a million times or so many times with the past approve
approved um application. We met in all kinds of weather, finally came up with an agreement with the past developer and he finally said, "You know what? We're going to do the parking 20 spots, whatever, because there's already this the little driveway going down, right?" We also spoke about how is everyone
going to move into this 77 unit building without a place to pull in. That was one of the topics of a conversation that we had. Look, oh great, they'll pull into that area and unload and whatever. Everyone's not going to move in on the same day. Everyone will order Uber Eats,
the whole nine. There's no place to pull over. There's a fire hydrant right outside the front of the building. And I know that that can't be moved, but as far as being safety and people walking on Bergen Avenue, just 04 miles to the south is a very very busy fire station,
Engine 9. One of the busiest in the in the city and it is in and out in and out all day long. I can bet my life that there's never been an accident there with the battalion chief's car and a fire truck. So there this is not um a lack the fact that we are going to use safety as an excuse to not have parking
or or work with what we said in the beginning when we had the first we had a million meetings. We have had no meetings for this updated. We don't because the city changed their their regulations. Um I'm all over the place here. But you know we we got together so many times with this Chuck Harrington
and and does a great job. He's good. But um we finally came to an agreement and it was to add the 20 parking spots and to have a place where people could move in. And now we're no meetings and now there's no parking and no place to move in. And we need to like slow down on on
a on voting for this or have a more community engagement with basically a new application because it has new there are changes to it. That is a different application to what we went to bed with two years ago as an approved thing. Meanwhile, you know, the building, like
this lady said, she's wondering how it's all going to happen. The building will be shaped like two pieces of pizza coming out of a toaster up top. It's triangular. So, that's going to change. That's something else. I'm not even going to talk about that. Time is up. Sorry. Parking is key and community engagement is key. And it's only fair.
Thank you. Good evening. Sure. Yes. Sure. Father David Hhabib. I serve at 835 Bergen Avenue, St. George. I was a resident of Jersey City for 35 years before I moved, but I still serve in Jersey City. Father Habib, you have three minutes.
Thank you. My I'm speaking today primarily because of uh frustration with the process, not the building next door. I think a lot of people speak about the building, but when we came here a year and a half ago, we spoke about three issues. Traffic, parking, and how the
building fits into the community. And we were told you can't speak. It's a hardship variance. There's no conversation about it. Yet, we've been here for weeks, week upon week, and every developer says, "Well, I'm making sure that the building is fitting with the motif. It's the right size. It's the right color. It's the right shape." But
this developer or whoever the developer is, oh, this one gets an exception. It's a hardship. We can't discuss the size of the building in a 40 foot wide space. The new variance with the new code, we're going from 40 the the the v the new zoning requires 100. They have 40.
So, how is that reasonable? But okay. And then we're saying no, we can't discuss parking now. The new zoning says so and so, but we still want the old zoning uh uh limits with regards to setbacks. We we have to be consistent in some way. If this was if there was nobody here and someone's presenting an
application to build 77 units on a strip of land that's 40 by does that make I remember the old I built a 25 by 100. It was a two you were allowed a twotory a two-story house in a 25 by 100. All of Jersey City was built like that in the 90s and 2000s. Now 40 by 100 gets you 77
units. Where's the consistency? We came last time we wanted to speak about traffic. The traffic study said to us we did a traffic study. They these are the two days that we gave you. We told them these are not hightraic times. You picked you didn't pick a Sunday when we told you there's three churches on three corners. We didn't pick a Sunday. We
didn't pick a school day. It was it was silly. This the traffic person who spoke today didn't talk to us about what days he used for his talked about people who own cars. Great. But when did you do the study? How many people? It's if you drive there, if you live there, it
doesn't make sense. Something is not adding up. And no one's questioning anything. Sure. Sure. Sure. We we have no problem with Jersey City development. We love that Jersey City is becoming a vi vibrant city. It's always been a vibrant. I lived here, born here, raised here, graduated from here. No problem
with Jersey. But there has to be some common sense. And every time we bring up a topic, you say, "Sorry, we can't discuss this because the new zone doesn't require it. We can't discuss this. So, what can we discuss? You're maming the people and telling us we can't speak because the new the it's not part of variances anymore. This is the
problem that I'm having with this process. What can we speak about? We could just come here and say, "Okay, sure. Whatever you want." Okay. It doesn't make sense what we're asking to build on a 40piece by don't we? Okay. Don't give the new variances. Okay. Let's build the old we want to follow
this v this. We want to follow the new zoning. Then don't then we don't need variances. Follow the news. But you can't have everything both ways sideways. It's it doesn't make sense. So I'm frustrated with the process. Not against the builder or the developer. I wish everybody success in everything they do. Something has to make sense or
else your citizens are getting frustrated. Your people are getting frustrated and you reap what you sow. If you ignore your citizens long enough, there's going to be a problem. Look at San Francisco. Thank you. Yes, I do.
Magd Ma G as in George, D as in David, Y as in yellow. Yousef Y O U S S E F three Batista court servo New Jersey. Mr. Yousef, you have three minutes. Okay. I'm a licensed professional engineers. I res in New Jersey City for about 15 years and I moved to the south
recently. I'm a board member of St. George Church. Um initially I'm working with MD Engineering. I worked with Mr. Tun the developer to the design uh construction fence and preliminary support of excavation and roof protection for the church. But now he
find another engineer because I'm working with the church which is fine. Um I would like to to state one uh statement about the uh presentation. It's in fair condition. It's not depate all the site condition. And that's why because I'm going to explain what's the
church building is so the the board commissioner here can understand and see it. The church is a four-story building above a full cellar and it has two means of igorous. One main stairs at the front and one the second means of igorous is the at the sideyard and this is the plan
of the uh second means of vigorous. The stairs is located exactly at the property line at the south side of the church which is sir if you want to show that you're going to have to show it to Mr. Harrington first. And then you're going to have to tell us what it is and we'll have to mark it.
This propert right here and the stairs is located the proper I I mean I I see it. I'm not sure, you know, with all due respect to Magny, it's not signed and sealed. I'm not I'm
not sure where the property lines are. I mean I I mean it's I have no idea what it is testimony. Uh but I'm I'm not sure if this fairly depicts it or not. Okay. Um so the the stairs is located. It's a
physical stairs. It's located the second means of figure is located at the property line. Mr. Gabriel the architect walked with me the site and he saw by his eyes and he has a picture of the physical stairs. So the testimony about this document we can put it on a side. or I might allow you to pass the document around if you want to explain
what it is. I Yes, he's objecting. That's his job. But I don't I have my job, too. Okay. So, tell me what it is. Don't show it to me. Tell me what Go back over there. Go back over there.
So, we'll start over. I'm I'm pausing your time. Tell me what it is with words without showing it. Don't show it. Put it down. Okay. That's what I'm explaining. You got to just tell me. Did you make it? No, this is the existing plans of the building how it was.
Where did you get it? I got it from an existing documents stored in the church and I scan. These are church's documents. Yes. And I show You got to let me help you. Sure. These are the church's documents that you have access to because you're a
licensed engineer. Is that fair? Correct. And these documents are with respect to the construction of stairs or maintenance of stairs or stairs that were construct constructed at the church. Correct. And you've reviewed this document. Correct.
And you've been to the church. Yes. And you're familiar with the stairs? Yes. And this accurately depicts those stairs that are actually built at the church. Correct. Okay. We're going to mark it as 01. And we're going to pass it around. Sure. Thank you. So bring it forward.
Council, if I could, just for the record, our architect advised that they actually have as part of our plans a sketch that shows the separation of the church's stairs to our building. So that that is part of the record if you want us to
bring that up and and show it now or at a later time. Thank you, councelor. Okay, I'm going to resume your time. Okay. So the stairs is a second means of the church. The church is fourtory occupied and and very busy church with
500 600 occupancy and uh parishioner and congregation going up and down. In in the case of the traffic in the church we use the both stairs. Now the the new design and the new uh burbose design is showing the a window well of the um the
new building is located exactly adjoining to the uh stairs platform. The edge of the window to the to the stair platform is 1t6. The center of the the windows to the platform based on Mr. prime um measurement before over the
computer meetings is the u it's 3 foot6 that caused a a fire hazards the code chapter um it's difficult I'm sorry if you're looking from this way the the New Jersey building edition uh table 705.8
is required exactly a minimum five fts for any windows at the property at the property line. So the window well has two type of windows. One window projecting to the property line and one window parallel to the property line. If we look at the new design, the new plans that we have it shows the bar to the
property line is 4'4 which is not comply with the with the code requirement. The the perpendicular window is 3'6 from the center point which is 1 foot6 from the property line from the corner of the window and it still is not complying with the code. What going to happen is these these
uh windows are creating a fire hazards and lifethreaten to the congregation that they're using the stairs up and down. If any fire happen god forbid in any apartment that means we have to close or the city or the fire department will close that second means of figures
and thus will impact the whole service in the church. What we're requiring is there is no window at the side yard or move the all the windows 5 ft away from the property line and also we're requiring that window well to be moved away from the fire stair I'm sorry from
the second means stairs platforms at all. So that's the the first point and the second point is the uh I didn't I don't know am I allowed to continue? Go ahead finish the stage.
So the the second problem is during the supportive excavation they're excavating 15 ft right below these stairs foundations. We need to see uh a design plans and a design calculation shows there is no movement or or adjustment of that f uh second means of vigorous
otherwise it will impact the whole activity of the church. The third we met all all the professional in the field and that's makes us very very concerned they're related to the demolition. They're telling us close the sideyard close the second means of agris vacate
this area. We're going to get just a an excavator and we'll demolish the building quickly with no uh protection with no fence with no uh vibration monitoring with any uh site safety plans or site crudger or anything. Therefore, it's causing a big issue to us to
concern it and I would like to comment in the one inch if you do if you allow me for a second the chapter is up and wrap it up. I can come back again. I I I'll wait on the line. I'm sorry. I need to finish. There's some important things.
calm down, slow down and finish the statement with respect to the one inch please. Okay. Why the the code is required 2 in minimum seismic gap for 11 story building and we are requiring this 2 inch at our property even if there is building or no
building because of the seismic of the building and seismic drift the chapter 16 and building code is requiring 2inch minimum how to seal it how to do mal how to waterproofing how to do protection that's the architect requirement but the requirement is 2inch minimum gap and we are requiring the 2 in at our property
line so that's the second thing you got a big gap big gap he can do. But you're on the other side. You're not the one inch. I'm speak I'm speaking my side. Even if there is no building, the code is still require two two inches. Even if I understood if if I build in the future, I have to
leave two inch for him too. That's required by code. Understood. But that's not the one in that was I know he's speaking about one side, but I'm speaking my side. I'm I'm deeming two inch is not showing in the plans. Say that again. I'm requiring two inch
in the church side which is not showing in the plants as a seismic gap two inches. Yes, that's a good requirement. Not me. You have three five still. It's not if I if I you five between your building.
That's now. What about in the future if I redevelop my property? Oh, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. No, that that's a zoning that that's a good requirement. It's not mag requirement. Sorry, I'm not going to say that. Talk about talk about the code requirement with
respect to the fire stair egress. Your position is the code requires 5 ft. Yes. Yes. From from the edge of any windows or balconies. Did you have this conversation with Mr.
Harrington and his team or no? Multiple times since December to now about 20 times. I figured you did. Yes. and they did not comply enough. Mr. Harrington, this gentleman is saying that your architect is designing a
building that is not to construction code. That's what he's saying as far as I'm hearing it. Right. Is that how you hear it? That that's how I hear it and that's how Okay. That's how the discussion has gone in the past and they disagree. Uh they uh I've been there where the discussion has
gotten back and forth where Magny has has his opinion as to it. my my our architect says no, we are code compliant and we we can we can show the board why uh either you know now or later because it's it's a window it's within a window
well on a side and and it's not a lot line window. So I believe and I don't want to put words in his mouth but I believe his his interpretation is that that that side window counts as as a uh the five feet. It's but uh as a lot line
window. We're saying no, it doesn't. And my my architect actually has a letter from the DCA that confirmed that because it was an issue that was discussed uh back and forth. So we respectfully disagree. So the side windows are closer to the stair platform and any fire happened in
that side window, it going to the fire department will close our second means of figures. Can we move the entire window well away from the stairs? That's one thing. Second, the lot line windows is 4'4, not 5T. The code is straightforward is saying 5T minimum
requirements. If the side window is a gray area in the code, but it's still causing life hazards and threaten for all congregation, then it's I understand the argument. I understand the argument. I I trust that the commissioner we're not going to approve a condition causing
life threaten to all public. This is a lifethreaten. Regardless of what we do, if what you're saying is right, nobody should issue a building permit. We're not able to issue building
permits. So, I understand to this if you're Wait a minute, sir. I understand what you're saying. I wanted for purposes of the record and the board for you to tell me that you have been speaking with them. Mr. Harrington admits that you've been
speaking with them. Mr. Harrington admits that he knows you and knows the issue that you're raising, that his professional and you do not agree on the point. So, the board will weigh your testimony as a licensed engineer versus
Mr. Harrington's experts and the board will make a decision, but the board doesn't interpret building code. So, in the event that we approve something that isn't code compliant, shame on an
applicant, they're going to have a problem and not get a building permit. So, anybody that says it's code compliant when it turns out it's not. Okay. Can I can I answer about the building? No, you cannot, sir. I think your time is up. We're going to
go on to the next. I'll wait on the line again. You can't. You had your three minutes. Actually, you have way over two. Good evening. Hi. How are you? I do.
