Good evening and welcome to the se September 11th, 2025 meeting of the Jersey City Zoning Board of Adjustment. This meeting is held in accordance with NJSA 10 colon 4-12, the Open Public Meetings Act. I would like to call this
meeting to order. Uh Mr. Beasley, are there any Sunshine announcements that you need to share with us? Yes. In accordance with the open public meeting act, uh notice has been provided to Bergen record Ellis Balito as well as
pro posted with the city clerk. Um I'd like to request to mark this as B1 for the record. Thank you. Okay. Um Mr. Beasy, will you please take roll call? Yes, I see Commissioner Allen
here. Commissioner Burns here. Commissioner D'Angelo here. Commissioner Shadid. Yes. Commissioner Baron here. Acting chair or vice chair Auru sorry
here and chair Coyle present. Okay we have a quorum of seven commissioners. Okay. Can we please stand for the flag salute? I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic
for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I would ask everyone to remain standing for a moment of silence for 911 victims. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any staff members in
attendance that need to be sworn in? The whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you. I see Maryley. Tanya Mariel and Jordan. Thank you again, Mr. Beasley. Is there any
correspondence or adjournments that we should be that we should know about? Yeah. So item 11 under new business case Z2024-000076 30 Decap Avenue has requested to carry to October 9th
and item 12 under new business case Z2025-000046 292 Arlington Avenue has requested to carry to October 23rd. Okay. Thank you. So, we have three cases tonight. Um,
okay. And, uh, before we begin, um, I would just like to let everyone know that, um, if there are any public comments tonight, all public comments on every individual basis will be held to three minutes. And Mr. Ahmed Shahid, Commissioner Ahmed Hash Shahid will be
timing you. He will let you know when you have a minute left and uh, so that you could wrap up your comments. Also, um we will start no cases um or continue um 10:00 will be the cut off for any new cases coming forward um for us to listen
to tonight. So, something might be postponed. I can't guarantee that we'll hear everything tonight, but we are going to start with um case uh Z2025-000054. It is a one-year extension for 234th
Street. Hi, good evening, Madam Chair. Good evening, commissioners. Gerard Pizzillo from Gova Burns. On behalf of the applicant, Grove Street Hub LLC. Uh, as Madam Chair indicated, we are appearing before you uh requesting a third and
final one-year uh extension of the uh minor site plan with Dvarian. This board approved in uh May of 2021 under case Z2046. Essentially, the project was a conversion of a former uh tire shop to a
restaurant category 2 use. Um the basis and the underlying uh issues related to the approval uh and why we're here for a third time setting aside the COVID pandemic which impacted everything. Uh
there was a litigation, partnership issues, and then there was a financing issue that occurred. um with the historic nature of the building, there are certain elements that need to you know of course increase the costs. So that was what the issue was uh in
working with a contractor within a budget. Uh the architect has confirmed and I did speak with her this week that the uh they are close to getting a contractor. The intention is to move forward with the project understanding that this is the last chance saloon
here. uh they no longer uh you know after the expiration of this year they're no longer afforded the protections under the zoning so the city can change the zoning uh and they no longer have the you know the approval to build according to what you granted back
in 2020. So we understand that uh and that's you know what we're trying to avoid here. Uh there were conditions on the underlying approval. We agree and understand that they would uh comply, you know, carry through to this extension. Uh and we would be agree we
would agree to be bound by them as well. Uh happy to answer any other questions the board has, but that's my presentation. Okay. Uh is there anyone from the public here to make any comments on this? Okay. If not, uh do any commissioners have any comments or questions regarding this uh
one-year extension? Okay. Um then I'm asking for a motion. Uh, what about I'm sorry, staff. Um, yeah, I don't have too much to add. Council already agreed to the conditions originally approved. Um, staff recommends approval. Okay. Did you have your hand up?
Okay. Um, so I'm asking for a motion to vote um on this uh extension with conditions. Can I get a um a motion? Madame Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve KZ2025-000054 as presented to the board this evening.
Can I get a second? Vice Chair Rule. Yes. Commissioner Shadid. Commissioner Shadid. Yes. Commissioner D'Angelo. Yes. Commissioner Baron.
