recording. Okay. >> Ready? >> Yes, we're ready. You can go ahead. So, >> good evening everyone. Welcome to the July 9th, 2026 zoning board of adjustment meeting of the city of Jersey
City. Um, Joseph, do we have any sunshine announcement? >> Yes. Um, in accordance to the open public meetings act, public notice of this hearing is provided uh and posted with the city clerk.
Um, for a little announcement for members of the public, um, when it comes to the public comment portion of each uh, hearing, um, please raise your hand. If you are calling in via phone, you could press star 9. Um, if you are going
through your from your computer or through an app on your phone, there should be a um raise hand feature on Zoom that will uh raise your hand for you and then once staff sees you, they will call on you and if you're on the phone, press star six to mute or unmute.
Thank you. >> Right. Thank you for that. Um, may we have a roll call? >> Yes, certainly. [snorts] Um, Commissioner Burns >> here. >> Commissioner Allen >> here.
>> Commissioner Patel >> here. >> Commissioner D'Angelo >> here. >> Commissioner Chapliki >> here. >> Commissioner Koviello >> here. >> And acting chair Arugo >> here. >> We have seven uh commissioners present.
We have a quorum. >> Okay. Can you swear in the stamp? Uh >> yes. raise your right hand. >> Do you swear or affirm the testimony or comments you will make tonight will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, do we have any correspondence or adjustment? >> Yes, we do. um for case Z2026- 002 uh 0025 for a preliminary and final major site
plan with Dvariances for 240 Fairmont Avenue. Uh the applicant is requested to be carried to the September 17th zoning board hearing with preservation of notice. >> I'm sorry. Um that was what what number was that? I didn't get that.
>> Oh, sorry. Case number Z 2026-000025. All right. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, that's going to be postponed. >> Uh that's going to be carried to September 17th uh with preservation of notice. >> Okay. All right. Thank you for that.
>> And that is all. >> All right. So, I'm going to make a brief announcement. Please be advised that no new cases will be heard after 10 p.m. If we will try to finish the case being presented at that time. However, if the applicant cannot be heard due to the
lateness of the hour, then the case will be carried over to the next regular schedule meeting with preservation of notice. Okay. Then can we um start with the new business which is the first case is
020250023. >> Yes. Uh preliminary, right? Is is Ben Wine here? >> Yes, I'm promoting him to panelists right now. Um, >> there we go. Hi, Ben. Can you hear us
clearly? [snorts] >> Ben, you look a little lost. Can you hear us? >> Yes. Good evening. Can you hear me? >> Yes, we can. But before you start, let me tell you this. Uh, we had an issue getting the transcripts to some of the commissioners.
So out of the commissioners you see here now, only one, two, three were present at the last hearing. Out of the other four that are present here, they haven't read the transcript. >> Or or watch the video.
>> Or watch the video. So you might as well just carry this. There's no point. >> I could The only thing So Vinnie, I appreciate you giving me the heads up. Obviously, the only thing I would ask then if it's okay cuz obviously I I you know we need we need a minimum of five
but um but seven would be ideal. The only thing I would ask is since we made revisions and submitted them 10 days ahead um and I believe that I think it was actually madame acting chair Aruo who was who was you know most vocal I would say and necessitated the revisions
um or or was the impetus for the revisions. I'd like the opportunity to present them to share them. Obviously, everybody on this call can can hear testimony tonight and then ideally as long as we kind of get to a place where we don't feel there's anything more
needed, we can return at the next meeting with hopefully a full complement of the board having reviewed the first transcript. Would that be okay with you, Vinnie? >> I think that's what you should do. That's a good idea. This way, who'sever coming into the August meeting, we'll let them make sure they have read the
first transcript and this transcript. So, the next hearing will, you know, assuming we get obviously we're going to get through tonight, we we'll go right to a vote in August. >> Okay. I I appreciate it and thank you obviously for the heads up.
>> So, madame acting chair, um unless you have any questions, can I uh kind of jump into my reorientation? >> Please do. >> Thank you. So, as the board is aware, and uh I'm I'm now aware that only three board members are aware, but as the board is aware, um this is an
application for preliminary and final major site plan approval with DNC variance relief for the property located at 12-16 Harmon Street. And for the record, that's block 17206, lots and 14 in the city's R1 zone. Uh we
were here last month presenting our presentation for a proposed 13-unit residential development at the subject property and we outlined we went through our uh our architectural and our planning testimony um and specifically spoke to the fact that uh the variances
we were seeking were somewhat technical in nature but driven by the way we chose to orient this building. So specifically um we talked about an option for an as of right development at the planning board which would be the same 13 units
we're proposing um provided we provide the same affordable housing that we are providing here. Uh but we we had met with the neighbors and had realized that there was a significant concern generally about our overall proximity to the property line along our left side
property. And what we elected to do is effectively take the portion of building that would have been three stories on that side of the property and place it as a partial fourth story on the opposite side of the property. So what that does in effect, it creates a height variance, the D6, which is why we're
here. And since we are not permitted that height, we're not permitted to consider it a compliant density. And so we're seeking the density variance as well. We are still maintaining the affordable component the 10% that we would otherwise provide and uh and again
the impetus here was to be able to provide a significantly greater setback than an as of right development among the residential neighbors. When we met last month, um the takeaways that we got, uh there was uh actually the at the time that the the the then chairwoman
Coyle brought up and I think she was spot on about it, um that the the R1, uh neighborhood does and the R1 district does have design standards and uh and she felt after reviewing it and I think it was echoed by a couple of board members um including some that are here tonight as well as one of the members of
the public that uh that the design standards were uh were not being met at that time. And so we came away uh with some homework assignment and we also for what it's worth did not have uh seven members at that meeting either. So we adjourned the meeting with the uh with the opportunity to take those comments
and put it into a what we hope you'll believe is a a full overhaul of the architectural design um which we're going to show you this evening. So what I'd like to do is present our project architect and our project planner. They're not going to rehash all of the testimony on the record because the
general metrics of the project have not changed. Um, but I think it's important for Mr. Bodner to review um, the architecture, which like I said is a a rather large overhaul of what you saw last month, and then for Mr. Height to be able to provide a little bit of a
refresher as to why what we're proposing meets the statutory test for being a better planning alternative than what would otherwise be permitted at this property. So, I know that was a little bit of a of an introduction, but I think it was highly relevant. So, madame acting chair, unless you have questions
of me, I'm happy to turn it right over to Mr. Bodner. >> No, please do. I have no questions. >> Thank you, and thank you for uh for hearing me out. So, uh Russ, are you on the call? Joseph, I just if you can look for Russ and Charles Height.
>> Mr. Bodner, if you could raise your hand. We don't see anything else. One second, please. >> Sure. Um, I see Russ I see Russ Bodner. Um, I see Charles Height. Um, I see Charles Heights raised his hand. Russ, I
see your account. >> You're not on the record. I just said don't say anything else. >> Oh, sorry. [laughter] >> Okay. I got Mr. Bodner, if you could raise your hand. Um, do I need to give him a call or is
he still not >> I I don't see him on the list. I see Charles. I see >> I see Russ Bodner. He's not raising his hand, but I see his account. >> Uh, let me see. Uh, I'll promote him right now. Here we go. >> Okay, both of them have been promoted.
>> Perfect. Audio and video may be off. >> Russ, I hear you. I don't see you. >> Yeah. Give me a second. There you go. Now you should see me. Oh, now here. Now you should see me. >> There we go. >> There you go. >> Would you raise your right hand to be
sworn? >> Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. and state your name for the record. >> Yeah, my name is Russell Bodner, BOD N. I reside at 52 Long Hill Road in Long
Valley, New Jersey. And my license is is current and in good standing. >> So, assuming it is still in current and good standing, I would submit [clears throat] Mr. Bodner to remain accept. >> Perfect. So, Russ, what I'm going to do now, I'm going to share my screen if I
uh I think I need >> You want to share yours? You want to share mine? I'm gonna share mine only because I set it up in a I'm actually pretty proud of myself in a pretty tech. >> I set up something different. So that's I was wondering if you wanted that. >> All right. So go ahead. So go ahead. You can bring up your screen. That's fine. >> Yeah. Here's here's here's where I was
thinking because what you showed me yesterday, we I was thinking maybe this is better. Um this is what we showed last time. >> Hold on, Russ. We're not seeing your screen. >> You don't see it, are we? Here. Um you didn't send Oh, you didn't send me the share screen here. Share.
the request. >> Okay. All right. I'm allowing you to share the screen, so you should be able to do it on your end, Russell. Okay. You can you see my screen now? >> Yeah, I can see we can see your screen.
>> Okay. Last time we actually showed this rendering which is like what we showed to the board. So yesterday we showed we were talking about something different. So I just want to make sure that they were understanding. This was the one we showed. Nobody liked the color scheme. there was lots of problems that they
didn't like the black. They didn't like all this other colors in here and it wasn't really mocked out very well with the neighborhood. >> So, what we did, we got rid of the red brick and all the stuff, which was a great suggestion. All the suggestions we got were were fantastic, I thought. And
to make it look a little bit more traditional, we went with Here's our new latest combined. Um, this was a this was a combined one. Wait, never mind. Let me go to the uh the new rendering. Now the new rendering looks more like this. So I kind of we
got to put it into the actual layout of you know having um the adjacent building next door and obviously the building to the left and we were kind of told like let's work with a a beige color brick which kind of matches a little bit closer to the neighboring building. And so they had a
brown cornice. I decided to go a little bit more of the brown corners. And we're talking about using some of the traditional elements on this with a little bit more of a modern flare along the corners on the top. As well as like all the trim work here now is in that brown look, but it's also like an
actually like a like a it's a it's a composite material trim that won't won't rot away, but at the same time, it's a painted material in like a Hasbro brown. So, we were thinking that's a much uh more attractive looking building for the neighborhood. And it looks like we're
we're trying to like stay and emulate a little bit more of the buildings going up than, you know, the modern looking building going more towards the right. So, as you can see, we were talking earlier about how our step is. We neighboring building is five. We have our four here and then we step down and
then we're closest like this. This parapit here kind of basically matches our parapit. Even though we're three stories and this is two and change, our parapit matches the top of that parapit, which is something we were talking about. It's actually my other drawing, but not on my 2D drawing, but not on the
3D drawing. As you can see here, we have ample distance between our neighboring building and us. By doing that, we're we're giving that rear yard setback uh a little bit more, you know, area that was requested by the neighbor. So this is
really basically our our big gist as our change from that original rendering which you saw a moment ago and and I think this rendering makes the building look a lot more traditional. One two which lends itself better for the neighborhood two which also brings the
uh the materials and the character of the neighborhood into play on our building which I think is a a much more successful and much more handsome looking building than what we had originally designed. So, I think this looks much nicer with the windows. We put grills in the windows to kind of
give it that more traditional feel instead of the more modern feel to the right of us. So, we were really thinking this was kind of like almost like a home run. I I really I personally think this is a really attractive building now. And I actually think it really lends itself well for the neighborhood, especially
with the step down and and giving the room to the neighbor because if we go up next to the neighbor and we bring the building up and this is a little off in scale. I told the renderer I wanted to remove it, but you couldn't move it that far. But this is only about 15 feet. In reality, it's like 20 feet, you know, so
it would be over by the window here. So if we brought that up, it would be like nothing against them at three stories. I mean, we' just be cutting this off. >> So Russ, I wanted to ask and I think >> you know, >> Russ, I think this is a good uh a good image to maintain. And for the record, I
don't believe uh Vinnie that we need to mark this as an exhibit. It was submitted 10 days before. So it is uh it is on the portal. Um Russ, the question I wanted to ask you because I think this does show it well what I was alluding to in my in my opening. um that partial fourth story or or really 2/3 for four
fourth story over there. Effectively, give or take a little bit, that's effectively the square footage that we would be permitted as of right in that space along the side at three stories. And what you've effectively done out of deference to wanting to create more
separation from the really the only residential neighbors that we have along Randolph was you shifted that bulk and put it up against that five-story building where there are no windows. Is that fair to say? >> Yes, that's fair to say. I mean, we're a little bit more only for the fact that we have the staircases going up and the
elevator and everything else going up. So that we're, you know, this we're we're adding a lot of infrastructure just to do this for this fourth floor. But in other words, when when Charles um you know, spoiler alert, when Charles comes up to testify about in fa in
support of the planning proofs, um is it fair to say as an architect that this design if we would if we would shift this to the as of right configuration and shift that bulk down into that open space um up against the property line instead of being about 10 and 1/2 ft off
of it, it would create architecturally it would create much more of a massing impact to those neighbors. Is that fair to say? Yeah, I I definitely say I would say that. I mean, I think like this is a much more especially after, you know, extensive talking to the neighbor, this is a much better uh solution for them
because it gives it um you know, they really wanted something on their backyard. They, you know, it's a little weird because since they're a backyard and we have we go we and they have like about 10 feet there. We're technically allowed to go to our property line because ours is a sideyard that has no
neighbor. So, and they're over 10 feet. So, in reality, we could go our whole distance in our entire lot. And that massing would be so wouldn't help. Like this this e extra spot up on top isn't going to really help. You
know, it's it helps them a lot more than it does doing this this this slow box out, which kind of then looks weird in the neighborhood where you have the big tall building, then we're cut across here. it just doesn't really lend itself very well when you're cut all the way
across here. Just I don't I don't I I personally believe this this nice step down is a is a much more uh attractive look. And considering when we go further up the street, the buildings are again allowed to be approved at five stories. So kind of steps down and then goes back
up on the other side of the street. So, I think it it just is a nicer um building look in terms of the entire building and entire the whole neighborhood. This is a more and I believe I really really do appreciate the comments about the coloring and
everything else. I think this is you know spoton a bang much more attractive building than what we originally proposed. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. So, yeah. So, so really um madame acting chair that's that's all I wanted to elicit from Russ. Um, nothing
else about the the, you know, the building itself and the development have changed, but I think I, you know, I I warned you all when I said it was a massive overhaul. I think that this was really what our intent was to respond to those comments that we received. So, Russ, thank you very much. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Hello scheme is very, very nice. I like that. I like that. >> I approve. >> Thank you. [laughter] Um, so with that, I know this board likes to uh to hold its questions to the end of our presentation. So, I'll just uh I'll bring back up uh Charles. And Charles,
I'm going to let you take control of the screen as well, but first you're going to need to get sworn in. >> Hi, Charles. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do.