Father Thomas Nashed. I'm a priest at 8:35 Bergen Avenue, St. George, the Coptic Church. I do have few handouts. If Tell me when is the best time to bring them. You need to show them to Mr. Harrington. You need to identify them and we can
mark them perhaps. So, Father, if you could just tell me sir what you handed him. Mr. Arington, have you ever seen these before? I have not. I I I have no objection for them being submitted for what they are. It's it's
it appears to be a letter from my client to Father Tom, Father Thomas. Uh, and then some photographs of the site, but I would know for the record they're not scaled uh or signed or sealed. Very good. We're going to mark them is O2.
I have extra copies if you like. I just for I have to do this. A lot of what I do I have to do. Father, sir, do whatever you need to do. So, for purposes of the record, I am going to mark this as O2.
This is a letter dated what appears to be March 21st, 2025. It appears to be from 829 Bergen Avenue LLC. Mr. Harrington has stipulated that
that is his client. It is addressed to Father Thomas and uh again it is dated March 21st, 2025. single page letter. Second document is
four pages. We're going to mark it as 03 for purposes of the record. Page one is identified as the south side of 835 Bergen A Church. Uh two photos. Second page, southside 835
Bergen Aav, two photos. Third page A29 Bergenav current project plan. Page four is actual size in proximity of fire escape and extended wall to property line.
I will note for the record that Mr. Harrington uh noted his objection to the photographs in terms of scale. Uh so that is preserved for purposes of the record. So, Father Tom, if you have multiple
copies of this, Sure. we can pass them out so the commissioners can follow along. Again, commissioners, O2 is the letter, 03 is the photograph packet, and I just
ask that if and when you have questions about it, you notate that. Thank you. You have another. Thank you. Father Thomas, you have three minutes and I'm going to start your clock
because you do have a long night, but we this is our third time here. We love spending our Tuesday nights in the summer in the zoning board meetings. Um, I'm not going to talk about parking burden to the neighborhood or traffic burden or storefront burden
um or obstruction to church services burden. But I do want to come for the record to discuss major safety issues. Um due to the fact um the size of the building, the building is built to the
property line uh to the fact is a high foot traffic and a lot of um and congest traffic traffic congestion and due to the fact that this project neighbors a public assembly building that a lot of
people don't comprehend the the safety that comes with it and the respons responsibility that comes with it as a public assembly building. And that's why I'm going for the record to um let everyone to be responsible if
there's any safety uh issues that are not taken into consideration. Um I'm just going to use few examples. I'm not going in depth as Magd alluded, but this is an old building. I do have concern with asbestous. We have not seen
any reports about asbestous. There's a lot of kids, a lot of schools, a lot of traffic. I would worry very much when the demolition happens if it happens or is there going to be speus or not? That's one. Until now, the church had
requested demolition plans, not um just a simple sheet that says demolish the building. We requested a demolition plans that shows us all kind of precautions and the sequencing of the demolition. Why? Because it's very
important. And I'll explain why this is uh why I bought these pictures. In March, in this letter, we received a letter from the developer. And by the way, nothing personal to the developer at all. In March, a notice for demolition.
How did the GC or the developer get a permit for demolition without fulfilling the required safety requirements for demolition? That's a question. Moving on. Last meeting and um if you
reviewed the video I think you sir and Mr. Lipsky asked the question, how far the building property or will building from the church? The answer was 5 ft. I brought these pictures. I'm not an engineer, just some common sense and
knowledge of the building that I grew up in. You could see the first picture on the left is our church. The right is 829 Bergen Avenue. The message you're on page one, sir. Page one. the first picture on the left.
Thank you. And with a tape measure, it shows 6 in from our fire egress. I'm sorry, half of the time was given out the handouts, right?
Um, so who's going to protect this method of egress? What happens if the integrity of the method of eress and the fire escape is compromised in a public assembly building? We're going to be shut down. We're not going to allow
people to come and pray and be assembled in an unsafe building. We will never allow that. And God forbid one day of service shut down. This is going to goes to a different level altogether. You're taking away our constitutional right.
Point blank. Um, you understand why picture two in to wrap it up, please? Because I'm I'm wrapping it up as we speak. Picture I Let's jump to picture page two. First picture on the left.
the one of the method of eress is 26 in away from the building from the property line there's part of the church is 5 ft so when the architect said 5T that was um I
think he misspoke or and therefore it's misleading because and you'll see in the last picture half of the church property is a lot less than 5t away from the property line. Um, third page is what was presented to the
board. I pulled it from online where it shows the fire exit on our property. But the following page, page four, it shows the actual width of the fire exit
and our means of igress. You could show definitely does not represent the true picture. Um I so my question is my understanding is
by law you cannot demolish use machinery within 10 ft of the property line of the neighbor. How are they going to demolish without jeopardizing the fire escape which is only 6 in away and the other means of igress which is
26 inches away without jeopardizing the safety of our people but it on the plans it doesn't none of this is showing and I'm simply cons um concerned with the safety of the people. We're not asking to eliminate the
project, but we're asking for a project that benefits the neighborhood, not burden the neighborhood. And that's all I'm asking. And I hope the the safety concerns are considered in this decision. Thank you. Thank you. At this time, we're going to take a 10
minutes break and we will resume back in 10 minutes. Thank you. What time is it now? Order, please. Order. We need to We need to resume our meeting.
Mike, you ready? Our next speaker, we're backed into public speaking on 829 Bergen Avenue. Yes. I do. Uh Mina Abadier, uh 605 uh Pavonia
Avenue is my mother and also live in Rutherford, New Jersey. So, back and forth every day. You have three minutes. Okay. Uh I'll try before we start with three minutes. I'll try to speed roll. I've been practicing within the three minutes all the points that I we had to Let's start your time right now. Okay. Pain. Secondly, after 2 years of
meetings for the proposed development of 829 Bergen Avenue, the community and the previous developer had an agreement to include parking. After reselling the property, this new developer tried putting this as an ASIS application to take advantage of the many variances previously approved to him and your board. We're looking the other way and
accepting this to pretend he is working with the community. This new developer had just one quick Zoom meeting with the community. Most recently, to take advantage of the new zoning now put in place of not requiring parking for this location, he sneakly tried to do a bait and switch by doing minor changes to
make this now a new application in the last few weeks. In addition to that, the developer has sent the church. Sir, sorry, sir. You can't close those doors. If you could ask the officers to have everybody that's in the hallway making too much noise to move down the
hallway, I'd appreciate that. Okay. Respectfully give the at least a couple of them. Yeah, I passed your time. No worries. All right. Seems like every second is counted. Most recently, to take advantage of the new zoning now put in place of now requiring parking for this location, he
sneakily tried to do a bait and switch by doing minor changes to make this now a new application in the last few weeks. In addition to that, the developer has sent the church an expedited demolition notice right after the zoom meeting without providing them a public safety plan which the city had also successfully put a blind eye to. Key
factors to take in consideration is a serious need of a proper traffic study that should be required. We are alerting planning board and the public to please oppose this development and the media has been closely monitoring and is here tonight also taking notice of clear inconsistencies between treatment from the board to the community and favorable
treatment to the developer as now being noticed all by all five churches within one block radius and just now having informed all of what had changes are happening and being proposed. Key points to consider no loading and unloading zone which will obviously increase traffic and create safety hazards. New
variances changes and setback and adding retail space. No parking which originally approved will obviously increase parking traffic on the streets for residents as well as stop and go for food delivery and transportation operators. Four, no clear public safety plan to get approved prior to construction, which the developers architect as well as their attorney
ignor ignorantly indicated on the Zoom call that they were not aware it is needed until one of our highly qualified engineers cited on the call. He happens to have 6,000 applications on his belt in New York City and also warned about potential measures, safety accidents, and concerns to the general public. again for surrounding schools, churches,
residences within a block radius. Fatted Habil um the engineer who cited this concern on the Zoom call is unfortunately traveling today as this meeting has been previously rescheduled many times but wanted to shed the light on a serious matter which is a site safety plan. The GC received a demo permit without a proper site safety plan
that shows the sequence of demolition, the means of the methods of demolition and how to abudding neighbors will be supported structurally and protected while demo is in progress and completed. five flat traffic study that was submitted with the prior developer intentionally not taking account of high traffic times within during the week
during school and weekend church services for all the five churches around this oneb block radius. This new application should require a proper traffic study to be done before any approvals and I mean proper Jersey City code 34517 says a proper and repeat proper traffic study is required. We respectfully demand a new traffic study
to be done during the high traffic times and taking a proper look at the application's variances requested instead of accepting this as an ASIS application before and now accepting this as a new application which clearly is not. Finally, a big shout out to Commissioner Torres for previously voting no, asking the right questions
and caring for the well-being of the community at large instead of speedrolling the approval. And the city now changed the parking requirements to meet the need of developers because the varies just keep adding up and up. Big thank you to Rich Pagano, Mirror Prince, and Joyce Waterman. Thank you. Thank you.
I know we are still on public speaking, but um there's questions through the board and I would like to um ask if we can just put a pause on the public um section at this time and I would like to ask um Mr. Harrington if you can please
bring up your architect. There are some um questions regarding some of the um exhibits. Sorry. Okay. And do you want Mr. Harrington? I think for everybody's benefit, uh, obviously we have members
of the public. I don't know, do you have a copy of what we marked as 03, which are the photographs that Father Thomas had uh, introduced.
We do. So, I guess let's lay some groundwork. Obviously, the photographs depict an existing condition. Sir, have you been to the site in the past two weeks?
Yes. Uh, no, not the past two weeks, but previously I have. When was the last time you were at the site? A few months ago. Um I went around with uh Mr. Magdaki here uh from the church uh just to check the existing conditions
and to uh confirm the survey uh findings. Sir, do you have the photographs marked as 03 in front of you? I do. And on page 103,
it says that this photograph is the south side of 835, which would be the church's building. I'm looking at the left hand side photograph. If I'm looking at it correctly, that
photograph is taken from the rear of the church looking uh east towards Bergen Avenue. Is that factually accurate? I believe so. Okay. Does this photograph accurately
represent the existing condition that you observed back in the springtime when you were at the property? It does. Okay. And the right hand side photograph on page one is just a closeup
of the lefthand side photo facing in the same direction taken from the same vantage point. Is that accurate? Yeah. Okay. These aren't trick questions. Page two of the photographs provided.
This is identified again as south side of 835. So again, this photograph appears to be taken with the opposite in the opposite direction with the
photographers's back towards Bergen looking back towards the rear of the property. Do you agree? I agree. And can you tell which way the right side photograph is taken?
I cannot tell from what are we measuring to here. Um, but we can confirm with I'm not very I'm not 100% clear, but if you'd like to confirm with the person who took the photo,
but I I I'm tell the left hand side is taken with my with the back to the street. Ephraim, if if you don't know, you don't know. That's that's the answer, right? And the reason I'm asking and forgive
me, I don't believe that uh the father is still here. Oh, father, can you come forward? And father, did you take these photographs? Yes, sir. Okay.
So on page two, the right side photograph when you took this photograph is your back to Bergen. Yes. And this is looking back towards the fire escape. Yeah. And that fire escape is the same fire escape we see in the left photograph.
Correct. So that clarifies that aspect of it. Thank you, father. Go ahead. Question for the father. Okay. On the first page with the six inch
measurement. Yes. Is that the same? That looks like the second level, right? No, the starts from actually the fire escape starts from the ground. It starts from the ground at six inches, works it way up. Cuz what you showed me here basically
this is on the on the ground. This is actually supported on the ground. You're standing on the ground in this photograph on the left hand side. No, I'm standing on like the first landing speaking. Yeah. Okay. That was the starts. It's not the
typical fire escape that you see in the buildings with a drop down ladder. You actually start walking up because it's a means of eras as well. All understood. Okay. Yes. You're on an upper landing. Yes. And that railing that you're measuring offer
goes all the way down to the ground. Yes. Okay. So, it's your belief that that 6 in carries all the way to ground. Absolutely. Okay. That's what I want to Thank you. So, Mr. Harington, I guess
you heard the concern regarding the fire escape and the uh 5T and we had the discussion regarding how your witness
doesn't agree with the gentleman. Uh, can we pull up the architectural drawing and go through that and how your witness
uh believes that it's code compliant? Absolutely. So this was Can you zoom out, sir? Sure. This this is the first floor plan. Um and this is I'm using the same
exhibit that was marked um in the original uh testimony. Yeah, I believe this this slide deck was marked as A2 on July 15th. So let's start. The footprint of the building,
the four corners of the building are the same dimensions as previously approved. Yes, correct. So, can you identify where the issue with respect to the
building code and life safety is on this drawing? Um, I believe they're they're talking about this uh window well which I I'm marking on the screen. That's pretty much the only window well that's uh that you can see on the ground floor.
Can you enlarge that? Uh, sure. Absolutely. And it's worth mentioning that we had another well um a little bit west of that well here which we in uh we listened to our neighbor and we closed it up uh in the first floor
and we added on top of it another 4ft fence uh just as a side note but back to was that change as a result of a number of meetings that you have had with their professionals? Correct. So can I ask you a question? Absolutely. Yes. So if you were willing to close
that window well, why didn't you or why did you choose not to close this one by the office? So the concern um in the uh window the smaller wind well to the west was because the kids were playing in the backyard of the church and they didn't
want you know kids to throw things at the building or throw a ball or something and that was the concern. So, we listened and we were able to uh we managed to rearrange our floor plan um to enclose that well and you know and um
make this go away. But on the other end, if I'm sorry if I could just add to clarify, apparently there's a basketball court back there. So, there was concern that the basketball would would possibly hit the window uh you know, unintentionally. So, we took that away.