Yes. Commissioner Burns. Yes. Commissioner Allen. Yes. And Chair Coyle. Yes. Motion carries. Seven in favor, none opposed. Okay. Thank you everyone. You're welcome. Okay. Um we are going to
go to uh case Z2025-000056 85 Sherman Place. Huh? How can he? Why don't we do Wait a minute. No, I changed the order. It's 85 Sherman Place is what I'm going to hear next.
[Music] But where is he? But how we who we going to be? Who we going to? You spoke to him. Okay. Um good evening, commissioners. Uh, my
name is Cynthia Hajianis. I'm here on behalf of the owners and residents of 85 Sherman Place, Paul Ematuso and Gary Westby Gibson. And I just wanted to hand up the um original notices for this is a
zoning appeal if I may. Yes, please. says for this application notice of publication. Okay. And um we are appealing uh the decision of the acting zoning officer to
approve plans to build an addition on the property right next door to my client's property at 85 Sherman Place and to put an ADU in the backyard. And I'm I'm sure you're all familiar with
the acting zoning officer. That's Tanya Marion. uh she I think she's here this evening. Um and I I just wanted to note for the record and the board can sort of take this uh weigh this the way it wants to,
but uh here she's not in her role as staff to the board. She's she's the planning director, but she's also the acting zoning officer. So she wears two hats. There's no prohibition on that in the municipal land use law, but
sometimes there is a conflict uh between what you do as a planner and what you do as the zoning officer. Sometimes uh there can be uh bias or the appearance of bias. So I just wanted to
uh for the board to bear that in mind this evening as they hear our presentation and probably the city witnesses. Um, so just to tell you a little bit uh about what this is about. So I'm I'm sure you're all familiar with
Sherman Place. It's uh really one of the nicest blocks in Jersey City. Uh it has a lot of historic structures on the block. It is a planned historic district in Jersey City. It is not yet a district, but there are two uh separate
regulatory schemes in Jersey City that protect historic structures. And we are kind of uh unique in a way. Um we have demolition regulations that were recently uh revised and readdopted in February.
Those regulations attempt to protect historic de structures even when they are not in a historic district and have not been landmarked yet. So Jersey City is kind of unique in that we're trying to keep things from being demolished
that are historically significant um even before they're protected. So that's the demo regulations. We also have a special zoning for this district called the RH1 that is something like a historic district zoning. It h and it
contains design standards that are um similar to historic district standards. Uh so uh we have appealed the zoning officer's approval on three grounds actually. One is non-compliance with
demo regulations, non-compliance with the um R1 standards, the RH1 standards, especially the design standards. And there is also an issue with the accessory dwelling unit, which we'll uh talk about maybe toward the end of the
presentation. So, I am uh here this evening with an expert, a historic preservation consultant, uh Jacqueline Po Duvalon, and with my client Paul Amatuso, who's going to be the fact witness. So, I
think we're um if there are no questions, we'll bring Miss Po Duvallon up to testify. Hi. Do you swear that the testimony you will provide this evening will be the truth. The whole truth. I do. Please state your name.
Jacqueline Pudu Valon. Last name is spelled P as in Peter. E U dash capital D as in David. U V as in Victor. A L L O N as in Nancy. And yes, that is my full
family name. My husband's last name is Stark. I could have had a much easier life, but I didn't choose that. So, uh, thank you all for hearing my testimony this evening. Let me just Yes. Would you explain your um background and your credentials to the board?