>> Thank you. And if you could state your name. >> Yes. Charles Height. Last name is spelled H E Y Dt. >> Thank you. >> Good evening everyone. >> And Charles, your license is in good standing here this evening. >> Professional planner in the state of New Jersey. Also a member of the American
Institute of Certified Planners as well. >> Yes, we've recognized Mr. Height in the past. >> Perfect. So, thank you, Vinnie. So Charles, you gave extensive testimony um last month with with respect to the height and density variances as well as
to the single bulk variance for that two-foot deficiency in the rear yard. Um I you've obviously heard the new testimony from Mr. Bodner with respect to the changed architecture. What I'd like you to do is give us a little bit of a refresher and walk us through whether you feel as a planner that these
changes and these revisions uh you know further further promote the goals of the master plan as well as the purposes of the land use law. >> Um certainly and uh again it's a pleasure to be here tonight. Uh we have worked with the project team to
understand the context of this block. Uh it has a mix of different uses, development intensities on the block. Uh it's also a unique set of uh lots that have front yard uh rear yards adjacent
to side yards and also a series of uh five-story structures uh as it spans to twostory structures. So in contemplating all that, what we felt uh was appropriate for this particular proposed development is a transition. It uh is
trying to transition a sideyard to a rear yard uh providing a little bit more added space and it's also transitioning a fivetory structure um across down to a a twotory structure at the other corner. Uh so through this property uh there's a
series of uh very tailored um elements here. I did want to share uh for the benefit of the board members uh and and some of the uh board members that are just joining this application uh one of the exhibits we prepared uh
from a planning standpoint. I think it's important to note that the comparisons that are often made are the existing conditions versus the proposed which the existing structures were developed at a different point in
time. Um they're really not uh in my opinion um in context of what the current zoning is for the property. uh and essentially what we tried to understand in analysis is what the
permitted development envelope was for this property as compared to the proposed application. So when we prepared this exhibit and this was the same exhibit we submitted ahead of last week uh last month's meeting um the two
comparisons that we used uh to try and emphasize that compare the the comparison as a as of right or within the zoning context that's permitted versus what's proposed. And
essentially the two uh major changes or or or differences are the width of the structure. Uh so we actually have a narrower structure that allows for more separation from our adjacent property uh on Rolph Avenue allowing them to have a
little bit more of a uh light and air in their rear yards. uh and also uh only the the the building height and the building height as you can see and what Mr. Bardner mentioned the building height was only increased on what is the east side of the property that's
adjacent to the fivestory structure. Um, so we felt like uh that this was an important reminder for the board that when you're comparing the massing of what's being proposed, it should be compared to what's permitted in the zone
because ultimately the property owner for for these properties for for this property uh is looking to improve the lot. Um that does add value to the overall neighborhood. uh the aesthetic improvements of the proposed structure uh will add value and I do agree that
the changes in the aesthetic uh facade, the colors, the materials, the details uh are an improvement over the prior proposed elevation. Um but essentially uh as a planning alternative what we're doing here which is common is trying to
redistribute the permitted building mass into an area of the proposed structure that has less impact on adjacent users uh adjacent um uses. So uh as we zoom in here kind of gives you a perspective
from uh the proposed structure and the adjacent uses. Uh the fivetory structure uh we are proposing a zero lot line. That structure was constructed to accept and receive an adjacent zero lot line
structure. So there's virtually no impact on proposing the fourth story closer to that adjacent structure. And as we've been mentioning, um it does allow for us to create a greater setback along our sideyard in excess of what is
required to allow for more light and air. Um so hopefully this is just another reminder uh in a summary fashion of some of the important planning aspects that we felt was uh being incorporated in this proposal. And uh
again part of these changes while they are a benefit to the proposed design uh they also help mitigate the impacts that we are requesting relief under. So with specifically with request to height we're actually reducing the impacts of
the building height that could be closer to the shared lot line uh on the neighbors to the west on on Randolph Avenue. Um so again that goes to the negative criteria in terms of trying to reduce any impacts to the general
welfare uh and create more light in the air uh within this uh area of the property. That's all I had on uh a summary presentation for tonight. >> Thank you. I have a just a couple of
follow-ups actually. If you could just bring that right back up for a second ask you two follow-ups. on that. So I I just want to confirm again in the as of right scheme, you know, this would be a conforming density um we'd be providing the same 10% affordable housing units on
the property and uh and and it would be your opinion as a planner um that it would that would actually be a more intensive or intrusive result to the residential neighbors. Is that fair to say? >> Yes. Uh because this is uh technically a
side lot line for the subject property, you're allowed to have the as a right width that's being shown here, which brings a building mass closer to the rear uh the rear building lines for for the adjacent properties.
>> And that would also create additional coverage on the lot as well. Correct. >> Correct. It's a shorter squatter building with the with the bigger footprint. >> Okay. And then lastly, is that not in essence the test when we're before, especially before a zoning board seeking
relief that what we can propose is ultimately a better planning alternative than what would not require relief. >> I I think it is the uh specific relief that we need are actually part of the
mitigation strategy to address the negative criteria. So we're adding height while reducing the impact to the adjacent property owners which is is part of the criteria. >> Okay. Thank you. So madame acting chair
that's all I have for Mr. Height. >> Uh do you have any other um additional speakers? >> I don't. >> Okay. Fine. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this matter? Please utilize the raise hand function
located at the bottom of your screen if you are a member of the public interested in speaking. The board secretary will promote you one at a time to testify. >> All right, I see Mary. I'm going to promote you right now and um All right, I'm promoting you right now
and uh you should be able to unmute once you >> Mary, can you hear us? >> Yes. All right. Uh, go ahead. You have three minutes. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh, when I >> could We got to square you in. >> Okay. It's fine.
>> Go ahead, Ben. Do we need to see the the the U >> Mary? >> You can. >> Mary, do you have Do you have a video, Mary? >> Yeah. Oh, there we go. Okay. Would you raise your right hand to be sworn?
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Thank you. And if you could state and spell your name for the record and provide your address. >> Mary Webb,
255 Pacific AM, New Jersey City. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh I received a letter, a certified letter that uh something was going to be developed in the neighborhood and I came to the meeting
and told that it was a five-story building. I later learned that it would be requested that it was not a given that it would uh could be a five-story building. That was my first uh problem. My concern is that this building will
turn my backyard into a grass alley. I have since learned that there is a critical issue for more housing in Jersey City. Therefore, there is a lot of development. The building on the corner of Communore and Garfield, which is now housing, has always been
commercial property dating back to the 1950s. My concern is homeowners like myself who invested in the neighborhoods are being ignored and uh with codes and laws that are not consistent with uh
keeping a neighborhood feel. Uh I looked at the renderings of the buildings that he showed which look nice >> but it's not it's not a it's not a home. It's it's an apartment building and um
you you you feel as though that you're no longer in a neighborhood and you're part of a city atmosphere and that's not where you purchased your home and it it just there seemed to be no end to it that uh
the every single lot in Jersey City is now being developed in the name of there's a critical shortage for housing. But building 13 units and putting a 10% affordable doesn't
really solve a problem, but it does take away from those people who live in those homes who have families and who invested them as to bring in 13 units in that area. And I was invited to a community
meeting last night and told that they want to put 17 stories on just around the corner on Garfield and Communo Avenue where it used to be a commercial spot. But the whole area had homes.
That that that doesn't com uh make a neighborhood. That makes us more of a city. Uh that I I purchased my home in the city. people are living in uh in a not a residential neighborhood but a commercial neighborhood
and no one speaks this the city council the city planning >> 30 seconds >> okay I'm trying to think who speaks for the people it's nice that he want to push back when I uh came it was all backyards now a tall building replacing
two one family homes with 13 units and there's no one willing to listen thank Thank you, ma'am. >> Thank you, Mary. >> Okay, >> sure. Are you uh I see >> Yes, I see Michelle. Mayor, I am
promoting you to panelist now. All right, Michelle, you've been promoted. Can you hear us? >> Yes, I can hear you. >> All right. Should be sworn. >> You raise your right hand and be sworn. >> Do you swear or affirm the testimony
you're about to give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> And state and spell your name and your address. >> My name is Michelle Meyer um with two L's on the shell. And then Meyer is M A Y R. And my address is um 363 Randolph
Avenue across the street. Um, >> I I just wanted to add that um um Mary Webb also owns one of the buildings that is adjacent to this property. So, she um she's speaking from having a building right next to it. Um and I get that as
of right is less ideal than what is being proposed as far as light and air. Um and I think yeah the the the material point of the neighbors that who are upset about this is that um it is drastically changing their neighborhood. Um and
I understand that affordable housing is very much needed in the in the city. Um, I don't think that, you know, um, adding one unit to a development and then being able to basically shove as many units into that development as you possibly can at luxury rental costs is
really the solution, but it is what the city has decided to do. So, it is what it is. Um, but I just wanted to make sure that everyone understood that Mary is is directly impacted by this. She owns one of the buildings that's right adjacent to this property. Thank you.
>> Thank you. You're Michelle. And um anyone else, >> we get a commissioner to move to close public if seeing there's no other members of the public. Yes. Let's move to close the public if
there's no no one else. >> We need a motion from a commissioner. >> I'll make a motion to close public here. >> Second. >> Roll call. >> Uh yes. Um Commissioner Burns.
>> Yes. Commissioner D'Angelo, >> yes. >> Commissioner Patel, >> yes. >> Commissioner Chipi, >> yes. >> Commissioner Kovello, >> yes.
>> Um, sorry, one >> Allan Allen. >> Yes. >> And then, um, acting chair. >> Yes. Okay. All right. Motion carries. All right. So, >> may may we hear from the commissioners?