But let me All right. And that's fair enough. But uh during your multiple meetings with the community, the second window well, the one that still is in existence behind the office B107, did that ever come up for conversation? And
it did and we reached to a a an agreement to increase the height of that wall, which I can uh show on a sketch towards the end of that presentation. As you see here, uh, we increased the height of the wall to 6 foot high CMU
wall and on top of it we added a 4 foot fence. Um, so in total it's 10 foot high separation. To add to that, part of the discussion was a concern that someone could come out of the window and jump onto the fire
escape. So I think the wall was to in the fence was to prevent that. Uh, I need you to zoom out. So, it does not appear that the church
seems to agree with that feeling that they're okay with this. It seems from where I'm sitting in hearing here tonight, they have an issue with this window. Is that is that a fair statement based on what you're hearing? From what he hear differently up here,
from what I heard, yes. And uh you know, we're willing to as we've been always trying to communicate and we've been communicating, we're willing to see what else we can do to satisfy their concerns. However, I would like to uh if
it's the right time, I'd like to talk about the fire issue because Sure. I I want clarification myself about this wall with the fence on top. I I'm not
following that. Can you explain that to me? So, in let me just say it sounds weird to me that you would put a window looking into a wall, but um so we're because right behind this window well there's an office on the ground
floor and you know we're hoping to get some at least some ambient light and some air into that office. This will be this will function as the um uh the leasing office and you know it it will be very enclosed if if we just totally
get rid of the window. So we tried to reach a happy medium and uh we increased the height of the CMU wall and we added on top of it a fence to address the concern. But it it it provides light and air
within that that room. Uh, and could you address, you know, how operable that that window is? So, th this is a a limited um uh operable window, meaning it only opens about a 4 in gap. It doesn't swing
fully. Uh, they have a limiter on it. And did you address the the the fire code issue that Magdi had spoken about? Uh, yes. So specifically, I believe uh Magd was referencing this window which is perpendicular to the uh property
line. Um and um um you know I I wanted to make sure 100% I contacted DCA that was a few months ago when we first you know sat down together and we talked about the project and um the explanation I heard from DCA
which then I shared with with Magdi uh um it was that this window is permitted and that the code is discussing the window parallel to the property line uh and to correct a statement that Magd mentioned which is the 5T anything less
than 5T you cannot have a window um actually it's 3 ft and if we're discussing about this window at this location um parallel to the property line this window is actually 4T4 from the property line so we're way um
um more than 3 ft and I'm comfortable that this is code compliance and if there's anything you know that we need to uh address which we would have addressed it but I'm confident that this uh this is code complaint
so I just so we're all clear here the drawing and what is being proposed is to build a 6 foot high wall on the property line
with a 4ft fence above it and And inside of that in your building is a window well, but the window well goes the entire 11 stories up. Correct.
And we have windows inside of that. And now the question is whether or not that is code compliant. And we all understand that the church and their members have a
grave concern about this in that to to address why the wall and why the fence that that was to address it at at the at the ground floor. They're concerned that they they may have people coming across the property line. So that prevents that. The window
well is a common element in in buildings that you create. You can't have the on the windows on the property line. Mr. Harrington, I I think we all understand that. I think uh I just want to be very clear for
everybody what that is, what's being proposed. So you're saying the windows going up, correct? pass all all the windows, even
the first floor window, only open four inches. Four inches. So, nobody could go out that window. There's a limiter that's that would be installed on the window to prevent Yeah. I've seen all the time in the buildings. Yeah. Especially high-rise.
Yeah. The problem I have this summer building's hot. I'm working in a hot building. I can't open a window. Okay. I wish we could. I understand it clearly. So, council, it sounds like this was what the applicant thought would
address the concerns of the neighbors, but it does not sound like this actually does that. That's kind of what I'm hearing. So, I would never tell anybody what to do. That's not my role. I advise obviously,
but I'm just putting it out there that it kind of sounds like maybe this doesn't hit the mark and we also want to be good neighbors. So, it's your choice, Mr. Harrington.
Uh, understood. And you know, I you know, I I I hear what you're saying, but I I do want to stay for the re the record that that we have been working with them and and there's a perception here or or a perceived perception here that we haven't worked with the
community. We had a Zoom meeting for two plus hours on this. Two plus hours. So for people to say there's no meeting whatsoever, that's false from from the get-go. So Mr. Harington, I think it is fair to say that both fathers, right, and the
engineers said that they have met with you and that there were these Zoom meetings. So, I think there may be different members of the public, but if you're telling me that everybody in the public was invited to the Zoom, they were okay. Uh, I don't get on.
We're not going to call out from the audience, but I appreciate the comment that the applicant is speaking with the community and trying to avail themselves of the opportunity to speak to the community.
And and I would add that our professionals and their professionals have met numerous times. We've had meetings at my office with their council and the professionals. So the Coptic Church is the main uh neighbor here and and the concerns uh for their building.
So we have been I probably we've had more meetings on this application probably between professionals than any other application I I've been a part of. So there's there's been a lot of back and forth. Uh this is an issue that that that we try this is this was our
solution for for addressing that. And then we we also addressed the the basketball issue. And here's here's the thing back backing up that that community meeting. Why why not another meeting? There is this application is is all about it's the same same building, right? It's either the prior one had
parking, this one doesn't have parking. And and I said with all due respect to to the numerous comments we had and we had close to I think a hundred people on the Zoom is that you have a project either with parking or without parking. It's not a gray area because there's not
a compromise between that. It's it's either you have it or you don't. And the purpose of the application is is to not have the parking. And I'm really trying to filter it down, you know. So, you know, we can we can try to address this and we have we have been meeting with them. We try to try to, you know,
address, you know, any other issues, but ultimately that's the crux of the application before you. And, you know, we think it's a safer condition. There's there's a lot of, you know, there's comments about a safer condition here. There's we we understand the Coptic church is it's very busy. That's that's
a very busy sidewalk. Uh we didn't particularly I know my client in in in the initial application didn't particularly want the parking but he provided the parking. We thought it it is a safer condition without having cars coming in and out of this project. Uh and we also this this project is
creating a a greater sidewalk, a larger sidewalk, front yard sidewalk. So that's going to help. So, I just I I understand and I you know, I've been doing this long enough to read the tea leaves. So, um you know, we're going to take a step back and we'll we'll take a look at this. Um but,
you know, there's there's going to be a you know, more public comment, but I I wanted to get that out, you know, now uh because, you know, we are trying to work with them, but at the ultimately it's parking or no parking, safer condition with cars coming out onto Bergen Avenue
or not. I We have a lot of congregants. It's like you So people going in and out. What's safer? I I I say it's safer without parking. So with that with that uh said, can I jump?
Sure. Sure. Commissioner. Absolutely. So basically, you're saying whether it's parking or no parking. And who's gonna make that decision? Well, that's that's why we have the application before the board. the So, you want a board to make that
decision whether it would be parking or no parking? Well, if if Well, that's not fair, right? I can adjust it. Uh if if if the applicant were to decide we want parking, then we don't have to be here. We have an existing approval. I agree with you.
Yeah. So, that's so our position and and application to the board is that we think it's a better project without parking. So, that's why we're presenting it to you. So yeah, ultimately like every application, it's up to the board to decide on the merits based on the testimony
provided satisfying the burden of proof. But yes, in the event that the application is not approved, Mr. Harrington's client can move forward with the already approved building with
parking. Yeah. And we have uh again we have been working with the Coptic Church for an access agreement with the demolition issues. It's not we're we're not I think we're close. It depends on who you talk to. We've have business terms all agreed
to. Uh but Mr. Harrington, I can't mediate this. Granted, I get it done in two hours, but I just can't. I just need the board to know the perception is, you know, out here is that we're not doing anything. And we're we we we made, you know, uh commitments to provide these plans uh to
the to the church and the professionals before anything started, you know, before the we have a demolition permit, but we we we're not we don't have the access agreement signed yet, you know. So, I just want, you know, my clients kind of being painted in in a in a in a picture that that he shouldn't be in.
I don't think we're looking at that. No, I I I you just said I mean we're looking at it in a sense that um what you just got finished explaining to me before. Yep. You already approved to go with with the the whatchamacall with the parking. You know, we're trying to see if there's a
possibility that we and I want to see if there's a possibility that maybe you can have a further discussion with them and to keep them, you know, keep them happy along with yourselves and have either party not take advantage. It's give and take. I understand that too. Mr.
Harrington, I think you're reading between the lines here. The consensus kind of for the board. Um, maybe you want to talk to your client. Well, no. I I I Do you want to proceed with the application? No, not tonight. That's that's why I said that. Exactly.
I I read That's I said I've been doing this long enough. You You can see the consensus of the board here. So, I would suggest that you want us to carry you to another date. Yes. and be good neighbors and have conversations with the church with the
the key members of the church with the fathers that came here. That's we have that's that's what I was that's that's what I was trying to to tell everybody. We some consensus has to be made. That's why the fathers are here because I guess
they're not getting well they're not get what they want. But Eddie has a question for the architect. I just have a quick question, but you took down the picture. Oh, I can't. So, go to your picture. No, go to this picture. Number first page.
Hey, you always do this to me, buddy. Go ahead. I know where you're going. 6 inch the 6 inch space between the um fire escape railing and the wall. So, you're saying you're building the new building on the same
property line as this wall that's existed there? And what I see on the screen looks more than 6 in. Are we going to when you build your building, is it going to be six inches away from this wcape?
So this is Is this photo taken where the will would be? I'm not too sure. But I don't know if it's where the will would be. It's where the property line is, right? But it's where the property line is. And I guess the question is the building as proposed is on the property
line. It is. Is it this property line? Is this building existing on the property line? We don't know. And are you proposing to be 6 in off of
the edge of that fire escape? If that's accurate, which to your drawing to your drawing, it looks more than 6 in. If you go to your architecting draw, you just had on the screen the building or to the fire escape. Fire escape from the property line.
Yeah. Is greater than 6 in. So I'm seeing I don't see the So we we are building to the property line. Yeah. So your property line so which might not be the same as what we're seeing here.
We don't know that. I'm not positive where positive for that where this is taken exactly, but I I do believe that this wall is is in our property. So, I believe that this wall is on the property line. How much were encroaching into the neighbors, I'm not sure. I
mean, this wall, I mean, I don't I don't think you're Yes, we are within those 6 in. I don't I'm not talking about the windows, right? I'm just looking at the fire escape. The way the fire escape is looks almost 2 feet away from the wall.
And the way the picture shows it, it looks like six inches away from the wall. Correct. That's what I'm saying. When you go back to your drawing, do you know the measurement? So, we took it off the survey, which you know, a licensed surveyor did this survey. We can go back and and double
check it, but I guess for that matter, they could be off the property. You know what I mean? They can be Mr. Harren, what would you like to do if if I could uh get this carried to the second meeting of se September, September 23rd? But you let me say this is is that
earlier, you know, Father John came up here and said how many times this this can has been kicked down the road, right? We still have about a half dozen to or more speakers who want to speak. I think before we move, I would allow them
to make their statement on record and then it'll be part of our YouTube or transcript that whoever's not here can review it and fairness to them because they keep coming out. I mean, and again, if it's about the community, let them speak.
But you got to understand something. One is already approved to go. No, fair enough. But it's like first that is understandable. But if we're asking the applicant to go back to the drawing board, then there will be further Well, then let's pull let's pull the membership because I'm not asking that.
I would say let it go forward. Okay. Um whoa. Pull the membership on what? the commissioners on whether or not to carry this or to you know he's requesting it but you know what I mean
Mr. Harrington is requesting to carry the application to look at this issue. That doesn't mean there's going to be a change. He could come back and say, you know what, we decided we're not meeting with anybody and blah blah blah blah blah blah.
I don't think that's what's going to happen. But he may he may come back and say, "We met and we're moving forward as it was proposed." He may come back and say, "We've made a change. So Mr. Harrington is asking to carry the
application. We either grant that request. Mr. Harrington doesn't have to move forward. He can right now say, "Okay, I'll withdraw the application if you're not going to allow me to carry the
application." which that's that's not the way the proceedings work. We have concerns that we're flagging. We want to give Mr. Harrington an opportunity to meet with the community who has legitimate
concerns. So, does the board want to poll whether to carry this? I don't think it's fair for all of the members of the public to comment on something that may get
changed and then Yeah. But to that point on record, Mr. Harington just said, and I have the utmost respect for Mr. Harrington, the highest respect. He said on record that at all of his applications that this
particular one he's had more community meetings upward into including in his own office. So I mean we could you know have you know these meetings and fair enough I mean we're uncovering things. Um, but I would say let the public speak
and if we decided that at that point to carry it to carry it so that their voice they've been here two or three times do that. If if I could, it's not my decision, it's the board's decision, but if I could add something, I had somewhat of a similar uh situation on an application
before the zoning board which continued. The public showed up, we showed up and and it is, you know, it's tough being here all the time. at at some point, some meetings, they let the public speak who who did not couldn't make it to the next meeting or or didn't want to come
to the next meeting. Um, and then they say their peace and it's done. It sometimes it cuts down on the line. Um, but as you said, council, if we come back with changes, uh, then it's it's it's a little bit different and and people, I think, still have the right to
speak again. So I don't think it cuts off their right to speak on any changed application but that we have here been here a number of times and if if the board if there's public who wants to speak now and get it you know get say their piece may maybe the board wants to
do that. Yeah and then we cut it off you know we we're done you know right now so that I'll defer to the board. So just to your point council and I know you're a fair person I think that's a great suggestion. one of the other engineers who I guess was part of the conversation
is not here tonight couldn't be here tonight. So of these six people or seven people that who may want to speak tonight but couldn't get here to the next meeting at least their testimony would be on record. That's, you know, if we're saying about openness, transparent, and
hearing everybody's voice, and maybe something that one of them has to say might strike you in a way that says, "Oh, I didn't hear it that way." I'm not I'll stop. I'm not saying you have to close the public. I'm just saying if if there's public here who want to speak tonight so
that they have to don't have to come back, maybe you give them that opportunity. But I'll That's the board's decision. Whatever the board wants to do, I'm with this. That would be my preference. I don't want anybody feeling we're shutting them out. You know what I mean?