Um, I'm historic preservation consultant with 20 years of experience working in the field. I have a master's degree in historic preservation from Columbia University. Um, and which I earned about 20 years ago, as I said. Um, I worked as an application reviewer at the City of New York Landmarks Preservation
Commission, the LPC. I have been a private consultant for the last 16 years. Uh while at LPC, I reviewed and approved architectural and engineering drawings uh filing drawings um which would be then filed with Department of Buildings and guided applicants through
LPC's public hearing process. As a consultant, I primarily assist clients um with regulatory compliance, most often handling permanent applications to the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission uh for both staff level
approvals and public hearing items. I have uh presented at LPC public hearings hundreds of times both as a staff person and as a consultant. My clients have included Carnegie Hall, Warner Brothers, Restoration Hardware, Bautga Vanetta uh
to name a few. I have uh work also worked on projects that have required review by the the New York State Historic Preservation Office including re review of a master plan for Carnegie Hall, historic tax credit projects, national register nominations and
cultural resource survey surveys. Um maybe I should also explain upfront since this is a zoning board which is not my usual forte and you probably don't see historic preservation consultants office. Um I should say that there's no professional licensing for my profession. However, the federal
government through the ages of the secretary of the interior standards and guidelines for archaeology and historic preservation has established professional qualification standards for people working in the field of historic preservation um and that uh the main qualification is
a graduate degree in historic preservation which I have um or a related field. Okay. I think um does the board accept um her credentials? Thank Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Um, so um, Miss Pu Develon,
did did what documents did you review to prepare to testify today? I reviewed the uh the drawing uh the set of drawings that were uh prepared by the architects for the project. I reviewed the uh materials uh uh prepared by the
uh the the city agencies. um the memos that describe uh the justification for allowing demolition and approval of the new design for the addition and the ADU. Okay. And um could you explain and I also reviewed the the uh
designation report for the proposed Sherman Street Residential Historic District. Okay. And um what what did your review of the plan plans reveal? Um well with regard to the partial
demolition the criteria set forth um in forgive me if I'm not saying this properly chapter 4 sorry 34530 of the LDO which ironically almost is identical to the criteria used for determining national register nomination
for a historic building. Um I think that those guidelines were were largely ignored or not commented on. Um, I did not see documentation submitted that shows the historic preservation officer undertook that review based on the the demolition ordinance. Uh, if such a
review was undertaken, then it should have been noted that the house is well over 50 years old uh is within a pending local historic district which now also has a degree of state recognition uh and is associated with the broad pattern of development in this portion of the city.
The integrity of the building is not addressed as stipulated, including the fact that it stands in its original site, retains discernable elements of its original architectural style, materials, roof line, footprint. The description of the building in the pending historic district designation
report was not referenced and that should have been, in my opinion, used to address all of these criteria issues. Um, can I talk about Yeah. design issues? Yeah, please go on. Yes. Um there are also a number of inconsistencies and omissions in the short analysis provided
in the prior approval that was issued on June 25th, 2025. This is perhaps in part due to the fact that the drawing set submitted lacks certain drawings and dimensions that I think would have been needed for a thorough analysis. Uh there are no existing building elevations and
sections to compare to the proposed. Uh and I do have a set of the drawings with me if anyone's curious to look at them. Um, there are no dimensions on the plans to show exactly where the cutback of the sidewall on its east elevation. Can you can you explain what the applicants proposing to do first before
you get into The proposal is Yes, forgive me if everyone's not if it's not fresh in their minds what the design is. The design is to uh remove a large portion of the east elevation of this house. So, the house um you know abuing I'm sorry, the wall
abuing one neighbor's house. Uh that would the purpose of that would be to cut back the the side of the house in order to create a clear path of over 3 ft wide so that people could access an ADU being built to in in the rear yard.
The other part of that is to also remove the entire rear facade of the house which um I did not see brought up in any documentation from the agencies um and then subsequently build an addition on the back of the main house that would
essentially extrude itself uh from the main house uh in pretty much the same massing doubling the size of the house um and really completely altering the footprint of the of the existing house. Can um can I interrupt for one minute? Do we have any photographs or pictures
that we could project? I do. Can we project them? Yeah. If not, do you have picture? Well, then we will take that. We do have we we do have pictures, but we don't have a a a digital presentation.
Are these the same photos that were posted to the portal? The drawings have a front and rear photograph. I can that up if you like. Oh, thank you. That would be great. I'd actually like to have the the members of the board look at those hard copies as well because with those you're looking at the the building headon from the
public thoroughfare directly across the street and the sidewalk in front of the house. Thank you, Miss Hajianis. Miss Hajianis over here. Yeah. Oh, sorry. Oh, I'm I'm just asking if these are the
photos that were posted to the portal. Yes. Thank you. Then we must answer must enter them as an exhibit please. Okay. Sure. So have your professional or your witness describe it and then we can mark it. Okay.