Do the commissioners have any questions? I'm I mean, I'm sorry. May we hear from the staff? >> Um, certainly. I though um I guess my one reservation is um given that the board isn't taking a vote
today, it might be best I presume Mr. Wine's probably going to have a closing statement the next meeting after which you can get staff. It's It's the board's discretion whether they want um some insight from me now or they want to wait um until to
have the staff um testimony right in front of them when they take the vote at the next meeting. >> That might make for a better package to have Matt your your staff report and Ben's closing at the next meeting. >> Okay. And then we'll make sure that uh
you know who who's ever attending has read both transcripts just in case they haven't been at both hearings. >> That makes sense. Ben, >> that does. And I guess my only thing is so first Vinnie, do you have the transcript from the last meeting now? Did you >> I do I have it in my hand. I have it here.
>> Okay. So everybody does have a Okay. >> Everybody has that. >> Yeah, it was sent out. It was sent out. Joseph sent everything. >> Okay. So then the only thing I would ask I agree um I'm happy to have Mr. Dilva hold off. But if there's anything that the board has in terms of comments or questions or feedback that we can answer
in my closing at the next meeting, I'm I'm open to hearing that now. >> Any comments from the from the commissioners? >> No, I don't have a problem. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So, we'll just leave it at closing arguments or the staff report and then
you're closing Ben. Correct. >> Perfect. So yeah, Vinnie, if I guess if you want to make the announcement to adjourn with preservation of notice, that would be appreciated. >> That's what we'll do. I'm sorry. Uh Joe, when when is the August meeting? >> The August meeting will be on
August 6th. August 6th. >> All right. So ladies and gentlemen, we're going to carry this with a preservation of notice till August 6th, at which time we're going to hear from staff and at which time we'll hear the
uh the closing comments from uh the applicant's attorney, Mr. Wine. >> Thank you. And just to confirm, it will be on Zoom as well. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> I think we're going to Zoom until September, if not beyond September. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Perfect. All right. Well, thank you everybody for hearing us this evening
and I appreciate the heads up and I look forward to hopefully bringing this to conclusion next month. >> Thank you. >> Okay, take care. >> Take care. >> Byebye. >> Okay, so our next case is um
0 20250094 2011 Newark Avenue. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Okay. So, uh, acting chair Sonia Aoyo, just for the record, this is an amendment to the uh to a uh an approval
that we've given some time ago. >> I remember >> and what happened with our approval is the what happened with our approval is that the uh one of the objectors appealed and she appealed it to the uh superior
court. The superior court upheld our decision and the objector took that uh decision and appealed it to the appellet division. >> Now it was appe it was pending in the
appellet division. That's why this case has been carried because when when the case was on appeal and then on appeal to the appellet division, we really didn't have any jurisdiction. >> Yeah. But the other day uh or I
shouldn't say the other day, some time ago, the appeal was dismissed. The appeal was dismissed for a deficiency and as we're sitting here now, it it remains dismissed. However, today the objector filed a
motion in the appellet division to reinstate the case. However, that doesn't mean the case is reinstated. That means the case is still dismissed. >> It's less. >> So the the question becomes, you know, can we still
do do we have jurisdiction? And the answer to that is yes. >> Okay, >> we have jurisdiction. And I'm not I'm not seeing a reason why to carry this anymore. It really just hurts the developer. It hurts one of the parties for no reason. The objector had time to
appeal. She appealed but didn't appeal in a correct fashion. And so as of now, the appeal is dismissed. So I think we should go forward with Mr. Harrington's case tonight. >> Okay. >> In that regard, Mr. Harrington did notice for this case. We do have the
notices. I have reviewed them. There is an affidavit, proof of service, notice of publication. So as far as I can see, we have notice. We have jurisdiction. So Mr. Harrington, do you want to proceed?
You're on mute. >> Yes. Yes. Now I've finally clicked it correctly. >> Mr. Mr. Leaguette. >> Yes. >> Um, does it make sense to promote and swear in opposition council as well?
>> Yeah. Is is an stud home? >> She's she's raised her hand up. >> I'm promoting her now. >> She uh we did we did have some correspondence this afternoon. she wants to adjourn this. Um, I don't see how we could do that to the
applicant this much. There's no saying that the uh the appellet division is going to accept her motion. Let's assume we hear this case tonight. Let's assume uh the the worst that happens to Miss Stoolome's case is that
you approve this amendment and then she'll just appeal that amendment and combine it with the other appeal. >> There's no sense in carrying this over and over and over because I really don't know if the appeal is going to be accepted. I'm sure Mr. Harrington's
client is going to object to uh uh reinstating that appeal. But, you know, I can't uh predict the future. I I would prefer to deal with what we have now. And what we have now is jurisdiction to
hear this case because the objector's case has been dismissed in the appellet division. >> Okay. >> I think it's the easiest way to say it. So, you have promoted uh Miss Stoolome because she has her hand raised. >> Yeah, she's uh she's she's promoted as
she just asked to unmute. >> Okay. >> And can you hear us? Could you could you mute unmute your mic >> and you have to unmute yourself. >> Miss Dhol. >> There you go.
>> There she is. >> And I can put video on too. Sorry about that. Uh, yes, please do. >> Yes, please. >> So, I have a couple of things to add to what said there. >> Yes.
>> Was filed by the >> Sorry, that's not coming in clearly. I'm getting every other >> M. If you could pause for a second. We're having trouble with your connect with your internet connection. >> You're you're breaking up. is that it's
not clear what you're saying >> and every other syllable is >> not on my end. I was I've >> Yeah, you're you're breaking up on on my end also. Sorry. >> Well, that's not my problem.
>> Well, Jesus Christ, you people need to hear what I'm saying. Shall I pull in on my telephone? >> I don't know. Just try. >> There is a there is a phone audio [laughter] option. >> I know it was a rhetorical. >> Sorry. I need one speaker. If you're not coming in clearly, I can't hear you and
I can't record this. >> Trying to call. Let's see. Okay, I'm going to try to dial in follow Hang on. Okay, now I'm going to mute. Okay, I see you. I am And are you 169?
>> Yeah. Okay. I've um >> 651 6211. >> There you go. I've >> Can you hear me now? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Better. Yes. >> Okay. You hear me now? Yes, that's me.
>> Okay. Good. So, there's a me. >> There's a delay, unfortunately. >> Yeah. I can't get this. >> This is unrecordable. >> So, there's I can't get this recordable.
>> Might I suggest we go off the actual record until this is fixed? >> I'm sorry, Bridget. I I didn't hear what you said. You wanted to >> May I suggest that we go off the actual record the recording until this fix?
>> Yes. Why don't you do that? Let's go off the record and that gives you the time to figure out what's going on. Can you talk into the phone? Let's see if we can hear you. >> Okay, I'll >> Yes, I'm I'll talk into the phone right now. >> Okay, that sounds clear.
>> Yeah, that's better. I can hear you guys clearly and I've never had this nature of a problem. So I don't think it's my setup here. >> I I think I'm hearing I think I'm hearing her. Okay. Is everyone else? >> No, there's Yeah, there is a problem.
There's >> somebody has a speaker on >> Could you make sure when you're not actively speaking that it's on mute? Your phone is on mute so we're not getting the echo of your audio. are not that. >> Okay, I'll try to do that. Hang on.
>> Okay, I'll try to do that. Hang on. >> Okay. All right. Maybe we can start again. [laughter] >> Well, let's >> I'm not sure about that. >> Home talk first. >> Yes. >> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. start, you know, >> not on the record, but >> home. Would you just what? Say your
name, whatever, just so that we can get a clear message. See if we can hear you clearly so that Bridget can record it. >> Would you please do that? >> It's right there. It's still coming back again. I'm hearing you twice now.
>> You You're asking me to speak. So now I am speaking. And now >> we hear you twice. >> I don't know. I don't know if this will help, but I'm I'm being told by one of my architects that if you keep the phone
audio on, but turn the PC audio off, that might fix it. >> Off. other than mute because she's got the PC on mute. >> No, but there's still audio coming out if she has speakers on that. >> Yeah, if she turns the computer so the phone can compensate for the phone audio
coming out, but not for the computer audio coming out. So, if she turns off her computer speaker. >> Yeah. >> Um, and then exclusively listens to the meeting via her phone as well, >> right? >> Theoretically, we won't have the echo problem. >> Okay. >> Okay. Can we can you try to speak now
and see if that's it's working? >> You know, it's funny. I'm trying to turn the speaker off. It's not letting me turn my speaker on my phone. I've turned the the computer down. >> It's not letting me turn my speaker off on the phone. >> You don't need to turn the speaker off on your phone.
>> Yeah, you're I think you're good. Could you hear? >> Good. Okay. So, I can tell you guys a little bit more what's going on. I apologize. I don't have any office here. Time out. Yes. >> Time out. >> Everybody here knows I can take one
person at a time. >> Okay, that's it. >> You can hear her, Bridget now. >> I think Yeah, I think everything is okay right now. >> Okay. >> I don't hear a double. All right. So, we can go back on the record if that's okay with Madam Chair.
>> Yes, please go back on the record. >> All right. And you were saying when we had this before we had this problem. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Thanks. You can hear me now. >> Yes, >> we can hear you now. Go ahead.
>> Okay. Okay. Good. Thank you. The the deficiency that the appella division noted was that the caption was missing a comma in between the caption as the division read it as I typed it and as
the court had it um below they issued the notice. I did everything I needed to correct the notice. They held my hand through the whole thing. It was ridiculous. Apparently, however, I filed a motion on an affidavit dated May 22nd to
reinstate. Uh what I didn't realize, and I guess my helper didn't realize I know, was that uh the court has set up something to help you now where it autogenerates the motion to reinstate because this is all completely ministerial. There is no question
whatsoever that this will be reinstated. So, I had filed all my papers. I'd filed my affidavit. Everybody knew what was going on. a comma had been fixed. A comma had been fixed, but I didn't know they hadn't reinstated it. I actually have another appeal,
oddly enough, in Jersey City, and I saw something come in on that one, and I said, "Hey, I never got anything on myself on one." So, I went to look two days ago, knowing that this this was coming up on this agenda. It had been kicked off last time because if you don't have jurisdiction, you can't rule
on it. And I thought, oh, it had never been reinstated. So technically at the moment, Vinnie is right. You do have jurisdiction tonight. And he's also correct. If you vote to approve this
amendment, I will then appeal. The problem is I would have to appeal to the superior court. I will need to ask the appellet division whether they would dane to take the appeal up to the appellet division to roll it in with the
current appeal that was missing a comma in the caption which Vinnie and Chuck knew perfectly well. They've known that what this problem was. I didn't realize it until two days ago. I tried multiple times to reach Chuck. Didn't
get a return phone call. He's very busy. Has plenty of meetings. It wasn't on purpose on his fault. They also both know that as of 3:30 or whatever it was today, I fixed the problem and tomorrow or Monday, the court will reinstate the
appeal. It is ministerial. There's no question it will be reinstated. Um, so if they reinstate it after you vote, Vinnie and Chuck and I will have a mayor's nest of spaghetti to untangle, but we'll be able to untangle it.
Um but what VINNIE SAID ABOUT OH HELL NO see her appeal is ever going to be that's not true. But the problem is that what we don't want to have to do is go through the superior court stage all over again. I am trustful that the appellet division panel that rules on
stuff like this will say no no no you know there's this amendment is really not material. is asking at the moment you approve this ridiculous dining plinth that'll take up 3/4 of the sidewalk and he's asking for the ability
to not do that if he wants to not do it. The reason he wants to not do it is because city council told him he can't. So you're not really changing anything of substance. I think the appeal will still go on. Um I'm not trying to delay this for the sake of torturing Mr.