But if they're Let's just keep in mind that if there's a change, anybody who wants to come back and speak again is going to come back and speak again. We don't have a choice. No, that's that's just we don't have a choice. Doesn't mean doesn't mean that we're
going to cut the amount of speakers. I understand, but you still don't. It's their prerogative. You want to be as open as possible and whatever. You give everybody an opportunity. So maybe they don't all like the change, but everybody else does. Or maybe when we look at it, we might
say, you know what, there's nothing wrong with this or there's something wrong with it. But I agree with you, Commissioner, at one point because they they're here already. If they want to speak, they're here. I agree with you on that. All right. So we're going to continue our public speaking. Thank you. Thank you. And the understanding is is
that we're asking or council is asking to leave here to go and consult to come up with a comparable or a acceptable outcome. Not that they're going to go back and draw the lines like in one Kings where Solomon says to the two
mothers, "Okay, I'll cut the baby in half." You know, I don't think that's going to happen. It it is worth saying that they don't have a parking variance. It is worth saying they don't have a parking variance. That is that that was right. That was
understood when I asked that. quote when I got clarity in terms of what the outcome of the vote would be on this if it was approved or defeated that there was still in place a parking option but that not that I mean whatever their
conversation is as council made it clear to me that shouldn't be something that I entertain in my voting on that after councilman Bojano spoke it is the law it's the law that council Biano
voted into place. Well, he says he didn't. And to that point, I don't I don't see why Councilman Biano voted on both no parking and parking ordinances because it was passed unanimously.
Yes. Resolution 23103, which created the NC3 district and mapped it onto this location, was passed unanimously by Councilman Bojano, as was resolution 211077, which um is our inclusionary zoning
ordinance. And as an ICO project, there are no parking minimums to apply um any project citywide that applies to. and Councilman Bojano did indeed vote for both ordinances, but he stood here tonight and said to the contrary, he wish he was here so he could respond to that, but he's not. So,
it's all right. So, uh we we're going to go back to public speaking. So, our next and sorry, we're very sorry. Yep. Yes, I do.
What's your home address, please? It's uh Steven Dwarkin. S T E Ven D Wo R K I N and I live at 34 Decal Avenue on the same block as 829. You have three minutes. I'll start your time now.
Okay. So, I'm I'm going to speak to uh an issue uh besides the parking. Um, in addition to living on the same block as where this is uh going to be con constructed, I also happen to have been
a member of the uh construction committee of the Journal Square Community Association for many years. And we've had many developers come and talk to us about the buildings that are sprouting up uh in including uh Mr.
Namar's buildings and all along Bergen Arches and we had a reputation for not being not in my backyard. We were very, you know, prodevelopment and um uh Mr. Harrington I believe has appeared before
us many times on many of these projects. So, I just want to uh to make it clear that, you know, uh our our orientation, but in all of the hundreds of professional large buildings that we
reviewed in the Journal Square area, I just want to say that I have never seen one that was close to being as out of place on the block as this building. Um
the the rest of the block is as you know probably know uh a threestory uh very large apartment building taking up half the block almost half the block and a fivestory apartment building taking up most of the other half the block and in between is
the church which is partway between their their two heights or I guess about the equivalent of four stories to insert an 11story building on a on a 40 foot wide lot in
the middle of this block. Um it's the ultimate uh sticking out like a sore thumb. The ultimate example of it is um more like a piece of toast popping up out of the toaster in the
middle of the block. Um and I would like to in and it is a direct result of the variances being requested here in terms of the uh
minimum lot width and the minimum lot size. It's be you know as you you're aware it's the size of uh a lot where you would normally just put in a single family house or a two-unit house. And
there um here's 77 units. And it actually probably will look like a uh one of the headstones from Spear Cemetery or perhaps Bergen Cemetery across the street being jammed into the middle of the block. And if I I would
like to encourage you to uh take this opportunity to undo the mistake made previously. Otherwise, you're going to have architects coming down Bergen Avenue for years and decades pointing out to their students the ultimate
example of what a planning board should not do. Thank you. Good evening. Hi. Yes. Um Gabrielenega. G A B R I E L A. Um, and for my last name, N A Gh. I live in
Bayon, uh, 86 West 54th Street, but I am a very active member of St. Jordan St. Coptic Orthodox Church. You have three minutes. Okay. Um, I am an active servant and member of St. Jordan St. Active uh, and very large church as you know on 835
Brian Af. Um, and while I might not while I might not have a large uh position or something, I do like to think that my voice might be valued in a situation like this. Um, the development the proposed development on 829 uh Bergen Avenue is 7 77 residential uh
housing. It's like 77 residential apartments, 11 stories high with a floors worth of retail space. While this is amazing and great for the infrastructure in Jersey City, it just isn't feasible in terms of parking and our church. So, I go to church every
Sunday. There's four lurggical services every single Sunday. Each packed more than the other. And being as someone who commutes from Bayon, my family has five members, each one of us drives. So, that's five spots for my one family of
five members. So you can imagine in a church as large as ours how many commute and of course uh as the traffic engineer said Jersey City is very walkable. Absolutely. But just because it's walkable doesn't mean people do walk. A lot of the times it's more convenient to
take a car. And when you're in a such a large church that already struggles with the size of our community and then you add a giant residential building like this right next to us with a lack of parking makes our lives 10 times harder and even the residents 10 times harder. As much as those residents in that
future building might not drive cars, I'm sure most of them still will. So, I don't necessarily think it's feasible for us to move forward without uh parking. Um, for the past 2 years, many people of the COP community have been in conversations and have uh with the
former developer and have been involved in the ongoing dialogue with the former developer of the site. and we came to a happy agreement where you know they would have parking which accommodates to our side and they would still get to have their building. What changed? I don't necessarily know logistically. You
I don't know. I don't have enough expertise to be able to decide what changed or say what changed. But I do know now that doesn't necessarily serve all the needs of the community anymore. As a bunch of people in this community are arguing for the same purpose that we are struggling and this building would
as much as it would help business wouldn't necessarily help those who are already living there and it would actually make our lives much harder. Um, we are simply asking that you reconsider and go back and think about this. You know, think of it from one of our perspectives. I know Councilman Rich
Bajaniano comes to our services on Easter and Christmas as as do some of you guys and some of the other council members. You guys can see firsthand how packed we are and this is just our one church. I can't imagine, you know, the other residents who are living on the same block as us. You know, they struggle just as much as we do. We're
there once or twice a week. I can't imagine, you know, everyone who lives there on a regular basis having to deal with the rest of the 77 apartments that are going to be built. So, we're just asking you guys, you know, look at it from uh a residential standpoint. Someone like me who's a basic uh
resident or and commuter in Jersey City. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. Spell your name and give me your home address, please. uh to Glenwood Avenue, Jersey City. I'm one block away from the construction building.
Romani Masiel accountant, active servant in uh St. George. Can you spell your name for me? R O M A N Y W A S I L. You have three minutes. Okay. I spoke about myself as a resident
in just one block away from this when the construction start in the building, the big building in J square. I take half an hour from my location to Indian square. Imagine if the construction start without any planning at this time.
At this point the life will be more more more difficult and I'm not agree with the traffic engineering about whatever he said he is just like assignment online about the traffic but the actual he cannot imagine whatever we have it in
our life in the in the life in the in this area okay I have two years almost I didn't park in Genwood when I park my car in the night Friday night I didn't want to move it anywhere. If just
emergency, I will move it until Monday. about 77 resident you have to put least restriction to to don't let them have a car at least each one have more car
additional 77 car in that area and the time at least one year and a half when the from a start point until they finish we have at least half of Bergen will close they said okay maybe just put the
machine up the sidewalk. You cannot imagine you put all machine for this high building for just the sidewalk. At least you will close way or halfway from building from this street. Thank you.
Thank you. Good evening. Good evening. Sorry if tonight's going to be the truth. The whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Home address, please. Name is Maryanne Fam. M A R Y A N. Last name Fam. F like Frank. A M like Mary.
Home address is 9 Elizabeth Court, Caucus, New Jersey. Miss Fam, you have three minutes. Thank you. Um, so I have been a longtime resident of Jersey City for over 40 years. Graduated schools here. Um, did my community service hours here. Uh,
longtime commuter using all the public transportation and also driving. and I've watched the emergence of Jersey City my whole life growing up. Um I also um actively attend and serve in the church. I'm also a church board member. So I'm not here to speak about the parking, but I will try to focus on what
was already not said. Um I'd like to focus on the safety concerns um as well as the services and the use of our space. Um so with respect to the variances it makes it very challenging both the front the rear and the side variances that are being asked for. In
addition to the secondary egresses that we've already spoken about we also use the windows. We use the side windows to help air um the inner church sanctuary while we're praying on the days that we are not using heat or cooling because sometimes you can't run the AC when it's
just cool enough but not warm, you know, but not cool enough to turn it on. So, um the opening of the windows and the use of it, um just having that secondary, sorry, having that variance on the side kind of um makes that much more narrow
and and less private on on the um on the side of the the lady's side where we we where we pray on that side of the church. Um, additionally, we um use the backyard regularly. It is our only open air space in the concrete jungle that is
Jersey City. there are no nearby parks that we can take our kids to. We use the backyard. That's what we grew up using. That's where we grew up playing basketball. Um and so we spoke they spoke about shadowing on three sides, but they didn't talk about the shadowing that's going to happen in the backyard
space. That is where we have the kids play. They spoke about the wall that's going to go up. It's only six feet plus a fence. However, what we have right now is a nonscalable wall. We're asking for them to reconsider their design of the sidewall and request them to put a
non-scalable wall. 6 feet high is not very high. Plus a fence that's not very high. Once you land up the six feet, you can climb over. Um this is Jersey City. We've had breakins before. We know we know the the area around us. And while it's developing and gentrifying and all
these other things, it's still Jersey City, a very urban area. Um, we also cannot control what people do inside their homes. So, if they're playing loud music, if they're doing whatever they want to do to live, that's not, you know, us for us to to judge or control.
But we also cannot control what our kids do. Um, or or all the people that we serve. We don't serve saints. We serve the entire community. And so for the safety uh and the privacy of the children that are in the yard and for the safety and the privacy of those that
reside in the building, we're asking for um a 12T non-scalable wall, which is similar to what we have today. And with all due respect, I know that they want windows, but the windows are for office space. Offices don't necessarily need windows. Um, so I'm asking for refusal
of the front and back and side variances for an inset in the front for loading and unloading for a sidewall change where the windows are adjacent to the Sorry, your time is up. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. Good evening. My name is
I do your home address, please. Sure. Mona M o n a last name Nash N A S H E D 527 Hobart Road Pramis. Miss Nash, do you have 3 minutes? Thank you so much. Let me start by saying I was born and raised in Jersey
City at a house right on Venrien Street just a block away from the proposed development site. So I am extremely familiar with the very densely populated and busy neighborhood to say the least. I've always been a very proud member of this community, but I come here to state that I'm a little bit less proud.
Frankly, I'm disheartened to see the direction that things are going in Jersey City. Law-ab-binding citizens have always been held accountable, and it's about time that we hold developers accountable as well. I can't stand by pretend that what's happening is okay.
And I can't imagine that Jersey City is going to sit back and watch silently to allow laws to change to favor developers and not people. It's not fair to its residents. It's not fair to its patrons. It's not fair to anyone. This developer has been full of undesirable surprises.
Not only doing away with the agreed upon parking, but also proposing the additional retail storefront. As many have already mentioned, variances of rear yard setback, minimum lot size, minimum lot width, maximum permitted coverage. I may not be an engineer, but to me, this sounds like they're trying
to fit something in a place where it simply does not belong or fit. Jersey City has been home to many families through the years, and we have schools and children everywhere. And as others have said, I'm honestly not sure how we think that demolition is going to safely
happen on Bergen Avenue in close proximity to non-stop traffic and pedestrians and residents. It doesn't seem conceivable to me to be able to do it safely, which should be very concerning to everyone in this room. You
can barely even stop for a minute to drop off seniors or handicapped passengers without completely stopping traffic on Bergen Avenue. We all get that ordinances have changed for the worse as far as most people in this room are concerned. But what solutions are
being offered to the community? I have heard none so far. I'm asking that everyone take a kindly take a step back and really scrutinize these details. We need to focus a little bit more on the safety and well-being of the people in
Jersey City. I pray and hope that everyone in this room will at the end of the day do what's right for Jersey City. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. You swear any testimony you give tonight is going to be truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Spell your name.