Okay. So I'm holding printouts of two photos of the house. Uh one is taken from the sidewalk directly in front of the house and one is taken from the sidewalk directly across the street. And it's just giving you a head-on view of the house so you can see the portion of the east elevation that would be cut
back, would be removed. um altering altering the original um building footprint to uh again allow a wider path to the ADU at the backyard. What is the next procedure? Did you explain the second photo? Oh, yes. Well, I explained both of them.
Yes. Okay. So, this is the front from the sidewalk right in front of the house and this is the front looking from across the street. Okay. Um and thank you. Yes. Thank you.
And um I don't we we the architect for the builder has also connected his computer so we can put up the photos on his plans I believe that that were approved as part of the zoning approval.
Okay. Okay. Please should I continue with my my little list? Thank you. Um, so as I was saying, there there are no dimensions on the plans that show exactly where the cutback of the sidewall will begin and where it will end. There are no
dimensions to show exactly how far back the wall is being removed from the front of the of the building. There are no foundation uh and support for excavation drawings prepared by an engineer. There are no shoring plans prepared by an engineer. Those things I I can't
emphasize enough are important to make sure that when you when they're doing the work on this building and it's only left with two walls standing, you want to make sure that those two walls are shored and can actually can actually stand. And when you say only two walls would be left standing, would you explain why
you're saying only two? Because uh what is shown on the plans is removal of the entire interior structure. They're going to be replacing all the floor joists and basically rebuilding this house entirely at the interior. uh removing most of its east elevation wall, removing its rear wall
entirely. So then all you're left with is the front facade and its west wall. So what holds up those two walls? So that's why I'm saying foundation and supportive excavation drawings are important to approve before I would
think before demolition and uh and proposed design plans are approved as well as a shoring plan to make sure those two walls are supported. There is all uh there's only one sighteline section and that's taken from across the street. Side views, oblique views are
not um included to document potential visibility of the stairway bulkhead from the east and west. The proposed building building elevations on sheets A4 and A5 do not agree. The alteration to the wall uh and a portion of the roof above it um
are not shown on the front elevation that's on sheet A4. Um, would you like me to try to advance slides to show you these drawings? Okay. Thank you very much. It's very gracious. Um, A4 and A5.
Okay, we get to go back to Thanks, Jeff. Thank you. So, what I'm saying is that on this elevation to your microphone. Okay. So, what I'm what I'm saying is that in the the front facade elevation that you see in your top left corner, um, where the arrows sort of pointing
at, it's not clear to me if that's showing the altered, uh, portion of of the original roof line. That would have to be a change made to accommodate cutting back the the sidewall. Um, secondly, I also question the
information presented on the drawings because to me, uh, some of the drawings are not clear as to whether or not the entire roof has to be re reframed and replaced because I just died in my years of experience. I don't know how you're going to keep the roof on when you only have three. I mean, you've removed two
walls and you have only two walls left. So, um, let's see. Can I talk about design review? Um I just I actually just have one more question for you. I mean uh you you noted that there are no
engineering plans. Do do you think it's possible that um there from what you've seen that this house could collapse when this project is is being done? Well, it's it is scary to me that there are there were no shoring plans or
supportive excavation plans filed. There are structural drawings within the set prepared by the architect, but there's no drawings in here from an engineer. Okay. Thanks. Yeah. So, if you could um talk a little bit about the design standards.