Harrington and his and his client. Um but they can ask for this amendment anytime. Uh this appeal is going to take probably a year. They always do. Anytime after during that or after that they can ask for this amendment if they if they if eventually they will build this
thing. Um if the city wants to, they'll give them the dining pl. If the city doesn't want to continues to stand firm and say no, then they would at that point come before you and say, "Can we build it without the plint?" And I
presume you'd say sure. I mean, of course you could. It's not a big deal. So you can vote tonight because at the moment this is in a crack of the jurisdiction. Jurisdiction has bounced back. Actually, probably the superior court, but we'll just pretend it's
bounced back to you. That crack is going to close early next week. Um, and then Vinnie and Suck and I are gonna have to figure out what we do with this amended approval because it will be this amended approval that we really want to appeal, but the superior court won't have acted
on it. So, I was trying to reach out to Vinnie and Chuck to avoid this mess, which I partly created by losing the comma all that time ago and by not you see the color of my hair. I can't work these stupid computers. And they they changed them a little bit to be more helpful in between every time I follow
an appeal. So that's where we are. It is up to you. You do have jurisdiction tonight. There is no rush. They're not going to be building this thing for a very long time. I would think that whatever you decide to do tonight would be the same that you do later on. I
can't imagine that you deny. In fact, if you did deny this, I think Chuck would appeal. He say, "Look, you let me BUILD THIS ENORMOUS FREAKING building and now you're saying I can't build my building because I can't take over half the sidewalk. That makes no sense." So he's, you know, this not a
substantive worry. This is a procedural worry that unfortunately everybody was like, "Oh, okay. It's up on appeal." You know, that the board is in jurisdiction. We'll just keep kicking the can. Now all of a sudden, oh, it's on appeal. And if Vinnie really thought that I was dropping this extraordinarily
expensive and difficult appeal, he should have with due respect, I would say, Vinnie, give me a call and say, "And did you intend to drop your appeal?" and I would have said, "Holy [ __ ] what are you talking about?" No. Um, but here we are. So, that's that's
what's up to the point. You can vote tonight and give the lawyers a headache that will turn itself out. Or you can say, you know what, come back in August or September or whatever. Um, and I don't know, maybe we can get the appellet division to tell me and Chuck that yes, we'll let the board have
jurisdiction for 9th to vote. I mean, I, you know, I'm not trying to torment Chuck. It's just a procedural problem that I'm trying not to make worse. But I did make worse by dropping a comma a month ago when I filed the notice of kill. >> I think my three minutes are up, right? >> Yes. Yeah. Let's have Chuck respond and
then we can >> Hey, what are we going >> right >> for for the record? Uh yeah, Charles Harrington of Connell Foley on behalf of the applicant. So um I mean I respectfully disagree with with Ann. I
understand you know the the uh the word deficiency it was not just the comma um but that's that's not that's not an issue before you >> comma ink >> okay [clears throat]
I'm sorry I need one speaker please and right now >> I'm sorry being reported one speaker I can't make that any clearer >> you have to turn you that Mr. >> No.
>> Joe. >> Joe, where are you? Can you uh close Ann's >> Yes. >> voice when she's not speaking. >> Yes. >> I don't because we're not going to be able to get a transcript here. >> Yes. >> Mr. Harrington is speaking. >> She's muted. >> When he's finished, if you want to rebut
that, Ann, go right ahead. Write your notes, but just don't butt in. >> All right. >> Okay. >> She's muted now. So, all right, Mr. Harrington, let's go again. >> No. Yeah. Yeah, as I was saying, you know, the the appeal, you know, Ann uh filed something the day after it was
dismissed on the 21st. Uh we don't know if that was sufficient or not. Uh we didn't hear anything in the last 50 days, uh almost two months, you know, as there's no application to reinstate the the appeal. appeals, you know, quite
honestly on our our our side of the table is like or is it is it, you know, and I'm not casting aspersions at at an, but may maybe her client wanted to further delay it and wait. Um maybe maybe they ran out of money and they they really abandoned the appeal. I don't know, and it's not my job to ask,
but uh this was carried from from May 7th uh to to uh to today's date. The reason May 7th didn't happen was because they filed an appeal on May 6th. after after the court ruled in our favor at the end of May on I April April 23rd.
So, you know, we're waiting around and there's nothing happening. So, this is always on the calendar. We renoticed for it because of the Zoom uh uh forum. So, it's not it's not like it was a surprise here that it's been sitting here and you
know, now it's it's it's there is no appeal pending right now. It's dismissed. So, you have jurisdiction to hear it and and the application before you is is to amend that to to get the option to have that that dining uh uh uh
dining um area, the permanent dining structure um either put it in or or or take it out. I don't know why they would object to that in the first place. They they're the ones that that objected to it on the initial um hearing. So again, depending [clears throat] on what the
board rules tonight, we both have uh you know, ability to to take it up if we want to. I'm not worried about a headache. I, you know, I I think it it helps to move things along. Um and I I would I would think that that that the community would would want this. Um so
again, I'm not and and as far as the appeal, I mean that she has a motion and it's not again it's not your issue, but there's a motion pending. We will oppose that. uh you know there's no guarantee that that it's going to be reinstated. So, you know, I respectfully disagree that that this is going to be fixed by
by tomorrow or early next week. It's the appellet division. You know, I guess I don't know what their process is for hearing motions, but you know, that that that's up to us, you know, as the attorneys. We're going to go back and forth on that. But for the purposes of tonight, you know, we're we're asking for, you know, an amendment to this
project, which we think makes sense. We may we think it's a it's a it's a great project with uh with the the um the permanent uh the permanent seating um and structure, but but it's also a great project, you know, without it. Um, and
you know, this is something that that Miss Marion actually had foresight in in the transcript and when she spoke to to the uh the franchise ordinance saying, well, if the council does deny it, and they did not deny it, um uh it's it was
there was a an application before the city council in the fall. Uh and and because we got we got feedback that they wanted the the new council uh to to maybe hear this not not the existing sitting council. There's also a
perception being made that this was a give back to the developer uh that they were getting something that no no other uh developer or property would get which is totally you know false and and and um uh misrepresent misre misre represented
because every every restaurant every permitted restaurant use in Jersey City can have a sidewalk cafe. Uh, so this is essentially a sidewalk cafe and and the ordinance too, the sidewalk cafe ordinance allows you to have seasonal and it allows you to have permanent and
then then there's criteria that you can have a roof on it, you can have heating, lighting. So this is the only difference, you know, what what's approved right now is that we brought it up to a level that's that's that's level with the first floor, but we're we're
just basically when Tanya said, "Well, if it's denied by the council, I'm going to have to know because we may have to do that an administrative amendment uh to just eliminate that from the from the approval." Well, we're getting ahead of that today. We're just saying and we filed this back in December just for
that reason say fine then you know let's let's have the option now uh let's get ahead of that so that if if it does get denied or if we choose not if if this is approved if we choose not to pursue the the permanent structure then then that's
that's what you're going to do you know and uh and again it's um we have jurisdiction tonight we want to go forward all we're not we're not worried about any headaches Okay. >> Well, let let's let's put it this way. Even the objector concedes that we have
jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction. There's no reason to delay this. Whatever. I I can't imagine that we can't solve legal problems that come out in the future. >> So, let's move forward and and go along. So, who is your witnesses, Chuck?
>> So, I see uh Matt Seckler's up here. Um, I'd also ask that you pro promote Mark Chisvet, uh, Jason Desai, and I know you may may as well, uh, promote Joseé Carbio, too, but Jason is going to testify as the architect.
>> Okay. >> Okay. I'm promoting all of them now, Chuck. >> Thanks. So, um, I'm going to start with with Mr. Chisvet. So he's going to walk walk the uh and actually maybe for the benefit of the board, you know, I think not all members were were part of the
initial approval. Um this was approved back in in uh uh what was it? Um >> well all South American countries have >> March March of 2025. So um it's it is a
it is a hotel uh which I can't find. Oh, there it is. Yeah, a nine-story hotel, ninetory building, 72 hotel rooms. It does have this outdoor dining that was approved as part of it. Uh along the Jersey Avenue right of way. Uh that so
tonight, what we're asking for is the option to remove that um whether you know whether on our own accord or in the event the council doesn't approve it. We we think it's a it's a it's a great project with it. Uh but we also can
accommodate again the you're allowed a sidewalk cafe. Uh you're allowed a all year uh sidewalk cafe that can be out 10 feet out into the right of way. Uh this one is only 8 feet. Um so uh that's that's what we're asking. We're going to show you what we're proposing uh today,
you know, uh as as part of the presentation. I also note that we did work with City Bike Station. um they they agreed to move uh the stations in the event we go with the permanent structure. Um but if if we go if it's
approved and we go without the permanent structure then then the stations would stay where they are and and any conflicts any pedestrian circulation conflicts would uh would not be created in either scenario. So with that said
I'm going to um move on to Mr. Chisvet. Is he here? >> Yes, he's he's >> I'm here. >> Oh, [laughter] sorry, Mark. You're right in front of me. Would you raise your right hand to be sworn? >> Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> And could you state and spell your name for the record? >> Mark. M A R K. Chisvet. C H I S V T E. >> Thank you.
And for the record, my license is still active and in good standing. >> So I'd offer Mr. Chisvat as an expert in civil engineering. >> Yes, we've recognized him in the past. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. Um I would like to share my screen so I
can show what I want to do is show comparison between the previously approved site plan and the uh plan that we're presenting tonight. Um, I believe you are looking at the wrong screen. Just one second. I'm going to
stop the share and share again. I think it shared the wrong screen. There we go. All right, that's better. Now you should you should see the site plan on the screen. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Great.
>> Okay. So on the on the left is the set of plans that were approved previously as as Mr. Harrington said in in March of 25 and on the right are the plans that we've presented that we are presenting today. Uh what we're looking at right
now is is the is the uh the site plan drawing C3 of the um so let me just highlight what what is being proposed as far as the site improvements. Uh for now I I'll be referring to the sheet on the left which is the previously approved
plan. There were basically two fundamental aspects of the of the site plan as far as improvements outside the building. One of them is that we had proposed to uh widen the sidewalk by bumping out the curb on Avenue and
reducing the curb radius at the intersection of Newark Avenue and Jersey Avenue to provide more sidewalk area both on the Nor Avenue frontage and at the corner uh for pedestrian for pedestrians in this area. Um we are still proposing that exact same change.
We have not changed that at all. Uh the other fundament uh uh most prominent site plan aspect is our treatment of Maxwell Street. Previously approved plans show that we uh proposed to uh
raise the pavement to be at curb level along the building frontage. Um, so it ramps up slightly at Jersey Avenue and then ramps back down meet normal pavement grade just at the back rear property line. Um, so it would be then
flush with the sidewalks. Um we proposed to uh place some ballards which are shown here in blue so that if vehicle comes down the street there's there's a separation from the pedestrian pathway and the vehicles for safety for
pedestrians and all of that that pavement will be um stamped concrete to look like a brick or pa pattern. All those improvements that we originally uh had proposed are are still proposed in the current plan. You can see on the
right of your screen um we are still showing the the treatment at Maxwell Street. We're still showing the Ballards. We're show still showing the uh bump out on North Avenue and and the increased sidewalk area. One thing that we are proposing to change is as you can
see on the left there was a restaurant deck which would occupy the public rightway space. The property line is at the face of the main building. So the deck would have in the within the right
of way. Uh that has been removed in the plans that we're presenting today. And since we are no longer proposing that raised deck within with these plans, uh there's no need to move the bike uh station the the city bike station. So as
you can see on the right, that city bike station is proposed to remain whereas previously we were going to relocate that. Uh otherwise, tree locations, lighting locations, light levels, all those site aspects are exactly the same
as the previously approved plan. Um I could start flipping through pages to show you utility connections and all that. I don't think it's necessary unless you want me to, but none of that is changing at either. Um all those all those connections um all all of that is
exactly the same as previously. So, um, that's basically it. I mean, like I said, there's almost no difference between the two plans except that the deck is no longer part of it and the bike the bike station that's on Jersey Avenue is to remain and there will be 11
ft plus or minus few inches uh from the closest point of the bike station to the face of the building. >> Okay. I have I have no further questions for Mr. Chz vet but I I know uh madam
chairwoman I know you wait till the end for questions or if uh I guess if m >> if miss stood has has any questions or would you like to wait till the end? I >> Yeah, we'll wait until the end.