My name is Patrick Pabaui. P A T R I C K B E B A W Y. Um, I live in Jersey City, 881 Summit Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey in the Heights. Okay, you have three minutes. Okay. Good evening, commissioners. Good evening. Uh, like I said, my name is Patrick. Um,
so I've been born and raised uh in Jersey City. I'm a proud resident of uh of Jersey City. Um, I was born here. I went to school here and uh as I grew up, I uh serve in a nonprofit that uh is fedally funded and just so I can serve uh Jersey City. Um, that's why I'm here.
I'm deeply concerned about the upcoming of the seven uh of the 77 unit apartment building. As we already know, Jersey City is uh very overly crowded. Um like we all like kind of uh knew that like we're kind of like sardines walking through the um uh the sidewalk. Um our
streets are jammed, schools are overpop populated, and um our public transit uh our public transit is like very tight also. Um so I'm not going to speak about the parking because like I guess that's been spoken about a lot. So, um public transit is very tight as we all know and
it's going to be very hard for um the patrons of the church to go to church um on public transit on with families of four to five people per family. Uh and they have infants with them. So, I guess that's uh something that we have to consider when it comes to the the I guess the traffic coordinator whoever he
is. Um so, this city has become very special uh very special to me. Uh it's very lively and I'm all for like uh all the development. I uh I come from a background of economics so like obviously I love the growth of money. Um
but uh this only comes with proper planning and uh the risks that come with it um by uh come with like pushing people out and sharing the community which we've worked so hard to build. um growth should benefit the residents uh not make it uh harder on them or a
burden on them. Um I would like to ask you to rethink the long-term quality of life to to think about the long-term quality of life. Um will this project really make Jersey City the the place that we want it to become or will it uh put it towards uh towards a downtrend?
Thank you so much. I'd like you to consider our voices uh and the people that call Drew the city our lifetime homes. Thank you. Good evening. Good evening. Yes, I do.
Marcel Luca. Uh, M A R S I L. My last name is L O U K A and I live in 238 Clinton Avenue in Jersey City, New Jersey. Miss Luka, you have three minutes. I'm here as a member of the congregation of the church of St. George and Suda. I live in Jersey City and my high school
is also in Jersey City. As a kid who attends St. George and Sneuda and lives in Jersey City, our church is not just a place where people gather once a week for worship. It's truly our second home. Many of us spend many hours each week here in St. George, attending services,
teaching Sunday school, singing in choir, volunteering, and supporting community hours and events. I believe that the construction of the new project will posess real challenges for our congregation. Noise disruption, which will impact our ability to hold services. prayers and educational
programs and safety risks risk which could endanger children, families and elderly members who walk in and out of the church daily. Kids are present in church most of the time during the week. If you go to um Bergen Avenue Friday nights, Saturday
nights, and Sunday mornings, it's very it's a very busy area. My family personally struggle with parking when we attend church. we have to leave our house maybe extra 30 minutes just to find parking and we park maybe like 15 minutes away 20 minutes away and walk to
church. I would like to consider um I would like to ask you to consider this project. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Good evening. Tonight is going to be the truth. The whole truth. Yes.
Andrew Stephen. Last name is S E F I N. I live in 210 Mortimer Avenue, Rutherford, New Jersey. Mrs. Stefan, you have three minutes. Thank you. Um, I've spent most of my life in Jersey City. I was born and raised here. I went to school here. Uh,
and when I finished college and joined the workforce, I also worked here. And as someone who spends most of my time in Jersey City throughout the week, I know as well as many of you, there's traffic everywhere all throughout, especially in that area on Bergen Avenue. ever since
the other two lanes were closed down. Um I don't see any any possibility where 77 luxury apartments are built and the new residents don't come with vehicles. Um however, the argument I heard against uh
putting the parking downstairs was that it raises a safety issue of the cars going in and out. a block and a half down from that site, there's a very active parking garage where there's no safety issue there. Around the corner from there, there's also a parking lot that serves a few buildings. No safety
issue there. Two blocks further down into Journal Square, there's a very large parking garage open on both sides. No safety issue there. And if you go on a Sunday near any one of them, that's the day that I generally go see them, they're full to the brim. They have
signs outside saying we at capacity. So I I don't see any way where this could happen and all the residents in the area could be comfortable without parking being in place. And while I understand um
there are specific rules and guidelines and while some things might not be required, I feel that a large part of the community at least the ones aware of the situation are against it. And for the people living in this area who will
have to live with whatever congestion this creates, you know, after the developer finishes their project and leaves, you know, they're going to be very unhappy with it. They moved to Jersey City for the Jersey City they saw at the time when they came here, for the
opportunity, for the comfort, for whatever other reasons. And I feel like this has a great impact on that. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. The truth, the whole truth. I do.
My name is Michael Isaac. I live in 60 uh 67 Prospect Avenue, Bayon, New Jersey. Um active member in the church. M Isaac, you have three minutes. Sure. Okay. Um I just want to mention what is the statistics were measured to approve
77 units and retail space with the con uh consideration of the high rate of the accidents of the area and the recent worst traffic in the nation. Do we consider the delivery worker, the public workers,
taxi and the transportation? All right. Provide safety access uh access from the building to uh to uh other from the window to the stairs. We need sidewalk protection for our church.
A street closure people access from the south to the church. Uh the contractor obtain a demolition permit without following codes requirements. No precon uh construction survey. No demolition
sequence. No list of demolation equipment. No protection of the public. No protection plans. No protection for our congregation uh across from the south.
No vibration. No crack monitoring. No protection for the second mean uh means uh aggress during the support of uh execuation requirement signed and sealed plans and calculation related to support
and protected stairs. Move the window well from this area adjusted to the fire escape please. Thank you. Good evening. Truth.
Yes, sir. Absolutely. David Nega and as in November, A G Eh is my last name. My address is 86 West 54th Street, Bayo, New Jersey. Um, I was actually raised here. I formerly lived in 160 Vroom Street, the one of the adjacent streets
to the project being built. Uh, briefly moved to Bayon. I did all my community service hours as many of the parishioners here have spoken and now I'm currently a resident physician at Christ Hospital. And so you can imagine that I am literally in this area 7 days out of the week every single day of the
year. Holiday, rain, snow, whatever you you name it, I'm there. Whether it's for a service or for my my employment. So naturally, my commute from Bayon actually takes me through either uh Bergen Avenue or Baldwin Avenue or any of the parallel streets. I think something that's been emphasized uh
maybe not overtly is the traffic and the congestion that's being caused just as of right now from the current neighbors from the school system that's just two blocks away. I think people actually have failed to mention that just recently three buildings 60 ft tall 60
floors high were just built 2,000 units in Journal Square just roughly four blocks away from this project. They're not full yet. The congestion is unbelievable. Can you imagine what adding 2,000 units are going to do in the next two to three, not even, maybe in the next year or two. Add 77 more
units. Tell me how it's going to be. My commute when I wake up at 5 in the morning to get to the hospital is 17 minutes. When I have to go to the clinic at 8:00 a.m., it's 55 minutes. Can you I want you to put yourselves in my shoes as someone who is a commuter. I'm only one person. Imagine everybody else
coming from that direction. Now, traffic backflows. If I come from one street, the next street is just as bad. and then and next and then the next and then the next. It under I you guys I'm sure I'm very aware many of you probably have voted on the the vision zero that mayor Philip has approved. It took away one of
the lanes on each side uh making it a singular lane birectional street brian avenue already adding to the uh the stress and the burden on the community. Now add the 2,000 units worth of people that are going to live in the three and Journal Square the three tower building. Add the stress of 77 more units that are
being built in that immediate area while it's a school year. Now add the school buses, public transportation and just the commuters walking, right? They're going to cause traffic. They're crossing the street. They're biking. I think all this needs to be taken into consideration for this project. Now everyone is saying here, you know, we want parking while parking. I actually
think the project in general is a terrible idea. You already have a 2,000 unit building four bucks away. Why add to the burden to the community? And then the second thing I want to bring up is what is the mission of Jersey City? What is our goal and vision the next 30 years? Because I've lived in this area. I've grown up in this area and it appears to me that it's changed. Now, I
don't know what it is that's changed it, but this project does not align with what I believe is the vision of Jersey City. And if that's the case, then maybe that needs to be clarified. Maybe that needs to be discussed. And does your vision as as commissioners, as members of the community, and everyone else here, does that align with the project
manager and the general then this this whole project goal? Does our mission align with theirs? Does their goal mission align with ours? And then bring us residents into the I'm not even a resident. I'm a commuter. Bring us into the picture. Does it align with what we want, what we need? And I believe the answer is no. Now take that into
consideration when you guys are taking your vote. But I don't believe that this project is in the benefit of the community. Thank you. Thank you. Michael Yousef. Um um m I c h a l youf y o s ef 122 gold street north of lingiting you have three minutes
thank you good evening everyone um um I'm a GC general contractor licensed insurance in New Jersey New York and I did many projects high project highrise projects and middle rise I went through a lot of safety controls I went through
a lot of um programs to go through permits And what I see here is surprise everybody around us. That's permits went out without a lot of measures through the city which is demolition plans,
control, safety control plans, vibration plans, cracks. What's surprised me actually it is a building 6 in away from the wall. So everybody's talking about first of floor walls and nobody talks about second floor, third floor and and and above window through the stairs.
Some people from our church can jump. you know high school and you know like the teenage but right now from tenants to this church from the church to tenants can jump very easily to there and who going to protect those who going to go through if there's a fire in in
each one of those the fire department first thing is to do is closing my means of ess in dangers right in the back of the buildings that's because you want to building a building next to me and building and opening a window right there everyone and worrying about worry
about actually parking. I went last month is he doing a test pit um and we found up the machine right by the sidewalk without permit without nothing in Saturday my kids went through this to the street and going down there we don't see a flu test for the fire
hydrant and the fire hydrant right in front of them are this fire hydrant capable for the two building for the rest of the community or no we never saw it okay what about the electrical vault right in front of the building right in front of the building there's a big room very very old and we all concerned about
this one did anyone actually check it or or um inspect it in going through and our means of agress again it's very it's very short 26 in from the platform
and the wall to the platform in the first and second floor it's only 6 in gap 5 ft from the top wall and this is very easily to be accessed if there's anything happened to there anybody concerned about um vertical horizontal horizontal safety knitting. Anyone
actually was talking about what is the safety measure of the sidewalk shed? How they going to control the sidewalk shed? Are we going to need 10 ft in each building to control the public or just in front of them? And they going to close our um our schedule in and we all
know that church have a very uh heavy schedule in Saturday and Sat Sunday. Are they going to get permits on those or no? debris removal, garbage removal. You have the fire hydrant in front of the building. How is he going to close and take the lane and put a dumpster there? We need to require to daily cleaning and
removing garbage in daily basis. No storage debris. Are we going to see rats and you see a lot of animals or or um for the kids and you know how the kids sensitive right now. Are we Your time is up. Thank you. Thank you. Actually, I need three hours
to talk. Thank you. Huh? Yes. Um, Marina Abadier. Aba D I R. Um, Rutherford, New Jersey 07070. Miss Abadier, you have three minutes. I care deeply about this church. I was
born and raised in this church. Even though I live far away from this church, my parents put the effort to make me go. Now that I am 16 years old and after all this coming into church, I've made the best community a girl could ask for in this beautiful place. To attend church, we need this parking in order to get to
the church. It's extremely hard to find parking space, especially because as everyone knows, this is Jersey City and we already struggle to find parking space. So, either you leave very early so you can find a parking spot or you leave on time. And by the time you find parking space, you miss either the liturgies or speeches or prayers that we
want to come and hear. Believe it or not, half of the congregation not just not just is in jerseys um but are all over like different towns. So if we can't find parking space or barely have anywhere to park, then you are stopping us from going to our real home.
This is not just a home you can come to. This is a home where miracles happen and joy grows as if we can get there because of the little things of parking. So if you're if you're taking away these parking um if you're taking away our parking, you're risking chances of us not becoming in the church's presence.
Thank you. Good evening, Michael. K L O W SKs KI. Now I see no due diligence investigation and report. Who waved it? [Music]
Who waved due diligence on this project? And the reason is it was never conducted is because it violates EPA consent decree with the EPA. City were the EPA sued the city over dumping of sewer
excess sewer into waterways a violation of clean water act. They sued city settled with a consent decree decree and then they violated it and it was mod there is in existence presently
modified consent decree with the EPA and this violates the consent decree because this excess excess sewer is going to be dumped into waterways and that there's again no public notice given at the construction center. there like every
other day at this block. Never ever anybody posted a public notice. Why? What's what's the point to hide it? Now safety mitigation plan. How are you going to proceed with the the
demolition there? There's no way to conduct as is and that's the one of the reason that the due diligence is waved. Now I am requested that local employment be mandatory at this construction site. If
developer wants a favor from the city then he has to pro provide employment for for local people as a priority. So I request and Mr. Chuck Harington currently is under investigation by US attorney for fraud regarding 222 Duncan
Avenue. So I'm requesting that this case will be thrown out just on account of Mr. Jack Harrington representing in this case. Now the traffic study that you allowed proceeds on the calculations from the Bologani Bologni uh tables. I
can prove that blue cheese grows on moon based on the the metrics that are used by the on the traffic studies presented by private contractors. And Mr. Torres, you made a good point, Mr. Any you know
test question in negligence cases is can a reasonable person foresee an injury Mr. Taurus, you made a very good point. Gap between the buildings between 1 in and 6 in 50 ft or more or longer, right? Dead cat, dead bird or leaves. How are
you going to clean it? It's a health hazard. So, I'm requesting this case will be thrown out. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Harington. Acting chair, seeing no anything else from the public wishing. No, we're not finishes yet. What's that? So, we're not finished as
yet. Mr. Harrington will speak and then Okay. Yeah. I I just want to address Mr. Kokalowsk's comments there regarding me as everything's absolutely false. Uh I don't know where he comes up with this nonsense. Uh and but we will get a copy of the transcript in the event I want to
pursue a slander suit against him. Um but uh I think I think his presence and and what he says before the boards speaks for themselves. Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public on 829 Bergen Avenue? See nobody else from public. I'd like to
close this public course. Thank you. Mr. Harrington, would you like to wrap it us up? Yeah, I just uh reiterate earlier that uh I'd like to um carry this to the September 23rd uh planning board date.