Um, regarding the design review, I agree with the historic preservation officer on his interpret I'm sorry, I disagree with the historic preservation officer on his interpretation of the secretary of the interior standards for the treatment of historic properties as applied here for the U. RH1 design
review. Um, as I already stated, most glaring, the prior approval does not mention the fact that the work will remove not only 30 feet of original wall on the east elevation, but also the entire interior structure of the building and its entire rear wall. The prior approval only mentions the 30 ft
of wall at the east elevation of the house that's being cut back so that it can make an access path to the new ADU. It does not mention that all of the floor joists are being replaced and the entire rear wall taken down so that the house can be doubled in size. In essence, a significant amount of
original historic fabric is being removed from this building. This is contrary, excuse me, this is contrary to um the to the standards uh which state historic character of a property will be retained
and preserved. the replacement of intact or repairable historic materials or alteration of features, spaces, I'm sorry, spaces and special relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. The pri prior approval states that cutting the cutting back of the
wall will only be minimally visible from the public right of way. I don't believe that's accurate as well. It will be entirely visible from the sidewalk in front of the house and from across the street, which is why I brought those photos for you today. As I mentioned above, the approval does not mention the
removal of the entire interior structure and the rear wall and does not require a shoring plan. As I've already stated, the approval states the proposed work retains the front facade and side facade bay window that define the property. This is not accurate. Under the standards, the entire building envelope
is significant, not just the front facade. The approval does not address the fact that the proposed addition will extrude the rear of the house to double its depth. Rather than create a smaller subservient addition at the rear that would be respectful to the original
building and discernable from the from the original building which is the standard in sound preservation practice and is called for by this by the secretary of the interior standards. The approval does not address the rear wall of the addition which lacks a
traditional pattern of uh of window openings as found in the rears of houses from the late 19th century. There's no hierarchy of fenestration. There is no simple cornice at the top of the wall only an aluminum cladding. Um I'd like
to add one more point about this um whole process if I may. um which is that lastly certain logistics I don't think have been questioned by the municipality chiefly how would the addition and the ADU how would that actually how would they be constructed if there's only a 3-
foot wide alley between 85 Sherman and its neighbor how will excavation equipment and other materials be moved onto the site do they plan to use a crane to lower a skid a skid steer into the backyard which I have seen people do um but I've also seen in projects where
property owners have made a giant hole in the front of a house so that they can move the necessary equipment into the backyard to do excavation. I think these are questions that a m municipality should be asking. Uh along the same lines, a municipality should not be issuing building permits for significant
structural alterations if a shoring plan has not been provided. So for all these reasons, I think this work should have better been reviewed by a historic preservation commission rather than one one being at the discretion of one staff person. Thank you.
Um and the I want to so um in his um staff comments the city senior historic preservation specialist he he did say the partial demolition was was is not ideal. Do you agree with that statement?
I do agree that's not it's not ideal. Um it's a and it I think it's also an understatement. I think um generally speaking uh sound preservation practice is it dictates not removing such a large portion of a building unless you are uh
dealing with a a situation where maybe there's a structural problem and you you need to address that and the only way to address it is by reconstructing a wall. In this case, it's really just for a matter of convenience to allow uh you know a new tenant living at the back of the lot to have access into the back of
the lot. Okay. And um with the you you reviewed the um landmarking designation report prepared by Hunter research for the Sherman Place Residential Historic District, which is,
as we've said, it's a planned district. It's it's not yet um officially a historic district. Do is there anything about that report that you feel is important um to to consider? I mean, it it does describe this building as being a contributing
structure to that that proposed historic district. It's a building that speaks to the the history of development in that part of the city in the late 19th century. Um, it does give it an architectural style. So, all of those things do make it important in the historic district. And something else
that I'd like to note that since um since that report was uh was presented to the state of New Jersey, the state of New Jersey has established um that this district is eligible for listing on the state register of historic places and thereby also the national register of
historic places and the state of New Jersey actually actually issued a certification certification of eligibility. May I enter that as? Yeah, I think um I don't know if the board attorney wants to take a look at it first. And and mo and one interesting thing
about this letter uh and by the way, even just determination of eligibility on the national register does give buildings a degree of protection. Um specifically in regard to if there's ever a project that would require federal funding or a historic tax credit
project where someone would be getting tax credits for the rehabilitation of a historic house. uh in those cases the state historic preservation office would be required to review the work. So um so in that in that sense this you know this house has some some protection already
and this house and this district has some protection already. Um and it's also interesting in in this letter it notes that um there's a special characteristic of the lots on Sherman Place and I just want to find that and
read that to you and then I'll hand this in. Um, sorry, I should have marked this. Oh, here we go. Ho staff were intrigued by the depth of the parcel lots on Sherman Place and questioned the cause of their size. While while the size of
the lots alone is not reason for significance, it might support a criterion a argument if the size can be linked to intentions of a specific developer or project. So, it's just interesting that he that Sherman Places rear rear yards even got a shout out from the state historic preservation
office. Can I pass these Yeah. to the commissioners? Thank you. Want to mark this as Yes. Yes, please. Yes. Um, if we could get this marked as A4. Could we identify it a little clearer? Is this the August 15, 2024 letter?