>> Okay, then I'll I'll move on with um our architect Jason Desai uh is going to uh walk us through the architecture. And do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
>> I do. >> And state and spell your full name for the record. >> Jason Desai. J A I S O N D E S A I. >> Thank you. >> And uh Mr. Desai, I believe, was recently uh licensed in the state of New
Jersey. So, um, since he hasn't been, uh, accepted as an expert yet before this board, I asked that he give his professional qualifications. >> Jason, >> yes. So, I graduated from NGIT in December of 2022. I've been practicing
under a licensed architect full-time since 2023. I recently received my architecture license in the state of New Jersey as of February 2026. Uh I have uh presented in front of a planning board of the city of South
Orange previously and this will be my first zoning board appearance. >> Okay, >> congratulations. >> Welcome to the board. >> We'll accept his qualifications. >> Okay, thank you. Hi Jason. And you could you walk us through the you know how how
does changes the architecture look uh to the extent it does? >> Yes. Let me share my screen. Okay. So what we are proposing in these submitted sheets get to the next page.
So, as you can see on sheet A501, we previously were approved to provide a dining deck addition to the exterior of the building as can be seen here at the bottom and here on the plan over on on this drawing. And the reason we provided
this exterior dining deck was to provide ease of movement between the restaurant itself and the outdoor dining. This allowed better uh programming for the weight staff to serve the patrons and allow easier access for patrons of the restaurant who would like to sit outside
to easily traverse the restaurant and be able to get to this area. The design of the building would um essentially carry the same style by just bringing it out that stone uh facade design by about 8 ft. The windows
we were permitted by the historical board uh historic preservation committee to uh expand by dropping the opening down a little bit and creating these nano wall style uh glass door according
door fold uh foldable openings to allow more uh air and light into the space. uh the original historic railings as you can see those were taken down from the existing windows and they would be used as guard rails for this new dining deck.
What we are proposing now as a second option is not having that 8-foot addition to the exterior of the building and instead keeping that same facade language where we create the openings and the doorways to allow more air and light into the building and use those
railings still at the same level as the restaurant floor to provide that uh guard rail for the interior occupants. From this elevation looking from Jersey A virtually the design looks very similar almost the same. When we look at
it from Newark A here we can see the exact dimension dimensional change of that dining deck. This is sheet A502. And on the left side we created uh two renderings that depict what that would
look like on the exterior. As you can see at the top, this is what was approved previously where we had that 8-ft addition. And down below is where we would not have that addition but also still carry the same design elements of
the facade pushed back into the rideway into the our property. >> That is what I what we will be presenting for architecture. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. And madam chair, we have one more witness then and I
guess we'll wait for questions. >> Yes. >> Okay. Yes. >> Okay. So, my last witness would be uh Matthew Secar. >> Good evening. >> Hey, would you have your right hand? Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding will be
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> And state and spell your name for the record. >> My name is Matthew Seckler. That's S E C K L E R with Stonefield Engineering Design. Address is 92 Park Avenue in
Rutherford, New Jersey. >> And Mr. Sackler, during the first uh or the initial approval, you were qualified as an expert in planning and traffic engineering. Is that correct? >> Correct. And my license are still in good standing.
>> Okay. So, I' I'd offer Mr. Secular um in the same capacity for the purposes of tonight. >> Yes. Although we're um I'm sorry, >> we'll accept his qualifications. >> Yes. >> So So for the purpose of tonight, Miss Mr. Seclers, the proposed changes in
your professional opinion as a professional planner, do they have any any effect or impact on on the initial approval that was approved by this board? >> No, we're not seeking any additional changes to the variances that we were previously seeking before this board.
all of the previous justifications uh regarding the uniqueness of the property, the positive negative criteria that were uh addressed and and obviously accepted by this board um is is exactly the same with this new proposal. There's really no measurable change from a planning perspective.
>> Okay. Thank you. So that's uh Madam Chair, that that is our presentation. Um again it's it's it's to seek the you know the option to to uh uh go forward with the with the uh building without the the permanent
structure. >> Okay. >> And again it's you know it's this as I said earlier sidewalk cafe is is something that is permitted by the local ordinance um it's section 296-7.1.
It permits seasonal and and fully year sidewalk cafes. So, this is not something that that that is uh any different from any other restaurant. And the restaurant component here is it permitted use. Uh so, it it could be
there regardless of a variant. So, it's not again, we're not asking for something that's that's not permitted. Um we're just asking for uh for the option. >> Okay. >> All right. I'll save my question to the end. U Biddy, do we call the Ann or
we're good? Will we go on to the patrons? I mean to the public >> public comments. >> Since Ann is here, why don't we see if she has any questions for the witnesses? >> Okay. Excuse me. I'll need a break at 7:30. Just keep that in mind, please.
>> What time? >> 7:30. >> Okay. Okay. And uh can you mute on your phone? Ann, you have the um >> Yeah. Could you unmute on your phone there? There you go. >> Can you hear me?
>> I don't have any questions for the witnesses at this point. Thank you very much. I think I do have I do have the the chairman of the Saffron um HOA board is here. He might have some comments at the end, but I don't think we he has any
questions either. >> Is he in front of the public? Is he going to be part of the public? >> Yeah, he's part of the public. >> We're going to go into a public portion. So, if he is, then he'll have three minutes. Okay. Like everybody else. >> Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. >> And I'm sorry, I didn't catch the name
and the federation and >> uh the >> uh is this sorry >> uh Saffron Ha is what it says. >> Yes. Yes. >> Thank you. Okay. So, Joseph, can do we have any
public do we have any um >> Yes, we have uh we have the saffron HOA raising their hand. >> Okay. >> So, I'm going to promote them to panelists right now. >> Okay. Thank you. >> HOA, can you hear us? >> Could you unmute?
>> Can you unmute yourself, please? Yes. Can you hear me now? >> Yes. Can we turn on your video also see you? Yeah. So, you need to have your video on. >> Sure. Getting there. Sure thing. Hello. >> Okay. Raise your right hand to be sworn. >> Do you swear or affirm the testimony
you're about to give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And if you can state and spell your full name and provide your address. >> Absolutely. My full name is Gabby, G A B
Y. Last name Felu, F like Frank, E L I U. And my address is 217 Newark Avenue, unit 414. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. If I can go ahead, I will. >> Yes. Okay. Uh I just want to reaffirm a couple things that uh not uh well first a little bit about myself. I'm I'm as attorney stated, I'm the president of the Saffron HOA who are the objectors to
this uh egregious proposal. Uh secondly, I'm also on the board of one of the neighborhood associations directly being impacted by this, which is the Harson Association. And I just want I know there's some new uh members
of the board and I just uh I don't know if they ever had a chance to look back at any of the transcripts or videos. I imagine they wouldn't, but I wanted them to understand the color of this uh proposal for this structure that is has
uh egregious variances both for height and use. And there was a a fiveday hearing session in front of the zoning board. And at that hearing session, uh there was a unanimous opposition not only from the most impacted
uh owners at the saffron, but also that of all of the neighborhood associations in downtown. That's Paulus Hook, Vanvor, the village, um Vanvor, Paul Hook, the village, Hamilton
Park. and Harmis co and they came out and they all spoke on the record against this project and I just wanted to uh reinstate that for uh I'm sorry uh repeat that for those who may not have been part of that um of those meetings
and that uh uh the opposition to this is loud and full steam ahead in case there was any doubt. Thank you. >> Thank you Joseph. Anybody else? None currently. >> Okay.
>> Madam acting chair. >> Thank you for your comments. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Somebody move to close the public >> motion on the floor to close the public section of the testimony. >> Okay. Can I have a second?
>> All in favor? >> I >> I >> I >> Okay. So, let's uh give Bridget a break. And what time do you want to come back in? 10 minutes. Bridge, >> can we can can we finish this? Is we still have five minutes? I said, can we
just vote on this so we can finish it? >> Um, so I'm covering this. >> I'm covering for Tanya tonight. First half comments if um I >> I don't want take the 10 minutes now. >> Yes, that's >> You want to take it now,
>> Richard? Okay. All right. So, we have a recess for 10 minutes. Okay. We'll be back in 7:36. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Thanks. >> All right. So, what did I miss? >> Uh, nothing. I believe we're still
waiting on Commissioner Sublicki. >> I see. Okay. I will take the moment to share my screen While we wait for the commissioner though because it will assist with my testimony. like Commissioner Sublicki is back. Uh, Commissioner Patel, are you there?
>> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yes, I am. >> Okay. >> Okay, great. Okay. So, >> so Bridget, are we on the record? >> Yes. >> Mhm. >> Great. Okay. >> Okay.
>> So, we were going to hear from Ann or is an >> from our staff. >> The staff. Okay. >> Yes. >> So, Mr. Dilba? >> Um, yes. I'm covering for uh Tanya today.
Um yeah, certainly. So Tanya did write a memo for this um dated July 9th I'm sharing with you. Um so what you have in front of you is an amendment to an existing case. That amendment does not create any new
variances. However, when you have an amendment to a case where variances have been granted, the board obviously has to consider, oh, do the changes to the project impact um
sort of the calculus under which those initial variances were granted. Um, additionally, obviously, just to make sure the board is clear, um, a vote to approve this amendment obviously means the version amended
version of the project can go ahead. A vote to reject this amendment does not mean the project can't go ahead. It means the project can go ahead just in the version without the amended features. Um, so what's not up for debate tonight is whether or not this
hotel can be built. It's whether or not um the hotel proposed hotel can be amended to remove the proposed restaurant deck and bring Maxwell Street to grade. Um I just wanted to bring up the report because it has an excellent close-up
view on the um this is the old proposal, not the new proposal. As you see under the as of >> the previously approved condition would have created um a choke point on the sidewalk. Something that
was far from an ideal condition um with only 5 ft minimum width on what's a very busy pedestrian area. This is the corner of Newark and Jersey. It's at the head of the pedestrian plaza. Um you know you're close to the path. this
is the heart of Jersey City's nightlife, restaurant scene, etc. Um, and so the as approved condition did have, you know, negative um impact on pedestrian flow, but um the
applicant and planning staff is certainly gracious for this is coming forward and proposing um to amilarate this condition by removing that restaurant deck. Um [clears throat] it's staff opinion that rem um removing
the proposed deck not only doesn't negatively impact the zone plan or the proposal, but actually positively impacts the proposal. This makes the impacts of the proposal less intense and makes for a better
project. Um and so with that, staff is um recommending approval um just with the one condition in addition to the existing conditions from the previous approval that updated plans without the deck that show the rehabilitation and preservation of the
existing facade must be approved by the historic preservation officer prior to issuance of permits. Um this building is not a designated landmark. It's not in a historic district, but it is a building with historic value. And because of that, we
want to um you know, make sure that the staff preservationists have an opportunity to make sure that the um condition is compatible with the adequate rehabilitation
and present and preservation and adaptive reuse of the structure. Um, and I'm open to questions from the board if necessary. >> And just for for the record, Matt, uh, that condition would be acceptable. Um,
I also, Mr. Chis Chisvette just texted me because that's how we have to communicate on these Zooms that you said the amended plan does not alter our plan to raise Maxwell Street. I just wanted to clarify that. I I don't know if what you said was in conflict with that. if
you want if you want. Uh >> um I I may I may have misunderstood uh Mr. Trevette's testimony. Um so that the the change is the stamped. It's not changing it. Maxwell Street is not being regraded. It's just the stamping that's
being added. >> Is is that correct? Mark, you're muted. >> Uh no, that isn't that isn't correct. We are proposing to do the exact same thing to Maxwell Street as originally. We're going to raise raise the pavement and
use the stamped uh none of that's changing. The only thing that changes is elimination of the deck. >> Got it. >> Okay, great. I I might have been just confused by some testimony. So, there's Yeah, there's even a smaller scope of potential impacts to weigh here. Um it's
just about does removing that deck um make this a better project from the perspective of advancing um the goals of the master plan and the zone plan or not um and
um it staff opinion that that it does. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, >> so does the commissioners have any questions? >> Yeah. Uh, I have one. >> Hi, it's Commissioner Zlicki. Do you
guys hear me? >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Uh, so just for clarification, uh, this seems as if I guess this is for staff. This seems as if that
the original plan that was proposed was I should for lack of a better word more grandurous than this current outside deck. Obviously it seems as if to me is it's a step down in terms of what was originally approved by all of us last
time. Is that correct? >> Yes. It's a marginally less intense proposal because it's it's proposing a conventional sidewalk treatment that does not require um a franchise to encroach in the public right of way.