Give us an opportunity to take a look at that. I if it's not ready by then I will communicate with Mr. Shaen who uh is uh an attorney council for the church and I when I communicate through him uh so he he reaches out to father Tom and and
father David. So um that's that's the plan you know I'd ask that it be carried uh to the date certain of uh September 23rd. Kim, we can accommodate that. Um it's going to disrupt the flow but we can
accommodate that September 23rd it is okay with reservation notice the int hopefully things are worked out so that it doesn't disrupt the whole agenda because I have other clients out there as well. Okay. Council, is it appropriate to see if we
can get an opinion from a authority stating uh whether that uh uh that point of conflict between MAGD and their attorney in terms of the space? What is
the uh certified uh distance? We've taken note. We will see if we can get an answer for the board. Speak from Yeah, we'll reach out to the DCA and see if we can get an answer. Thank you, Mr. Harrington. Thank you.
I want to thank the public for coming out this evening and voicing their concerns in regards to 829 Bergen Avenue. This matter now has been carried for September 23rd. Thank you. We'll take a 10 minutes break and then we'll move on to our next case.
Patient and you listen for everyone. Thank you so much. You're welcome. You're getting 5 minutes break now. We should go home now. 911. I get to fix my problem. He's getting sir. I like
It's a little concern. You need to know that he I'm concerned about the away from Baby, what is them. As our policy, we do not open any new cases um at 10,
but we're at 9:27 now. Let me help everybody other than Mr. Burke. Mr. Bert, do you believe that you're going to get done within a half hour? Okay. Oh, but I don't want you to rush. Do you think it's going to take a half hour so
that everybody else can maybe move their Yeah, you're next. You're number 11. 11 11 Colden Street. 25 minutes. So that means this is going to wind up being the last thing of the night. But
okay, the rest of you would like to sit for the 30 minutes and see. Fair. Any takers or everybody wants to sit for 30 minutes? I knew you were the smartest one in the
room, Mr. Wine. Um, I'm only going to be half smart because I'm only going to ask to adjourn one of mine later on. I think we'll get to number 12. I'm I spoke to Jim Burke. He said he's not going to take until 10:00 for 11. So, I'm confident we can get to 12, but
16 is mine. So, if you'd like to call that case and uh I will 16. I'll adjourn that. Ajourn. Yeah. If you'd like to call the case to September 23rd. P250091.
It's a minor site plan for 69 Lake Street. September 23rd. So the only thing before Kim before you say that that's actually Russashana I will not be available that night. Um so I'm wondering uh since it's just a minor site pardon me October
is there room on two weeks from now that has 200 chapel and py home there's no room okay I retract my prior statement Mr. So, let's So, let's do it. So, let's do this. Let's do this. Let's do it for the 23rd and I'll see if I can find somebody to cover for me that evening. Fair.
Um, and if for whatever reason I can't, we'll adjourn further from there. Okay. If that's all right, thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Do you want to Do you need No further notice? No further notice. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. I'll be back for 12 though. Okay.
Maybe. At this time, I would like to call in case P2024-01211 Cen Street. Um, final major site plan with the C variance. I did have one other matter, so I did want to carry that. Yeah. Want to do it now?
Yeah, let's do that while we're here. Case P2024-0203. It's a preliminary and final major site plan for 475 Newark Avenue. Mr. Burke, you'd like to carry that matter to the October meeting. First October meeting.
Cam, wait. What item on the agenda? Do you 17? Okay. Okay. I thought I heard you say 475 Bergen. Um, okay. 17. What's the first meeting in October? October 7th. October 7th. No further notice. Mr.
Burke. If you're here on case P2024-0203 475 Newark Avenue, it's carried to October 7th. There'll be no further notice. Okay, Mr. Burke. Back to case P204-01 02 111 Colden Street.
All right. Thank you, council. Um, the original notice had been sent in. I don't know if you had an opportunity to review it because this was uh this was carried from a June meeting. So, council, would you like to see this or have you had a chance? I had a chance. Okay,
Cameron, we have it in the file. I don't know that it was marked as A1. So, for purposes of the record, the notice will be reflected as A1. Okay. Thank you, council. Um, so Jim Burke, I'm representing the applicant and uh we're going to present two
witnesses and we have a third in the wings. If you don't need that person, then the person will not appear. Uh, there's only one very small uh variance here uh for minimum aisle width and we're hoping the civil engineer can address that, you know, versus having a
a planner come up or a um uh another another witness. Okay. So, the first witness will be our architect. Truth. I do. Yes. Antonio Iel A I E L L O.
You're too tall for this. Antonio I L O A I E L L. I think we can switch. Yeah, you look like a linebacker there. Is your license current and in good standing? I Yes, it is.
And you've appeared before this board? I have. Yes. You're qualified. Thank you. So, um, again, is this on anybody? It should be. Is this thing on? Hello. Hello. Yes. Okay. Um, now it's not.
Good. Okay. I think it's good. Thank you. Feel like Dick Clark, you know, with the uh Okay. So, um you I'm looking at set of plans that you drafted preliminary and final site plan for 1113
Cen Street. Um I stated there are no variances other than the small variance we spoke of. Uh, but I would like you to walk through the the plans and describe the units and what's contemplated as far as parking. Absolutely. Thank you, sir. Mr. Alo, these are the same plans that were submitted with the application. Do
not need to be marked. Is that correct? That is correct. Yes. There's nothing within your slide deck that is an exhibit that would need to be marked. Absolutely not, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Uh 11113 Colden Street uh is currently located on a block that is uh
in my opinion very um underutilized. a lot of uh empty lots with car storage, storage units, uh some warehouses, and a car wash. Uh there is a development adjacent to our project. Um and behind us, it's a six-story structure to the
right of our property uh or west and behind us to the south is an 11story multif family building. Um our building overall is a five-story multif family building. 16 units, four residential floors, four units per floor over parking.
As you can see here, the properties on the as exists, the yellow house on the right. Our site plan go straight to the first floor plan to walk you through the project. Our first floor very simple, mostly util
utilities, parking, egress components, and uh part and uh the lobby. Uh we have five parking spaces total. Uh bicycle parking, lobby area and then our current utilities such as fire command center
and the uh electrical rooms are elevated to accommodate the flood plane uh which reduce that aisle width. The floor plans on the right hand side are typical uh on on each floor. Uh we have four one-bedroom plus den units. Um two in the front, two in the
back. Uh the rear units have a balcony uh on each unit. We have here an average of 800 to 940 square ft per unit. Uh on the roof we have a an
approximately 1,00 square foot roof deck and extensive almost 2,000 square feet of uh green roof area uh to help mitigate the rainwater for the building as well as of course the mechanical system condenser units. Um just for ease, would you cite the page
number you're looking at? Absolutely. I apologize. Yes. Uh the roof plan was on page A101. I'm now going to skip the typical drawings and work our way to the elevation drawing with the colors at A301 showing the materials. Um, as I
mentioned, this is a five-story building, modern uh contemporary design. um pseudoindustrial art deco top with uh without a cornice, simple uh vertical spires and a clear um railings up at the roof deck, metal ACP components, uh
brick, stone and metal panels on the ground floor and simple stucco uh components at the egress and elevators to help uh minimize the impact on the facade overall. Uh the building as I mentioned will have the materials stated
on the right. Uh modern steel uh wraps around the windows uh light colored brick uh terracotta metal panels, gray metal panels, corrugated system around the garage sewn at the ground floor, brick
and metal above. And that concludes my presentation. You mentioned something about the flood in the um the the aisle of Yes. Could you give the board a little more detail about that? Like what's the relationship? Because the BA building is based in a
flood zone, we had to elevate the utility rooms. By elevating the utility rooms, we had to add stairs, adding more square footage into those spaces, thus reducing that aisle width uh more and more uh in order to accommodate those additional requirements to stay out of the uh flood zone.
Okay. Any other comments for the uh No, unless anybody has any questions. All right. Any questions from the board? Yeah, I have a question. Let's go back to the to the roof and the railings on the roof. Absolutely. Uh the material you were using for the
O. So that that's a good one right there because uh that number at the bottom there, I can't make out the number. Um, where's the railing? Is there a setback on the railing on the
roof? So, we we we currently have railings along the front facade area and then we're going to have we're going to have railings as well at the roof deck itself. So, they can't walk onto the green roof areas. So, you're not walking onto the green roof area. So, let's go to the front elevation then. Absolutely. One with the
front elevation. So basically on top there that would be basically about I think that number was what like a foot and a half or two feet back those railings. No those railings will be at the facade the face of the facade those railings
then there's a secondary facade at the roof deck itself. Okay. So I noticed you have like a 4 in gap underneath the bottom railing and the roof itself. That is right. There is about a 4 in space. Correct. And nobody will be leaning up against
stuff. No. At that front facade at the uh So nothing should be falling through there. No, absolutely not. Absolutely not. You have a extensive area of like a balcony yourself that you'll be That is correct. Yes. Okay. Well, about the railings on the balcony. Um
railings on the balcony. Same thing that gap. That is correct. Yes. Is it possible to put that either flush or a lot closer to the We can make it much closer. Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. if you make them a lot closer. Flush is harder, but make it more Yeah, we like to leave a gap just so we
can get snow and water to to be able to strain off of it. But also 4 in though also allows objects to roll underneath and then landing on where people are walking. Absolutely. I have small safety aspect that I kind of have a bug with
space. How much of a space would you suggest? I suggest two inches. I say I suggest 3/4 of an inch, but that doesn't help the force. I can make two inches work. Yes, I like that.
That's the only question I had. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? No, that concludes your presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um my second witness will be uh the civil engineer Atan Khan, KHN.
testimony tonight. It's going to be truth to truth and nothing but truth. I do. Adnan Khan, A D N K H N. Mr. Khan, have you um testified in front of this board? I was here before pre-COVID. So, if you want a long time, is your license
current and in good standing? They are. Yes. Thank you. You may proceed. Thank you. All right. So, I'd like you to address the site plan issues to confirm that it meets all the site plan criteria. Also, um the architect did touch upon the uh uh small variance needed for the aisle with width. I'd
like you to elaborate on that a bit too. All right. Let me go to the Okay. I'm more familiar with the mouse than uh touchpad. So trying to as you heard like uh I'm trying to zoom it up but uh the
project uh basically on the ground floor is our parking and we are proposing five parking spaces uh when one accessible parking space and four regulars parking out of which three of them are like 90°ree parking and two parallel space on
the ground floor. We also proposing a bike racks as Mr. Alo mentioned. Uh we are exceeding the B bike racks requirements per the ordinance and the rear of the property is all landscaped uh with the evergreen trees uh at the
perimeter of the building. Uh let's see. It's in this area right here. Mr. I think if you go up to the top of the uh taskbar, there should be a zoom in feature. Okay.
All right. So, yeah. All right. Yeah. So, we have a landscape area. It's about 15t wide and the pro width of the lot uh the green area that we are proposing with evergreen trees along the perimeter of the uh green uh
area along the property line rather and as I mentioned we have three uh 90°ree parking spaces two of them are EV ready because of the number of units this project qualifies for the EV parking so we are proposing the required parking for two EV spaces and then we have two
parallel spaces uh the question regarding the driveway and Okay. All right. So, we have a 10-ft curb cut. The there's a driveway that comes in from the front of the property from the
street. Uh it opens up to 12 ft. Then it further opens up to 14 ft. And as Mr. O mentioned this property is in a flood hazard area. We already got our D permit for the flood hazard and because of the height limitations and the equipment height that needs to be placed at
certain height, we have to raise the electrical room uh to a higher elevation than the rest of the parking deck and that limits the driveway aisle to 14 ft. However, this is only for a small area until the electrical room. Once we pass
the electrical room, the aisle width uh opens up and it meets the requirement for 22 feet. So technically the area where the cars will be parked and they will be maneuvering in and out or turning around is all complies. It's only this small section uh about 35 to
the 36 ft in the front from the entr from the from the gate of the parking deck to this uh electrical room. That's the only section that is 14 ft. However, this is a this is this ground floor serves five parking spaces. So, it's not
a very heavily traveled uh turner over the cars in and out. And I believe uh the applicant submitted the traffic report which mentions that uh we anticipate four peak hours in the morning, four peak hours in the evening. So again, it's not something concurrent
that the cars will be coming in and out on a regular basis that that might be a conflict. So in my opinion I think we have a safe situation uh that the cars can easily maneuver within the parking area and they can come in and out and we have some area in case if the car is
coming in and a car is trying to leave out. I think we have some within the 22 ft area that the one car can wait while the other car is coming in. So I think it's overall a safe uh condition but it's just because we have to raise the uh section of the property uh to comply
with the DP requirements. Uh we also proposing a storm water management for the project. Currently there is uh no existing storm water management. We are proposing a dry well system in accordance with the city requirements. We are capturing all the
water from the roof leaders uh from all sides of the building and diverting that into the storm water system uh onto the property. There are also lighting improvements. Uh the uh the lighting that we are proposing within the uh
parking area is all LED type light fixtures. Uh let's see. Uh basically they're all ceiling mounted light fixtures. LED type full cutff downward throw um and efficient light fixtures that will be uh for uh to light
up the parking area for the cars that they they will be traveling. Similarly, we have some small lighting and that some minimum lighting on the roof deck and I think that's shown also on the architecture plans. Uh again, those lights are all like low low height
lights, cut off fixtures that they don't glow to the adjacent properties or beyond the property lines. So we comply with those requirements as well and as we also proposing two share trees on the street in addition uh to the uh
the 13 trees that I mentioned in the back. So there will be some uh share trees that will be on the right of way two shared trees. Okay. Thank you for your testimony. Um we do have a traffic engineer here. I don't know if you need to hear from them
um based on the one small variance that we've uh discussed. We've had both professionals discuss it. Um so I'm happy to bring them up, but that's up to you chair chair and board. Any questions for Mr. Khan? No. No.