Yes. Yeah. Thank Thank you. You have it, Mr. I have a copy. Thank you. Okay. And um I had one I think this might be my final question for you. Um,
so I I think if you if you read the staff comments um about their plan review, you might get the impression that this uh only a like little sliver of the building is being removed. Um do
do you think that they might have gotten a wrong impression from the plans? No, the plans are very clear. Okay. that the ent that the entire rear wall is going away so that you can create full floor apartments on on each floor that are, you know, continuous at
the interior. And um is that portion of the building that's being removed, do you believe that that's a a character defining feature of the property? It is. It's part of the original building envelope. It's it's part of its original design. And generally speaking,
when um when you're looking at an addition on a historic building in a historic district, um sound preservation practice is to leave at least the top floor rear facade intact. So you leave that as an original signature of the original bu building envelope. Okay. But like focusing on the street
view, what what would what will no longer be there that's historically significant? The only well the only change you'll see um unless there's you know I'm not sure if there's certain things about trim details and uh the
cladding um that might be changing but uh certainly the the cutting back of the bay that is closest to what is is it 83 is that 833 Sherman so on that east elevation where one portion of the
sidewall I think comes within a foot of 83 Sherman where that portion is being cut back. You will be able to perceive that change and there will be a minor roof line change that you'll be able to see from the street when you're facing the building headon. Uh in terms of
design changes that you can see from the street, as I said earlier, it's not clear to me as I don't think it's being made clear in the drawing submitted whether or not that the the stairway bulkhead proposed would be visible from the street. They did document with a sighteline study that you won't be able to see it looking at it from directly
across the street, but I don't know if you go to the east or west, would it become visible over other houses? Okay. So, if if you had been reviewing these plans to determine um whether or not to recommend an an prior approval of
the partial demolition application, what what would you have done? I first would have asked for more documentation, additional drawings so I could make a a more easy comparison. Um, and then, you know, based on my own experience, I
would have encouraged reducing the size of the rear edition to make it subservient to the original main house. Okay. Okay. Um, I think that's all I have and I believe Mr. Harrington's going to have some questions for you.
Good evening. Uh, is this on? Is this good? Yes. Okay. I'm not going to take a shot at your last name if that's okay. Um, so, um, just just so we're clear, um, you know, there's been a lot of testimony about historic historic
resources, historic issues. um this this zone um and the properties within it, the RH1 zone, uh it's eligible for a historic district. Correct. Eligible for listing on the state historic the state historic register of
historic places and by extension the national register. But yes, that's what I was referring to. Right. But but just so we're all clear, it is not uh a historic district. It's not a locally designated historic district yet, which is why it's not listed yet on the state historic
register. Okay. But there's a process for it to become officially a historic district within the municipality. Correct. Yes. And that has not occurred yet. It's in process and I I believe but it has not occurred yet. Correct. It's I I'm not the best person to ask that question too.
Okay. I can tell you that the that the thoroughly researched designation report has already been completed and I've been told that when one person comes back from maternity leave, the hope is that it will finally be processed by the city for final designation. Okay. So, so the process isn't complete. Right. Right.
Mr. Harington, should we just put your appearance on the record? Oh, thank you. Yeah. Uh for the record, uh Charles Harrington Okonnell Foley. Uh I represent the owner of 85 uh Sherman Sherman Place. Thank you. Okay. And uh you mentioned
that uh you refer or you reviewed section 345-30 in the Jersey City Land Development Ordinance. Is that correct? Yes. And did you look at specifically section E? Um forgive me. This is I've had a crash
course in your ordinances in the last say week and a half, so you'll have to remind me. Um, is that the where it lists off the criteria for what has to be considered? It is. It is. And yes, that's what I that's the portion I reviewed. And And would you agree that that
section provides that it that it refer that it applies only to landmarks, structures, buildings, uh, etc. within a a historic district? Yes. Okay.
And so we and we've just established that this is not in a historic district. Are you I'm just going to have to correct the record. There there's two sections of E. I don't Do you have the new ordinance? I have the new ordinance.