>> Okay. So, I I just want to clarify that because that would seem to me as if we voted for it in the past at one level and you voted yes for it, there would be no reason not to vote yes for this being that it's it's a lesser has a lesser impact as you suggested.
So, gotcha. >> Um, yeah, I would I would say that's accurate. Obviously, you know, there's always, >> you know, you could you can make, [laughter] but I think the key thing is, yeah, this isn't >> they're not the size of the building or the scope >> with respect to the outside I'm talking
about. Yes, of course. >> Um, correct. >> Yep. Okay. >> Madam Chair, you're muted. >> Thank you. Um, okay. So, what you're really proposing to do, which is you're going to eliminate that the the the
outside restaurant seating, which is great. I I think that's great. However, what are you going to do with Maxwell? I know you said you're going to uh lift up the the the sidewalk, the the road. What What exactly are you going to do on that side, that alleyway that
leads out into Cole Street? >> We're we're not changing what was approved. I >> Okay. So can you remind me what was approved? I know the gentleman here said is familiar with that Mr. Chazid. >> Yeah. >> You you want me to take that? Sure. So
the proposal is to um raise the pavement of the street to the same elevation as the top of curb. So basically it's going up 6 in. Um, so at the at the intersection of Jersey Avenue where you're turning into Maxwell Street, you
will go up slightly 6 in ramp up in effect and then you will be at sidewalk level until you get to the back of the property and it ramps back down and meets existing pavement grade just at the property line. So because it is a
narrow street and it provides a little bit more with when there are no vehicles, it provides a little more movement for pedestrians to kind of share the road, but we also are proposing Ballards so that if a vehicle does come down the road that pedestrians
have a have a place that keeps them secure. So, because now they don't have the curb for protection. So, they do have they would have the ballards for protection and to keep the vehicles from wandering into uh what would be the pedestrian walkway. >> So, you're technically closing off that
section on not getting closed off. It'll still be open for traffic. >> Oh, it still be open for traffic. >> Yes, it'll it'll always be open for traffic. >> Going to be like a ramp or something because if you're going to have a six feet where it's going to be the same uh size as the sidewalk,
>> how speaker one speaker, Madam Chair, >> how are the vehicles able to go to get up from that the hump and then to go into the parking space on Maxwell? It it
ramps up like a driveway apron would at at the intersection of Jersey Avenue and then rapes ramps back down at the other end. So it would be >> comparable to going into a parking garage or something like that. >> Okay. Okay. And then also my other
question was why do why do you intend to uh expand on Jersey Avenue? Why do you want to increase that? And I know we had approved it last time. I'm just kind of curious. I I you know >> what what's what is it gonna what's happen I mean because I know that that whole block on Jersey Avenue is pretty
is pretty wide. I'm just wondering are you making it wider? We're making the pavement narrower so that we can make the sidewalk wider because we we're anticipating with the hotel on that site there would be more pedestrian activity
and this is actually a recommendation from city tra from the staff of city within the city traffic division to do that. So uh we we we did two things. We we uh widen the curb along Nor Avenue um
near the intersection of Jersey Avenue so that you have now about 21 1/2 ft of sidewalk with the instead of it would have been 8 ft less. Uh and it also adds a lot more area for us people standing
around at the handicap ramps where they if they waiting to try to cross the crosswalks. It also reduces the length of the crosswalk along North Avenue, which makes it a little more safe for pedestrians crossing North Avenue. So, it's it's all for the safety and
enhancements and movement of pedestrian enhancements, >> but it's also for the for the hope for the hotel to be able to put the uh dining on the site. >> Yeah. >> More feasible >> a little bit. It would because uh the de
we actually set it if you look at the plans that were originally proposed the deck is the proposed deck was set back a ways from the corner of the building. So it's more not so much for the um use of of seating as much as it is for just the general activity at the intersection
because we're not bringing the curb out along Jersey Avenue only along North Avenue. >> Yeah. So the expan just for the record the expansion there Mark is really at the corner of Jersey and New York. >> Yeah if you want I can reshare it. You can look at it again if you want me to do that. >> It's okay. It's okay. I'm just wondering
how the buses because I I know I live there. I mean I grew up in that. So I'm just wondering how the buses are going to come in and come from New York Avenue because I know they come up New York Avenue and then turn on Jersey Avenue to keep going down towards um um Grant
Street. Um, not Grant Street. What is that? Yeah, Grant Street. Pacific Columbus. >> So, yeah. So, I'm just wondering that's going to be a big gap. And then you also have the buses from Grant from Jersey Avenue coming the other way and and
stopping over at the chicken place right there and and right in front of the hotel and uh and then going up New York Avenue. So, that that's going to really make it a a small gap between those two buses coming and going. Do you know what I'm saying?
>> I understand what you're saying. We did we did look at turn templates for buses and other large vehicles to make sure that they could u maneuver that that turn without encroaching into the opposite lane. And actually there was a
there was a circulation plan that was part of the original set of plans to show that. Um it as far as buses on Jersey Avenue going in the other direction, it wouldn't really have any impact. It it it does have an impact on the buses coming down Nor Avenue towards
Jersey A because the bus stop now is out of the travel way and with this change they would be basically stopped in in in the travel lane. But like I said, this was uh a proposal that was suggested to
us by the city traffic department. So, we looked at how much of a radius change we can make without impacting the turns and this is where we are now. >> Okay. All right. That that's all I have. >> Yeah. And all >> Thank you. So,
>> and m Mr. Chvet, all traffic coming eastward on Newark has to turn anyway because Newark beyond Jersey Avenue is pedestrianized now, right? So, >> that's that's correct. So whether vehicles are stopping to turn or buses to stop are stopping to take on
passengers, >> there's no free flow of traffic that's being impaired when the bus stops in the travel lane is I guess what I'm getting at. >> It obviously they all have to turn. Yeah. >> Yeah. So everyone's stopping to for clearance for their turn anyway.
>> That's true. >> Yeah. [cough and clears throat] Nothing further. Correct, Mr. Harrington. >> Nothing further. No, you're on mute. >> I'm trying to mute the sound for my dog
that's that's in the cage. I'm sorry. Um, so can I have a motion, please? Madame chair, madame acting chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve KZ two, excuse me, Bridget KZ20225
0 94 presented to the board this evening. >> Okay. Can I have a second? >> Can I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Okay. >> Commissioner Allen. >> Yes. Commissioner Koviello.
>> Yes. >> Commissioner Shliki. >> Yeah. I want to say yes and just for one thing. Um this as of right now, just as it's been said in the in our hearing tonight, the um we have the the status and the
ability to vote on this today. We're on a time frame that's basically official and supported by our courts. It bothered me a little bit that someone would just assume that the courts would make a different uh decision later on as a
guarantee, but you know, just to make it clear, we are on good status with this and uh moving forward properly. So, yes, I vote yes. >> Thank you. Uh Commissioner Patel, >> yes. >> Commissioner D'Angelo,
>> yes. >> Commissioner Burns, >> yes. >> And acting chair Aruo, >> yes. Motion carries 70. >> Okay, thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> And now we're switching court reporters.
>> Yep. Hello. Thank you all for having me. [laughter] >> Bye, Bridget. Okay, >> good. >> Okay, so the next case the next case is Z 2025 0067. It's 238 New York Avenue
and the uh the attorney is Joseph Steven Joseph. >> Yes, I am elevating him to panelist now. All right, there we go. Uh Stephen Joseph Casano quickly trai for the
applicant. Um, we do have two witnesses this evening. Uh, I see they're raising their hands. Charles Height and Liam Wenman. Uh, this is a notice application. So, I would ask that we receive notices and we can answer them to evidence.
>> Yes, you can enter them. We re we have reviewed them your affidavit, your notice of publication and uh we'll mark them however we mark them days. A A1 I guess maybe. >> Yes. Yeah.
>> Sure. Okay. Great. Um >> I meant physically how we >> Oh, yeah. I don't know. I have a pile of them in the office now, so I don't know. Do it. [laughter] >> But we'll go to your office. >> Yeah. All right. So, uh 238 New York
Avenue. This uh this property is located on the corner of New York A and Griffith Street. It's currently improved with a three-story building. There's ground floor commercial space and there are residential dwellings above the ground floor. The building was deemed
historically significant uh by the historic preservation commission. That's the nature of this whole this whole application. So this is a subdivision um which with the purpose of isolating the historic building and allowing the development of the empty space next to
the historic building. We're here with a subdivision because the commercial space on the ground floor is an existing non-conforming condition. And by cutting the lot in half, we are intensifying the use uh technically expanding the non-conforming use, which
creates a a devariance. That brings us here to this board, the zoning board. Um in addition to the subdivision and the and the Dvariance, we there are a couple of C variances. We have lot area for both lots, rear yard setback and the lot
coverage all related to uh the the nature of the existing size of the lot and us keeping the existing building because we're forming two new lots even though the building is existing. It does create those variances for the setback and and the coverage. So, what what
you're being asked to approve this evening I is it's a subdivision of a 276 ft lot into two new lots. One of those lots is 182 ft and the other one is 994
ft. Uh we do have Will here this evening. We'll get him sworn in and he will quickly go over what the plan is for project and because there's a devariance involved we we do have Mr. Height here to offer some planning testimony. So, let's get Will Sworn in.
>> Will sworn in. You swear any testimony you give tonight. It's going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes, I do. >> And for the record, can you spell your name? >> Sure. Is William Wackenman. Last name spelled W C K E N M A N. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> And we know that Will's uh license is in good standing and we recognize his expertise. >> Yes. Thank Thank you, Vinnie. >> Great. Um, [sighs and gasps] okay. So, tonight I will be uh playing surveyor instead of
architect um for a change. So, um uh as Stephen mentioned, um uh it's a pretty pretty straightforward subdivision. Um I'll just quickly walk you through the existing uh site plan. Um New York Avenue is here on the left.
Griffith Street is towards the bottom of the screen. There's an existing three-story building on the corner uh which is indicated by this dark line here. The building has a series of improvements uh on the on the back
portion of the lot. It's currently used for parking. Um and it's completely paved. Uh but there is a a one-story frame garage in the back corner as well as a canopy um and a few other um minor
improvements. Um this is a photograph of the site. This is uh this was up on the portal. Um so you can see um the area that we're proposing the subdivision is uh the area
back here um that is currently used as uh surface parking. Um sorry. Um the proposed lot line will basically uh follow the uh profile of the uh existing
masonry building. Um and uh will be a total uh total square footage of 994 square ft. Um there are a few uh other
miscellaneous uh improvements that we're we're proposing aside from removing uh these two these two structures and removing all of the uh uh impervious coverage. Um I'll just go back to the photo real quick. Um this uh this
chimney will be removed um and relocated within the building. Um and these these two windows uh which open up to a stairwell will be closed and then these these vents and uh miscellaneous pieces of equipment on the side of the building will also be uh removed as part of the
subdivision work. Um we're not proposing a new building at this time. This is just the um uh the subdivision. Um so that uh concludes my uh direct testimony. Great. Thank you, Will. Um,
if there's any questions about the the nature of the subdivision, I think that was pretty thorough, but if if anyone wants some more detail, it's happy to to provide that. >> We usually hold our questions till the end. So, you have another witness, Stephen.