No. I don't think we need your other um person to testify. I think Ben's eyes are burning through the back of my head, too. So I know he's a Item 12. Thank you. Thank you very much.
T minus 14. Um that that concludes our our presentation. Thank you. At this time, I would like to open for the public. Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this case? See no one from the public. I'd like to close the public portion part of the meeting.
Thank you, Eric. Yes. Your turn. Um staff agrees with the testimony provided by the applicants professionals. Um staff sees the sees that the uh proposed development meets
the C1 criteria um for the variance. Um staff just requests that the applicant agree to the conditions in the staff memo. Um with the added condition that the roof uh railing be reduced to two
inches or increased I guess which is it increased 2 increased two inch clearance on all railings the applicant agrees balcony and roof the applicant agrees. Okay. Uh staff recommends approval. Thank you. I'd like to entertain a
motion. Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve case P 2024-02 as has been presented to the board tonight. Second it.
Okay. Acting Vice Chair Torres, I vote I. Commissioner Dr. Sai I Commissioner Stamato I Commissioner Lipsky
I think it's a good project and uh I think you did it in a good amount of time so I vote I and acting chair Gangadan yeah I think the variances requested there is very minimal and doesn't um have any detriment to the project my
vote is I motion carries all in favor okay thank you all Thank you. Good. How are you? Take a 10-minute break. I'm kidding. You're very determined. If we can't have fun with this, what's the point?
I was just going to suggest it, actually. M. So I'm going to call KP 2024-0242 194 and 196 Culver Avenue. It's for preliminary and final major site plan with a C variance. Yes. Good evening everybody. Um madame
acting chair uh commissioners Benjamin Wine of Prime and Misselli on behalf of the applicant 610 Commlux LLC. First for housekeeping I'm going to give Mr. Alampy the package. Madam Chair, I received the affidavit publication proof of mailing with
respect to the application at 194 and 196 Culver here in the city. I've had the opportunity to review it. It did appear to be in order and mark it as A1 for purposes of the record. Thank you. Thank you. So, just by way of opening, uh, the property is located at 194 and
196 Culver Avenue. That's block 22101, lots 29 and 30. And we are located in the Route 440 Culver redevelopment plan within the Midrise Aid District. I know that's a mouthful. Uh, the subject property is currently vacant and has been for for decades. And uh what we're
proposing is to construct a new four-story residential building consisting of nine units and six parking spaces on the property along with some improvements which you'll hear about from our project team. The challenge a little bit in this district is that uh in this redevelopment plan, there are
only two permitted uses for our property. Uh one would be a mid-rise apartment, which is what we're proposing, and the other is town houses. Unfortunately, we don't meet the lot area requirement for either and so we've elected to go with the mid-rise A apartment use. Um we are ultimately
taking what we believe is a practical approach to development here which does include a little bit of bulk variance relief. But as you'll hear as we go forward um in an effort to mitigate some of that bulk variance relief, we are designing and proposing a building that is only four stories tall instead of
what's permitted to be six stories. We're proposing floor area ratio that is below what is permitted. We're proposing density that is below what is permitted. And ultimately, I guess what we hope you'll agree is that by going a little bit more horizontal on the upper floors
instead of vertical, we're actually designing a better product for the residents of our future building as well as for the neighborhood. With that, we do have five deviations from the lot uh from the redevelopment plan. One is for the lot area being less than required.
We're at 5,000 square ft instead of 6,000. Again, we cannot possibly comply with that given that there is development on both sides of our property. We're also at 50 ft wide instead of 60 ft wide. Those two kind of go together for the same reason. And really, our bulk variances are for the
sideyard setback above the ground floor being at 0t instead of 5t, the rear yard setback above the ground floor being at 20 ft instead of 30 ft. And finally, the building coverage above the ground floor at 76.68% instead of 65%. You heard me mention
above the ground floor a few times. The ground floor is permitted to be 100% developed in order to accommodate parking, which is exactly what we are doing. I also want to indicate for the record, we've worked very closely with the Eggy Mallerie Block Association led by Jonathan Macaulay, who I believe is
here this evening. Um, and we came up with a building that we believe is chalk full of sustainability features, which is something that is unique to this redevelopment plan, but actually pretty cool when we go through it as you'll see. Um, you'll hear about our these uh from our architect and ultimately we hope you'll agree that what we're
providing is a unique flavor for a unique lot in a unique location. I also want to indicate that we have received CAM staff report and take no exception to compliance with all of the conditions therein. And uh with that, I have two witnesses I intend to call up this evening. our project architect who is
already called up, Jeff Lewis, and then it'll be our project planner, Carolyn Worstelle, to speak to those areas of relief above the ground floor. And with that, unless you have any questions of me, I'm happy to proceed with Mr. Lewis. Sure. Yes, I do.
Jeffrey Lewis, JF Ry L E Wis. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Your license still current and in good standing? Yes, it is. Thank you. You may proceed. Thank you. Jeeoff, walk us through what we're proposing. Okay. So, I can skip all the easy stuff that uh Ben laid out and I'll get right
into the site plan here. So, we do have 100% lock coverage on the ground floor. Um at the front property, we are proposing new concrete curbs, new concrete sidewalks, and one new 10-ft curb cut. Uh there's one existing tree street tree and one new street tree
being proposed. And then both of them are going to be in new tree pits that are going to be uh bioils actually that are um one of the Jersey City approved uh tree pit designs that we're going with. Um I'm going to move right into the floor
plans, but let me just first mention we do have nine units. Three of them are one-bedroom apartments, two of them are two bedrooms, and then four of them at the top of the building are four are threebedroom duplex apartments. Uh this is the first floor plan. Uh starting at the bottom here, we have our
secondary entry. This leads to stair number two as well as our trash room. Both of these rooms also can access the parking area directly. We have a 10 foot wide garage door which leads to a 12t wide drive aisle. Uh beneath that drive aisle, we have our meter rooms and our
sprinkler room as this is a fully sprinkler building. In the back, we have six parking spaces and eight bicycle parking spaces. And just briefly, we got to the six parking spaces. is this redevelopment plan actually has minimums and maximums for parking. So, three parking spaces were the minimum allowed
here and six are the maximum. So, we figured since we were doing the curb cut, we'll do the maximum six parking spaces. Uh also, two of those uh sustainable design requirements are here in the parking area. One is a car share space. So, this space here is dedicated
to a car share car and then these two spaces are dedicated uh EV charging spaces. Um then the third we have our main entry which leads to the lobby. This lobby has a door directly to the parking area as
well as to stair number one and our groundf flooror apartment. This is a one-bedroom ADA adaptable apartment uh which has like the rest of the units a washerdryer in the apartment uh and heat and air conditioning of course. Uh here on the second floor we have four
apartments. It's two two-bedroom apartments and then two one-bedroom apartments with a smaller den space attached. Uh the rear apartments have roof decks on that 20 foot setback roof area. Half of it is used as roof deck and then half of it is used for a green roof. Uh we have window wells on each
side of the building that go up to the top floor. However, we did design it so that the windows are facing each other and not facing our neighbors for a little extra privacy. Um, I'd also like to note here that you can see with our 20 foot setback, we are a little bit shorter than the building
next to us to the which is to the right to the east. Um, if you're looking at the plan, this is the third floor. As I mentioned, the third and fourth floor are duplex apartments, so they work together. Um, there are four apartments total. They're three-bedroom, three bath apartments. So
on this floor, each of those apartments has a living, dining, kitchen area, one bathroom, a den, and all of their utilities. Also this internal stair which goes up to the fourth floor. And then on the fourth floor, there are three bedrooms, two bathrooms, including
the on suite uh bedroom number one. And then that stair also continues up to a private roof deck. So coming to the roof, each apartment has their own private roof deck. Um, and we also have a common stair which leads to the roof.
We're also meeting more of our sustainable design requirements here on the roof. One is for uh raised planters for vegetable planting area for the building tenants. That's in the center of the building here. And then the fourth that we're uh we're achieving is having 50% green roof for the entire
roof area. So that includes this roof as well as that lower roof area. And we are at 50% here. Moving to the building elevations, uh we have a ground floor finish of smooth beige brick. Above that, we have four three-story bays. They're finished
with fiber span panels. The two center bays are off-white, and the outer two bays are warm gray in color. We have a 32-in tall dark gray metal wrapped cornice at the top of the building, black aluminum frame windows and doors, and our garage door is a dark gray metal
door with half transparency glass. Here's the rear elevation. Um, this first floor is actually at the back property line and there's a uh an industrial building right up against that. Above this the second, third, and fourth floor will
have a gray vinyl siding finish. Um, and the same black aluminum frame windows and doors as we had on the front. And here we're looking at the side elevations. We are wrapping the front materials around for the first two feet. And then after that, we're using the
same finish as the rear. Again, you can see the windows are facing each other, so you don't actually see them from the side elevation. Um, that's the end of the drawings. We did say five. So, the fifth uh sustainable design requirement is to have an energy
star rating of 75. So, this will be an extremely efficient building as well. So, in summary, we are doing the four stories instead of the six that we're allowed, but we're under the F. We're not asking for extra square footage. We are providing large apartments that we think fit in better with this
neighborhood. Um, with the four stories, we do have a four and a half story building to our right, a three-story building to our left, some two and a half story buildings across the street. We thought the four-story building was a nice step down in the neighborhood and and actually fit very well. So, we think
it's a better building like this than a conforming six-story building with the setbacks would be. So, that's our argument here tonight. And Jeeoff, just one last question for you. Um the uh storm water management uh we are proposing uh storm water detention on the site as well. Is that correct? I I apologize. I forgot to mention that
we do have a storm water uh detention system and I do have those drawings if anyone wanted to see them. Okay. If anyone wants to see we can otherwise that would conclude my direct examination of Mr. Lewis. Any questions from the board? Yes.
Question for Mr. Lewis real quickly. Uh just building to your left, building to your right, spaces in between them. Mhm. But 3 ft. I don't see the number. Building to the right, we have 3 ft. The building to the left, there's a whole driveway there. It's like 20 to 25 ft.
Oh, okay. That's that's what I see bigger. Okay. I just didn't see the number like Good job. Yeah, I think it's in actually a whole another lot there. So, it's about 25 ft. Thank you. Okay, with that, I'll call up uh Miss Horstelle, our professional planner, to walk through the
justifications for the relief. Do you want anything up? Uh do you want to go to the site plan? Um that's fine. Mel, you still under oath? Yes, I acknowledge I'm still under oath. My license is still in good standing.