Okay. There's an E1 and an E2. I have an E. Yes. E1 E2. Okay. Um E1 speaks to uh in I I can refer to why don't you why don't you read the
introductory paragraph of E1 E1 says the following shall be considered in regard to an application to demolish an individual landmark building structure site or object or any building structure site or object contained within a historic district.
And then then it lists criteria A through G. The ordinance that you're reading from, I I didn't quite follow that. It's almost like someone repeating a phone number too quickly, but there was an ordinance uh 25-006.
Is that the ordinance you're reading from or are you reading from the mun MUN code website ordinance for that section? I'm I'm reading the ordinance that was taken off. not codified yet. There was an ordinance adopted earlier this year that was available by reference but not
yet shown in line. So you're saying this is not accurate. Correct. That's what I'm think I'm saying. You want me to look at it real quick? That yes, this is um out of date. out of date. Um,
yes. I I suggest that uh you you access ordinance 25-006. Okay. Do we do we want to just to prevent any further confusion about what's the operative law is right now,
should we mark the ordinance uh 25-006 as an exhibit? Do you have a copy? I do. Do you have an extra copy for Mr. Harrington? He can use mine.
Are we up to a A5 now? So, for the record, Cynthia, the Okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay. So, thank you. So, for Can you give that to Mr. Harrington? If there's numbers at the bottom
of that version, you'll want to look at page 14 of 28 or page 11. There are two sets of page numbers. Page 14. Yes. Mr. Lupe, would it make sense to go off
the record for a minute or two? I'm I'm good. I I see it. I see it. This is the the same reference to, you know, my my error there. It's the same reference in in Miss Hajianis's uh legal memo that that she that she provided. I I don't think it changes my my
questioning or um with regard to it not being a historic district. But uh so you did let me let me uh regroup here then. And you did look at the the local ordinance for RH1. Is that correct? Yes. Yes.
And RH that that doesn't stand for the H in there. Do you know what that stands for? I do not. Okay. It doesn't stand Well I Okay. Um just and did you review then? Yeah, I I assume from your testimony you reviewed
the design standards uh within that section? Yes. And is it accurate to say that one of the standards uh uh states well I'll read it. Any restoration or renovation is strongly encouraged to be completed under the guidance of the Secretary of
Interior guidelines for the treatment of historic properties when undertaking any exterior work. Do you believe that is an accurate uh representation of what's there? That's what it says. Yes, I do remember reading that. Right. So, it's can we agree it's by that by that language that it's strongly
encouraged that it is not absolutely required. Is that correct? you would be better uh better at answering that question than I am, but yes, I think I think that's correct. Okay. And did you review the the project? Uh and I I understand you're
you're not, you know, an architect or a planner, but did you re review the project as to whether it complied with all the bulk standards within uh the RH1? I did not. Um zoning issues are really not my area of expertise. So I was not
thinking about massing in that respect. I was thinking about the massing of the addition with respect to its relationship to the historic structure and how it changes the character of the historic structure and what impact that would have on the character of the historic district.
Okay. And um let's see. I have I have no further questions. Okay. So, I just um wanted to just go back to um the RH1 zoning. I'm I'm just gonna because I believe Mr. Forgive me. I I mean you zoning issues,
planning issues are not my area of experience, right? I No. And I and I'm not going to try to make you testify about them. Um so, I do just m Mr. Um, Harrington asked you if the RH1 is a historic district, and I'm just going to
read to you what the purpose clause of the RH1 says to see if that alters your opinion at all, but it says uh section 345-40. purpose. The purpose of this district is to preserve the pattern quality and
architectural individuality of the existing detached one and two unit structures and to discourage subdivision and demolition. Um so is is is that
in that case site something that would protect historic structures? I do remember reading that at some point last week, so forgive me. Um, but yes, in that case, I I can't say that what's being proposed here is consistent with with the purpose of of the RH1 zoning.