>> Yeah. Uh, so, so let's get Charles sworn in and he could provide some uh some planning testimony. >> And Charles, I think I heard you speaking before. I I I I I did appear earlier tonight. >> All right. Well, good evening. Nice to see you. And if you could just confirm
that you remain under oath from earlier. >> Uh acknowledged. I remain under oath. >> Thank you. >> And we've already recognized you as an expert, so go right ahead, Charles. >> Um good evening board members again uh for the second time tonight. Um I am
involved with this application. We did work with the property owner and Mr. in on understanding what the subdivision uh and how it would impact the existing homes and the adjacent lots. So, uh we are requesting a D to expansion of a
non-conforming use as well as associated uh bulk variances. Um I'll directly jump into the proofs here because I think it's a straightforward application. Um the D2 expansion of non-conforming use
results as uh an existing non-conforming mixeduse building that is uh being reduced in lot size and in in um planning that rationale means that the reduction in lot size creates a scenario
where the existing nonconformity is exacerbated. However, uh I think we've are are taking certain measures to mitigate any potential impacts of the subdivision. As Mr. WCman just mentioned, uh a close look at the proposed changes on the existing
structure uh in terms of all the equipment and venting uh that uh is on that proposed shared lot line. Uh I'll also walk through a couple of the uh impacts that are proposed and how we believe will actually benefit uh this
adjac uh the adjacent lots uh in the the rear yard area. Um but essentially uh mixed uses are permitted in the R1 district um in uh a as the requirements go the ground floor commercial use is
permitted if it existed uh in a historic tax photo. During the course of our review when we did some research uh we were able to document the existing of the ground floor commercial back as to 1938. However, the specific reading in
the zoning ordinance requires it to be present at 1930. So, just shy 8 years for it to be considered a permitted use. Uh therefore, it's a it's a non-permitted use. Um pre-existing the current code that regulates it. So, um
it's the the existing mixed use, the ground floor use has existed for uh up just shy of 90 years. Um it's been a constant use, a constant commercial use on the subject property. And uh like I
said, um there are certain proposed changes to the existing structure that will allow for uh any future development on the proposed vacant portion of this overall property. with respect to um the associated bulk
requirements, they're all related to the existing structure. Uh at this point in time, there is no proposed structure on the vacant portion uh which would be subdivided. Um there are changes on the
proposed lot um the proposed interior lot 13.02. um a portion of the existing structure is actually to be removed. So that would be um portions of the one-story section
that spans the current lot today. So that will actually um bring the overall area into a little bit of conformity by adding some open space in the rear yard or interior of this lot. Um, with respect to the
bulk requirements, um, the minimum in the R2, as this board has heard me, uh, discussed many times over, is 25,500 square ft. What's being proposed, uh, is 1,082 ft on lot 3201 and 994 square ft on lot
3202. These are uh smaller than that standard minimum for the R1. However, based on some of our other research uh in understanding the lock patterns uh in this section of the heights, there are several other properties uh specifically
at this intersection of New York and Griffith that are actually smaller than that standard. Uh this is all um relatively uh understandable because of the historic nature of this portion of the heights. there are smaller lots that
existed in the early part of the 1900s. Um, and we're actually proposing a subdivision that's consistent with that historic pattern. So, just to reference a few um, within the area, lot 31 is at about 1,000 square ft. Lot 30 is just
over at 1,040 square feet. Lock 29 is at 1,083 square feet. So again, there's a pocket of smaller lots that are uh that we would actually be consistent with within this uh specific
neighborhood. The rear yard being requested uh is actually uh in my opinion two parts. We do need specific relief for the corner pro the proposed lot at the corner. The existing structure will occupy the full
extent of the lot. So as it goes the rear corner uh a rear uh corner property requires an interior corner point setback from the rear. And because the existing structure occupies that space,
uh it technically requires it's technically proposed with the subdivision at 0 ft. We did prepare an exhibit uh or a diagram associated with our principal point statement that I I wanted to share. And this provides a little bit of
context and analysis as to how in context while we're requesting relief for the proposed lot, we're actually creating more rear yard open space than what currently exists. So, as I mentioned earlier, and you can see on the survey,
um the one-story structure that's being removed exists in this space that's shown in green and blue. It's actually a little bit greater than that area. But in terms of required rear yards, the proposed
subdivision requires this space in red and that's about 67 square ft. So this is the relief in terms of the rear yard setback requirement from the rear yard point. However, because we are proposing a subdivision
and we are removing the one-story structure on this portion of the overall lot, we're actually creating the ability to create a true rear yard area that's greater than what's shown in green and would span the whole width of proposed
lot 32.02. So, we're actually creating a rear yard area um that doesn't exist today and is greater than what would be required for the overall property. Hopefully, this diagram shows that uh in terms of what would be required on the
overall lot, what's being proposed in terms of the green and the blue, and then the variance that we're specifically requesting with this application. And this was attached to the principal point statement that's on the portal. So we do not need to enter this into
evidence just for the record. >> That's correct. So just by the numbers again, what's required for the rear yard setback in terms of square feet with lot 32.01 is 67 67.6 ft. What's required for
uh the overall lot would have been 129.7 square ft. And what we're realizing with the removal of the one-story portion and um concept plans for a proposed structure on lot 3202 that we would be
able to realize a total rear yard area of 233.5 square ft. Okay. Um the last bulk variance that I would want to reference is with respect to uh lot
coverage. Um this is again associated with lot 3201 uh with striking the new subdivision line. Um where we propose it. The existing structure would then occupy
100% of proposed lot 32.01. 1 uh which is the corner lot and the maximum permitted in the district. Uh let me double back to my notes. Give me one minute. The screen's the maximum permitted lot coverage is 85
square feet 85% sorry. Um so we are um increasing the overall coverage on the lot but uh given that that existing structure exists today there won't be any physical impacts or
changes uh any uh new structure that would be proposed on lot 32 would actually um come by way of an improvement and uh there would be a storm water system that would be able to collect uh water into from the roof into
leaders and then reduce the amount of sheet flow uh from the subject property onto adjacent lots. So there's a little bit of an improvement there with the roof and drainage system um on lot 32.02.
Um part of the positive criteria that I would offer for this application would be um a uh provision of adequate light, air and open space. Uh, I really do believe that the improvements in the interior of these two lots, creating a a
greater amount of rear yard space is an overall improvement to the subject properties as well as the adjacent lots. So, I do think it actually increases the amount of light and air that will be able to enter into the interior and the other rear yards on the adjacent lots.
Uh I do also believe that there um is the promotion of uh purpose I to create a desirable visual environment. It's a subdivision in effort to provide for the opportunity of a uh infill residential
development uh on one of the on the interior proposed lot. And I do think that that advances uh in aesthetic improvement uh above and beyond the surface parking and the one-story portion of the existing structure.
Um with respect to the negative criteria, um I don't believe there's any substantial detriment to the general welfare. Um we closely review the layouts of the existing floor plans. We identified
areas that would need to aspects of the building that would need to be uh relocated in terms of venting um with the commercial structure as well as any venting with the residential units. Uh we also identified that uh some of the
lot line windows uh are actually servicing stairwells which are not a required component to building code requirements and they can be removed. Um we did pro produce concept plans that do show a compliant development on the
subject property in terms of both zoning code and building code. And that is uh usually a good measure as if the proposed lot can accommodate an infield development. Um that's part of the application. Um
and with respect to uh the zoning plan and and zone or uh zoning ordinance, um I don't believe there's any substantial impairment to the master plan, uh we are in a residential uh neighbor uh residential zone. We're in a residential neighborhood. the existing mixeduse
structure essentially will remain the same in terms of the three-story portion of it and uh that would in my opinion actually advance goals and objectives uh specifically continued efforts to enhance residential neighborhoods. Uh I
mentioned it earlier, removing the surface parking, removing the one-story uh garage structure um and allowing for an infill development, infill residential development would be appropriate. Um I also believe that
um it would act enhs the city's housing is balanced and meets the needs of all current and future city residents. Um there's a lot of discussion on the income levels of housing, but it also uh
is the size of housing. Uh a lot of dwelling units that are more expensive tend to be larger and dwelling units on these properties that are smaller will be smaller. So from a market standpoint, these smaller units will meet a certain
demographic and and um uh in the housing profile that uh is underserved today. So I do believe it's it's helping balance the supply of housing uh in the city. That's my direct testimony.
Hopefully I walk through everything and be happy to answer any questions that the board might have. Madam Chair, I think you're on mute. >> Do the commissioners have any questions? >> Okay. May I have the um May I have the the staff? Sure.
>> Uh certainly. Um I just I guess before I >> Did we ask for public by the way? Oh, we have not. >> No, we did not. I apologize. Okay, so forget that. Let's do [laughter] we have any public comments. Um >> uh we we don't have anyone raising their
hand at the moment. Madam >> Okay, >> great. So, let's have a motion to close the public so we clear that up. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> Motion to clear I mean to clear the public. Motion to um >> Oh my god, I can't speak today. They're
going to have to excuse. All right. Motion to close com public comments. I motion. I need a second. >> Second. >> Yes. All in favor? >> I >> I >> Thank you.
>> Now. >> Okay. >> Does the staff have any input? >> Yes. So, I'm covering for Matt today who was um the project planner for this. Um I guess I want you mentioned that there was going to be an incoming or anticipated um
residential development in there. Could you kind of go more into that and also just you know kind of I don't know if you have specifics to to what degree you have specifics on that but any more details any more details that you could add would be great. And then I anticipate that there will be some
easements involved given there are lot line windows like can you go into that as well? >> Yeah sure. So there's uh there's no uh development proposed before this board this evening. Um there
can be a building that's built here without any variances and if there there are if there is a building proposed in in the future um that has variances, it would have to come back before for this board. But we don't have any specific plans at this time. Um so we would just
be speculating on that. In terms of uh in terms of easement, there there will be a a maintenance easement. Um I believe Matt had me upload that to the to the portal as well. So there is a a copy of the maintenance easement on the
portal. Um which just allows for the the access along the common boundary line to maintain um to maintain the the improvement. So you have permission to walk onto the adjacent property to maintain the
adjoining walls and windows and all of that. >> Great. Thank you. Um so in terms of staff comments um staff agrees with the um the applicants planner's analysis
that this um subdivision could be uh doesn't pose any sort of detriment to to the zone plan or to the public welfare. um see it as a good opportunity to provide or provide space for additional
infill residential development. Um that as mentioned could provide uh housing for those um for for a diverse set of um clientele uh or income based clientele.
Um, and it appears that it also would um kind of help preserve the uh existing building that has um architectural, historical, cultural significance. Um, so uh given that um I would like to ask
the applicant if they've had the chance to review the conditions from the staff memo uh dated uh June 22nd, 2026. >> Yes. Uh I was just pointing that out. Now there are three conditions there. Those conditions are acceptable. Um
there is a forestry comment on the portal. It's just very general though. Uh basically telling us we need to follow the ordinance and the regulations. So of course we we uh agree to that as well.
>> Okay. So given that um staff can recommend approval. You're good. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. So, may I have a motion to approve? >> Yes, madam. Acting madam chair, I'd like
to make a motion to approve KZ2025-000067 as presented to the board this evening. >> I'll second. I'll second. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh, Commissioner Allen. >> Yes. Uh, Commissioner Shapli,
>> yes. >> Commissioner Patel, >> yes. >> Commissioner Koviello, >> yes. >> Commissioner D'Angelo, >> yes. >> Commissioner Burns, >> yes. >> And Commissioner Acting Chair,
>> yes. >> 70. >> Have a wonderful evening. >> You, too. You, too. >> Bye. Thank you so much. Okay. So, our last case
[clears throat] is Z 2026 0031 and it's the appeal of a zoning administrative determination 58 Thomas McGovern Drive and it's by uh
John J. Lamb Esquire. Mr. Lamb, >> uh could you raise your hand? Uh, if you're part of the applicants team, I think I see Charles Raboli here who's the attorney. Okay, I've elevated Charles as a
panelist. >> Mr. Robboli, could you hear us? >> You're on mute. >> Yes, there we are. Good evening. And let me bring up my video as well. >> Hey, >> there I am. >> There you are. >> Good evening. My name is Charles Raboli.