Um, so we're here this evening uh on this application 1941 196 Culver Avenue for a couple of variances. Um, the first one I'm going to start off with is the minimum lot area. Um, and I guess uh related to that is the minimum lot
width. Um, as uh was mentioned when we first started this um the uh there are a couple of uses that are permitted here on the site um that are enumerated in the plan. uh when you look at them there are some restrictions on all of these
uses. So one two family homes are only permitted on certain lots which are identified in the plan and we are not on those lots. So we're not permitted your you know more traditional detached one and two family homes because we're not one of the identified lots. um townhouse
um development is permitted, but it requires that you have four lots to be developed essentially together and that sort of townhouse style. We only have two lots. Um so when we were looking at what we would felt was like the most
appropriate use was uh looking at the mid um the mid-rise apartment. Um, and that uh use requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square ft. We're at 5,000
square ft. Um, so we are requesting a minimum lot area. Um, we do think that uh the lot area as as mentioned is still sufficient to provide all of the um things that are necessary. You know, you can still provide the on off streetet
parking. we can still provide um the unit layout. Um so but uh we are less than what is required and what the standards are set for for that use. Um so that does come into play with some of the other variances we are
requesting. Um we do think that this is the appropriate use here. U mid-rise apartment building is appropriate for Culver Avenue and for the area in general. We are close to transit. um that is one of the uses that is uh
permitted here in this this district. So again, we we think that this is the most appropriate use for this lot. Um the minimum lot width again we're looking at that is sort of like that C1 sort of hardship criteria. We are only 50 ft
wide um where 60 is required. Um but again we think that this is the most appropriate use for this particular property in this location. Um we also are requesting a minimum rear yard setback. Um and again this is for
that um rear yard um for above the ground floor. Um we are permitted 100% law coverage on the ground floor. The request is just for above that. Uh we're proposing 20 ft where 30 is required. Um
we uh believe that even with uh this the 20 ft um we are sort of aligning with the building that is adjacent to us to the east or to to page I guess right um where they have a very similar setback
for their four-story building and they go to the that 20 foot um uh setback um as you can see. Um so we do believe that we are going to be uh maintaining the light and air and open space that um is consistent with with
the character. Um you know we did have a visual impact assessment that was part of the package. Um you know and in looking at that um you know you'll see to the north of us is a one-story industrial building that's right up against the lot line. You know there you know no substantial impacts to that um
structure. Um to the um again to the east of us uh where we have that four-story building um you know there are some afternoon um light uh will be you know there will be impacts uh but there would be impacts even if we
were to have conforming setbacks because you could still have a 60story building or not a six-story a six-story building um which would be taller and even if you were then to provide the 30-foot setback, you would still see those sort
of similar or or potentially worse impacts. So, we think that having a shorter building and providing the setback where it's consistent with the adjacent building is is a better uh alternative here. Um, we're also requesting a minimum
sideyard setback and again this is for the residential floors. Um we are working with a slightly narrower lot than the standard was created for. Again those the mid-rise building assume you know use assumes that you have 60 ft and
we only have 50. Um so on a typical 60oot lot for that use 10 five feet on either side you get a 50 foot wide you know upper floor. We're only 50 feet wide at this lot. So, we're still providing that 50 feet wide and we think
that this um creates um a really efficient layout and creates really uh well-sized units. Um we are have um one-bedroom units that are around 8 800 square feet. Um the uh upper floor uh
duplex units are averaging 1,700 square feet. So, these are really wellsized units. Um and that's sort of uh is allowed with that 50- foot wide floor plate. Um we are still providing adequate separation for uh adjacent
windows for building code. Um there are no uh windows proposed on our structure at the property line. Um so that still providing the privacy. Um and uh again when we're sort of looking at you know what are the impacts
light and air um and comparing uh this to what could be permitted. Um again if we were to look at this there are other types of uses that would be permitted on this in this zone um such as a a townhouse.
Those uses in this zone are permitted at like four stories and no sideyard setback. So, we're sort offfecting a similar situation, a similar um result in terms of the setbacks. Um,
and we don't, again, I don't think that we're going to see a substantial impact in light and air compared to conforming. Um, again, if we were had a conforming six-story building with a 5- foot wide sideyard setback, I think we would be
seeing similar or potentially more substantial uh light and air impacts because again, the building would be taller. And so, when the building's taller, you have, you know, less angle of the sun to come down and reach in between those buildings. So, um, we
think again that that we're still going to be maintaining, uh, you know, adequate light and air, um, and that, um, we don't see that there would be substantial detriment from this, uh, setback. Um, again, similarly, we're asking for a maximum building coverage
um, for again just for those upper floors. Um, we're at 7 a little over 76% where 65 is what is permitted. Um, you know, building coverage is oftentimes correlated with F, floor area ratio. Um, in term in factoring what is
the intensity of a development. Um, even though we're asking for this additional coverage, our F is still less than the maximum permitted for this site. We're only at 3.3 where four is what is permitted. So, um, even though we're asking for the additional coverage,
we're not maxing out what would be an allowable development intensity on this site. Um, and it it also doesn't impact in terms of um uh the the lot coverage. You know,
we're permitted to have 100% ground uh ground floor coverage. That is what's proposed. Um and as mentioned we we have numerous um storm water um you know mitigation measures with the green roofs. Uh we have the storm water detention basin. So overall you know I
think this project would leave this in a better condition in terms of those uh storm water impacts than it is today. Um I think that this project advances and promotes the municipal land use law. Um
it's permitted use. um uh an appropriate residential use consistent with purpose A. Um you know, I think that um we will still maintain adequate light air um an open space to the surrounding properties consistent with purpose C. Um I think
that the there's an appropriate population density here consistent with purpose E. Um and uh promote a a desirable visual environment consistent with purpose I. Um you know, I don't see a substantial detriment here. This is an
appropriate use for this mixed um RI mid-rise a district. Um it is an undersized lot, but we're not again we're not maxing out the height. We're not maxing out the F. Um we are trying to create uh a building shape that is um
and bulk that is uh consistent with what we're seeing elsewhere on the block. Um and um uh you know I think overall there's a lot of benefits to this project in terms of all the the um sustainable design requirements that we're providing. Um
you know we're going to be you know uh replacing the sidewalks uh you know providing those new street trees. So again I think overall you just end up with a much better condition than what is there which is a vacant lot. Um likewise, I don't see this would uh result in substantial impairment to the
intent and purpose of the zone plan. Um I think it fulfills it fulfills the objectives of the redevelopment planned uh to re red to redevelop Route 440 Culver Avenue in a manner that is compatible with permitted development in adjacent redevelopment
areas and consistent with the design plan for that uh Route 440 Boulevard. um and to recognize significant opportunities for residential and commercial redevelopment uh afforded by the uh area's proximity to the Westside
Avenue light rail station. Um so I think you know again we're creating what isn't an appropriate infill development in this redevelopment plan area. Um, and it's consistent with the city's master plan to continue to enhance residential neighborhoods and create that sort of
balanced housing for the the needs of existing and and future residents. So, I think overall um both the positive and negative criteria uh have been met to um support the those variances as requested. Thank you, Carolyn. Just one follow-up
question. Um, anytime we speak about variances or in this case really deviations from the redevelopment plan, um, we talk about mitigation and you heard Jeff talk about them quite extensively. You alluded to them. I just want to confirm for the record, it's your opinion as a professional planner that the lesser height than what is
permitted, the lower F, um, the I'll say lower density because we're really tying it to maximizing our parking um, and lessening the impact to the surrounding street network. the meeting and achieving these sustainability requirements on on what is really a smaller development but meeting them
nonetheless. Would you agree as a professional planner that all of those mitigative techniques and the benefits of this project would substantially outweigh any detriments? Uh yes, I think that that in summary when you look at this project as a whole, yes, all of
those benefits, you know, the fact that we're not maxing out the development potential, um all of the green elements that are being integrated here, um you know, I think that they're all um substantially outweigh
those um you know, what I think are are you know, not substantial detriments. Thank you, Carolyn. Um, madame acting chair, I have nothing further for this witness. Thank you. Any questions from the board? I got I got to ask a question that just
uh with all those elements you're saying as a midwise even though it doesn't have the size is less uh footage of 6,000 to five. all of those things. Um minimizing
you got the parking, you have the unit size, amount of units, you're going to have nine units, all of that. And as a right building there, two two family homes and you wouldn't need
all these vises, wouldn't it be any difference? So um the two family homes are not permitted because we are not on one of the lots that is identified as uh that for that use. So in this um redevelopment plan um
like I said there are two uses only. Yeah. Yeah. So so they the enumerate number of uses and then they have conditions for those uses. So, one and two family homes are identified as permitted uses only on certain lots
within this block. And these two lots are not listed. So, that's actually not technically a permitted use. That's what I thought. That's what I thought was said in the beginning of the testimony. Yeah. So, Caroline, you'd have to amend the redevelopment plan effectively to allow those uses. Is that right?
Yeah. Because it's it's kind of tricky the way they wrote it. It's kind of part of the use and so we'd almost it would have to be like a use variance which we can't. So you came up with this so because of the right allowed to use on that property right what were what were permitted and
then again like the the townhouse again is they require minimum of four lots. We've got two lots. Um so we of of the various options which we would have needed a variance or amendment for any of them we thought this is the most
appropriate. All right thank you. Any other questions from the board? No Cam. No to the public. Yes. Anyone here from the public that would like to speak
any testimony tonight is going to be the truth. The whole truth. I do. Uh, Jonathan McCauley, J O N A T H N MC Capital A UL L E Y 111 Mallerie Avenue, unit 3, Jersey City, New Jersey 07304.
Miss, you have three minutes. Thank you for your time today, and I'm sorry to have interrupted the proceedings with the door earlier. My apologies. Uh, I'm president of the Eggy Mallerie Block Association, and I call on you to support the development of 194 and 196 Culver Avenue. The developer
includes a green roof and the developer worked with our block association to include a bioail. In addition, we found out the bioale is something that could be uh forthcoming in future developments very easily. So, this is really very helpful for our
community and for Jersey City. In addition uh to the uh sustainable additions of the plan, this development will have the parking spots or sorry five parking spots and one ride share spot. The developer will have uh four
floors, not the maximum possible of six. This will keep the roof line close to the present roof line. In addition, the plan to have nine units, not 14. The developer is not trying to max out this project, but instead making a sustainable and reasonable plan for development. Please support this
application. Thank you. Thank you. Tonight's going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes. For the record, you name your home address, please. Ko Lee Figuroa. K A T O Lee L E Figuro.
Fi G u O. I live at 200 C Avenue. Um on the left side of the property, I'm also a committee person within the community. um 65 30 years in New York, 35 years in Jersey City, heavily involved in the community in more ways than one. Um
you have three minutes. Thank you. Um there's been a lot of communications. I also communicate within the the neighborhood. Um this building kind of fits within that area. It's not overgrown. It's meeting a lot
of requirements. As the owner on the left side, um, I see no problems. I've met with the lawyer and if there's any small issues, we can work it out. The community had questions. They've been all been answered in one form or fashion. Um, I asked people to come. I
don't know if they're here. I don't see them. I don't see a problem with this project going forward. So, I approve this project with the the board's um, sorry, catching a go approval. Thank you for your time again. Thank you. Good evening,
Douglas Harmon. Yes, absolutely. Can you please state his name and give me your home address? Douglas Harmon. D O U G L S H A R M O N 335 CL Avenue. Mr. Harmon, you have three minutes. I don't even need it. It's a good idea.
I hate the lot. I had a bad experience a lot. about time someone's maintaining a lot correctly. I prefer probably some other things to go there, but this is a great idea. I just want to happen. It's like two more lots in the neighborhood. I feel the same way about this. A great idea. Y'all
doing a good job. And that's it. Cuz I got young kids. My daughter walks from work up that block. The block feel like industrial to me. I don't know. It gives me a weird feeling. We need people, not stores. We need people. That's it. Thank you. Everybody have a good night. Thank you.
Thank you. Anyone else from the public? See nobody else from public. I'd like to close the public portion part of the meeting. Mr. Wine. Sure. Um, unless uh you have any questions of me, that would conclude my presentation. I appreciate the time. I agree to all the conditions listed in uh
Mr. Black's report. Um, thank you for bearing with me and reaching item 12 on the agenda tonight, and I would respectfully request that you approve the application as presented. Thank you, Cam. Thank you, Mr. Wine, and your team. Um, thank you for agreeing to the planning
staff report dated June 3rd of this year. Um, planning staff agrees with the professional testimony provided by Caroline Morstell. Um, and planning staff would just only add that we feel this has no detriment to our master plan, the zone plan, or the public's
general health, welfare, or well-being in regards to the variances. And with that, planning staff recommends approval with conditions. I'd like to entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve case
P 2024-0242 as presented to the board today. Second. On a motion to approve, acting vice chair, Commissioner Torres. Um, yeah, I approve. Commissioner Stamato, approve.
Commissioner Lipsky. Yeah. So this is I think a very thoughtful and a exceptionally well done project. I know you won't be here on the 23rd. Not sure if you have anything here on the 9th. So Shinatva I vote. Commissioner Dr. Desai
I and acting chair commissioner conquered. Yeah. I just want to thank the public for being here this evening and um thank you for working with the community that's good neighbors. Um I feel the um variance is requested is very minimal
and non-detrimental to the area as well. Um so my vote is I motion carries all in favor with conditions. Thank you everybody and I will see you on the 9th. Thank you. May I take question now back? Happy new year anyway.
Mr. Lean, you'll be carrying. Uh yes. I have two matters. Uh, I would request that both be carried with preservation of notice to September 23rd. I have item number 13, case P 20250038,
which is 427 Bergen Avenue, as well as case P 2024 0236, which is number 15 on the agenda, and that's 660 Grove Street. So, if there is anyone from the public, these two cases are being carried. Case
P2025-000038,427 Bergen Avenue be carried to September 23rd. September 23rd. Mr. and KP 2024-0236 to September 23rd. Uh also to September 23rd. Yes.
Thank you. Thank you very much everyone. Have a good evening. Um resolutions any resolutions. [Music] Second
uh resolution one resolution city of Jersey City Planning Board case number P2 P2025 dash 0110 applicant 252
Monttoello LLC address 252 Monttoello Avenue Jersey City New Jersey block 203 lot 2 descended on Tuesday decided on
Tuesday July 29th 2025 memoralized on Tuesday August 26 2025 application for extension of prior approvals. Resolution two,
resolution for the planning board of Jersey City of the city of Jersey City extended for and final major site plan approval submitted by Newport Associ Associates
Development Company, 535 Mamemed Street, aka 354 10th Street, Block 6902,
lot 27, case number P 2025-0118. That's all please. Could I have a second? Second roll call. Acting vice chair Torres. I. Commissioner Samato. Hi.
Commissioner Lipsky. Hi. Commissioner Dr. Sai. And acting chair Dangan. I motion carries. All in favor to memorialize resolutions. Thank you. Have a great Labor Day weekend. Motion to adjourn. Second.
That's it. Thank you.