R A B O L L I. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Bey Padavano. And this is an appeal of the zoning officer's decision with regard to issuing a sign permit. This comes to you under NGSA 405D7A, an appeal of the zoning officer's
decision. It is not an application for development. Therefore, it does not require notice, but obviously, you know, American Anglo-American legal cultures, we provide notice. So, for the record, I uploaded some proofs earlier in the day.
Um, Peter Portal, and I will identify them that exhibit CC as in Charles uh was a letter that was personally served via Federal Express on the parties and GG is the standard uh notice
published in the newspaper and people within 200 ft. Uh, which again was not necessary, but I did it anyhow. Let me first ask, is there any other party here who might be representing the applicant or I'm sorry, the uh the developer, the property owner. Is there anybody out
there? No. Okay, that's fine. So, what I did, this is a hopefully this will go smoothly. I have a PowerPoint presentation to walk through what this is about. I think that will make it go uh relatively smoothly again. So, hold
on one second. Charles, I'm sorry. While you're doing it, uh, I might have missed it. Did you say who you represent? >> I represent Liberty Storage, um, which is a couple hundred yards away from the, uh, developer. >> Thank you.
>> Okay, so here's where we are. This is an appeal of the zoning officer's decision under ZRA 2026-0000214. Uh that is on the portal obviously and so that's the how we're working the appeal. The issue is a sign permit wrongfully granted. The property address
is 58 Thomas McGovern Drive. The appellant which is us is Liberty Storage. And then I am Charles Raboli. And this particular matter has the docket number as you noted Z2026-000031. and all exhibits have been uploaded to the port.
>> So why is Liberty Storage before the board? This is an appeal of the March 18th, 2026 zoning officers decision uh to issue interim use banner permit to public storage. The appeal is filed April 6, 2026 through the Jersey City's
online portal and the municipal land use law provides that you can appeal a zoning officer's decision within 20 days. Traditionally, what you would see would be an uh a developer who got a denial and the developer files with the
board for an A, you know, uh to have the interpretation and at the same time a D for the variance. If you find that the zoning officer was correct, uh then we request the use variance. Okay. So, it's a little different when it's a a neighbor, but it is permitted under the
MLUL. So, the permit was wrongfully issued because the interim use banner violates the Jersey City ordinances and design standards, the planning board resolution and Liberty Harbor redevelopment plan. So, this is the subject property. I'm going to note um
this is a photo that was taken in June and you can see you have the traditional single sign on the front that says public storage and then on what is the side of the building basically covering approximately about a third of the building is a sign that says public storage now open in the phone number.
Now so this is the actual sign and we we have another issue but it doesn't relate specifically to the zoning officer. This is what was submitted by the developer for the permit. This sign obviously it
says exactly what the one on the building says. But what it indicates to you is that the width of the building is 80 ft. And it says where you can see existing tension frame is 80 ft and above it the new banner is 60 ft in width which would mean obviously that
there's 10 ft to the left and 10 ft to the right. And this was what was approved by your zoning department. I'm going to flip back for a second. And if you look at this, you see that it does not conform that that sign goes from side to side rather than having a 10-ft indentation on both sides.
So the public storage interim use banner is approximately 1,970 ft, which is the um 60 ft times the 37 ft. And you can eyeball it. It's about approximately 30% of the facade of the building. It extends above the second floor of the
building. It's constructive mesh. It's attached to a metal frame and it's rectangular in shape. And these facts are relevant because of your work particular codes. So the interim use banner is illegal. It violates Jersey City ordinances and the design standards. It violates Jersey City
planning board resolution. It violates the Liberty Harbor redevelopment plan. It's not interim and it's not a bear. So, here are the violations with regard to the Jersey City Ordinance and Design Standards. A banner is limited to no more than 5% of the facade. A banner
must be wider at the top and narrow at the bottom. A sign cannot be above the second story. A sign cannot block windows or doors used for entry or stand pipes. Um, with regard to that particular one, we could not see what's behind the sign. So, that may or may not
be an actual violation in fairness to everybody. It must be consistent with the architecture of the building and it must be proportionate and not dominate the building. And I think that you can use your own discretion to see that it clearly is not proportional and does dominate the building. So that's the
Jersey City law. Uh with regard to the Liberty Harbor redevelopment plan, it indicates that signs quote shall be minimal in size close quote. Signs should be of a material consistent with that of the principal structure of the building and only one sign per
establishment is permitted not to exceed 10% of the first story portion. So again all these are also violated. Uh further this property was subject to a planning board resolution P21-20 and this quote is from the resolution
itself. The planning board finds that the applicant proposed one project identification sign that reads public storage which is proposed on the facade of the building. The project identification sign is less than 10% of the first story of the building and is compliance with the signing area
requirements. The redevelopment plan at 189.9 ft. So your planning board approved the property and made no accommodation for them being able to put a very large sign on the building. Okay. Um and then definitionally the interim
use banner is not interim. Your uh code defines interim as a use approved by the planning board applied on a temporary basis as prescribed while permanent plans for the area formulated or implemented. So, uh, reading that in
context is that if you had a building under construction or being remodeled, at that point in time, you may be able to put up a a temporary banner uh, until it's constructed, until you can get your regular sign up. But there's really no
reading of this to permit you to put up on a fully established building that's been open for, you know, years. Um, then put up a temporary banner or an interim banner outside. Also, it's not a banner because the definition of a banner is again a
temporary sign of cloth or similar material that celebrates an event uh or the community, the neighborhood. And you don't have that here. This is purely a commercial enterprise. So, it doesn't qualify as a banner um under the definition from the uh complete
illustrate book of developmental definitions. So, that's really it in a nutshell. I did that pretty much in one breath, but I think that um you know, we've met the burden of proof and showing the various violations. The particular code sites I uploaded as part
of my letter earlier today as well. Clearly, if anybody wants them, I could go through them, but um they are all listed in the Jersey City ordinance under signs that have all those qualifications. So with that, I would ask that you um memorialize a
reversal of the zoning Walter's decision uh that this size/banner is inappropriate for the location. >> It's not appropriate for the location. >> It's not appropriate. That's correct. It is it is mis the grant of the permit was in error and
should be reversed. >> Madame acting chair. Uh so so we don't get confused with reversing and this and that and the other thing. Uh first of all, Joe, is there is there anybody from the public interested in this? >> Um I I haven't gotten any uh
correspondence from anybody in the public. Um >> and is nobody raising their hands? >> Um I'm I'm not Yeah, I'm not seeing anybody from the public raising their hands on this. >> Okay. >> Okay. So let let's make this as simple as possible. >> First of all, the the the uh Mr.
is in time making this appeal. Uh from his presentation, it seems to be clearly an error and let's just hear what staff has to say. Staff, you have a comment on this. >> Uh I do. Thank you. U so Mr. makes a pretty comprehensive argument on what
the violations of the sign >> but I think you know our analysis is pretty straightforward and it that it you know the sign as approved it does not comply with >> one the interim use banner size limits um as mentioned um the limit is about 5%
of the facade um surface area which is about the facade surface area is about 6580 square ft which would make which would allow for a sign that's at the large is 329 ft. What was built was almost four times the size of that. Um
>> so you know I think just given that alone I think it shouldn't should it shouldn't have been approved as it was. Um I and I think given that uh that's more enough reasons for us to uh or for
me to um recommend approval of the appeal or grant granting of the appeal. >> Okay. >> So so we make this simple for us. Uh if if there is a motion to
grant this appeal, that means we're reversing this interim permit that was given. Obviously an error. But uh if anybody wants to make a motion, let's let's hear what the motion would be. >> Before we before we make a motion,
Benny, I have a question. >> Yes. >> Wouldn't wouldn't this as of now be an enforcement issue because um Mr. Rebello again. Rebelli, excuse me. Am I I'm pronouncing it right? >> Like a Stromboly.
>> Okay, Mr. >> Yeah. Okay. So, he made a strong case and he pointed something out that it was approved for 60 feet and not 80 feet, right? Okay. They took it upon themselves to make it 80 feet. Wouldn't this now be an enforcement case? And who
would enforce and who would enforce it? Us? >> Sure. No, I can address that. So with regard to it being more than 5% of the side of the building, >> yes, >> it was issued an air on that ground alone.
>> Yes, I understand that. Yes. >> All right. So that that is the issue before the board with regard to a reversal of the zoning officer's decision to grant the permit. What I mentioned in passing was that hey by the way you're absolutely right with regard to enforcement is that what the as built
is not what the proposed was. So that might be a separate issue. Um the only thing I'm here for tonight is with regard to just a reversal of the zoning officer's decision. Okay. >> The your planning department or zoning department might decide as well now that they now have an enforcement issue and take it upon themselves to go issue a
violation for that as well. >> Okay. Understood. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So it seems logically maybe step one is to say this was an error. Let's reverse it. >> Okay. >> And then where it goes from there. Who is certainly not us >> who's enforcing
>> Okay. >> Unless Jeff you want to go out there and and paint this. [laughter] >> That could be that could be one issue. >> But I think I think that should be the motion. Oh >> yeah. Can you close Mr. Roelly? Can you
close your um Is this you? Is this you? >> I'm sharing your screen. >> Share. Bear with me a second. I apologize. >> There we go. >> There you go. Great. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Now, so we're we're making we're I'm making a motion to deny the appeal
or approve the appeal. >> No, you're going to make a motion. I would assume if you if you're agreeing with Mr. Roelli, you we're agreeing to affirm his appeal. >> Okay. which really means we're reversing that permit. >> Okay?
>> And so once we're remer reversed, >> just stick in your mind. If you want to reverse the permit, >> you're they have to take everything >> confirming his appeal. Period. >> Okay. But they have to then then that they have to uh take the the sign out. Is that correct? Or they have to reduce
the sign. >> Well, what are they going to do with this? It's up to either our planning department to decide what they're doing now with this because now the now the permit has been issued in error. >> It's a violation. >> Yeah. >> Or you know a planning staff takes it
this way. Mr. Rebelli takes it another way with the building department or municipal court. I really don't know. >> We're just enforc the the sign is is not appropriate. >> Okay. So, can I have a second on that, please?
>> A second. >> I'll second. >> Okay. All right. Can I have a roll call? >> Yes. Uh, Commissioner Allen, >> yes. >> Uh, Commissioner Colby, >> yes. >> Commissioner Chiplicki, >> yes.
>> Commissioner Patel, >> yes. >> Commissioner D'Angelo, >> yes. >> Commissioner Burns, >> yes. and acting chair Arua. >> Yes. >> Motion carries 70. The appeal is affirmed.
>> Very good. Thank you very much. >> You all have a nice evening. >> Take care. >> Okay. So, with that said, uh or that done, uh >> I think we have resolutions, right? >> The only thing left on the agenda is uh
two resolutions to approve. Mhm. >> Shall we do that? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. The first is case Z2024-000063. It was a minor site plan with a C variance for 100 Decal Avenue.
The applicant I'll spell it because I cannot say it. The applicant is L I K. Middle name is Y E U N J last name L I.
So that uh that application was heard on February 5th of this says uh 2026. Yeah. This year. And present on February 5th
was acting chairwoman Royo, commissioners Shadid, D'Angelo, Zablicki, Burns, and Koviello. And that application passed. Six in favor, none opposed. All in favor of approving that.
I >> I >> the next uh >> resolution to to approve is case Z205- Z 00057.
The applicant was Nicholas Gualtiros. That's gu. It was a signage approval with a C variance for 188 Newark Avenue. That was heard on June 4th. Present on June June
4th of 2026. Present on June 4th was Chairwoman Coyle, Commissioners Allan, Patel, D'Angelo, Shadid, and Aoyo. That passed. Six in favor, none opposed.
All in favor of approving that. I >> I >> that's all the resolutions to approve and presumably that's all the business we have. Correct. >> Okay. So, can I have a motion? >> Yes. Right. Okay. So, can I have a
motion to adjurnn? >> Nobody. I want >> I'll make a motion. [laughter] My second. >> All right, >> I >> Bye everybody. Take care. See you in August.
>> See you next month. >> Take care. Thank you. >> Thank you guys. >> I have a question before you go, Vinnie. >> Yes. Uh oh.