Okay? Because you're not protecting the original building envelope. You're changing its appearance from the front. You're changing its roof line. You're removing uh almost all of the the building really. You're just leaving two walls. Um, and you're creating a condition that is also atypical for the
interior of the block with the size of this addition and the ADU behind it. Okay. And just going back to um design standard uh number seven in the RH1, it says buildings are to be cited on their lot
so that their placement and relationship to surrounding property is equivalent to the existing pattern of development on the street. Do you I when I read that I thought that applied to new construction, but you can also I think read that another way that
it applies to when you're considering additions on on buildings. So, uh I don't I I don't see an addition of this same volume, same height uh on this side of of uh Sherman Place within this
block. So, I would say that's that's an atypical condition. So would it be fair to say that this project as proposed doesn't meet design standard number seven? I would agree with that. Okay. Thank thank you. Okay. Do you have anyone else that you want to bring forward?
I have a question. Um, uh, have you review, you said you reviewed the demolition ordinance and section 345-30e1. Mhm. You spoke to how the historic
preservation officer should have requested shoring plans. Can you point me to the point the section of the ordinance where it gives that? No, I cannot. Okay. I I don't honestly don't know if it's in there. I don't remember reading it. Uh
this is my own opinion being given that uh if you're if you're approving plans and maybe this was the wrong place for me to make that comment, but if you're approving plans where you're removing the entire interior structure and leaving only two walls standing of a house, there should be shoring plans.
Are you familiar with how projects are permitted and the division of labor of the housing and economic development housing economic development and commerce? uh department in Jersey City. No. Okay.
I I've done my I've done my best to prepare for this for you know comments related to historic preservation issues for this hearing tonight. Okay. Cuz I believe the shoring plan commentary was given to the question of your council as to whether or not the
historic preservation officer followed permit procedures. Mhm. Then it's not a question of uh adherence to what's in the current regulation, but maybe it's something that needs to be uh considered at some other point in the
approval process, perhaps by a different division or department of the city. I don't have the expertise in Jersey City's u structure of these agencies to be able to answer that. Okay. I just want to say for the rec this is for the record permit building
permits were already issued and there are no engineering plans just for the record. So this uh the idea that somebody else is going to review something else at some future point in time I I think that might be um
you know not not clearly refle reflecting what happened here that there are building permits were issued. Okay. Does the board have any questions for I just want to stick on that point. Yeah. You're you're not appealing the
building permits. You're appealing the proceed permit procedure. Well, as followed by So, what we've asked for for relief is if the zoning approval is considered deficient, then we would ask the zoning officer
approval that well, we would ask the board because the board does not um is does not have to defer to the zoning officer's decision. And if the board determines that the zoning officer's approval was deficient for
non-compliance with regulations or because she didn't require certain variance or that the partial demo wasn't adequately vetted, then what we would ask is for the board to resend the zoning officer's approval of the plans
and for the zoning officer to direct the building department to revoke the permit because there is you cannot have a building permit without a valid zoning approval. Okay. I I feel like uh there was some
testimony and you were about to get there, but we didn't fully get there. Can you describe the character defining? Okay. All right. Can you describe the character defining elements of the building? It's
what are those elements? Can you identify them? So, it's a Queen Anstyle building. It's Queen Anand style house. So that means you have asymmetrical roof lines, you have projecting bays, you have um you have a a a plan for the house that has an interesting shape to it. In this
case, it's an sort of an L-shaped plan. You have um at the top of it, you have a a projecting pediment um that rises above the covered porch. Um I'm assuming that its original wood cladding is still hiding underneath the asphalt shingle.
So even though it has been altered over time, there are uh materials that probably can be restored easily. Just based on my own experience, when when people covered, you know, these houses in the 60s and 70s with asphalt shingle, they weren't taking the time to strip them of their decorative details first.
Um, aside from that, it's the the original building envelope itself is a character defining uh element. So that means not just what you can see from the street, but the back as well. So, the back was built with an original
fenestration pattern, maybe with a decorative cornice, um maybe with some other decorative details, but really it's more about the the original footprint of the building. I um may I interrupt for a moment, please? Um
I'm looking at or questioning that you were saying there were no engineering plans, excavation plans, supportive plans. Um do we have those plans? Have those plans been presented to us yet to this board? Um, I don't know if we've seen any of that.
Do we have those plans? We do not have those plans. We do not have those plans. So then why are we even like looking to how did they get approval if there are no plans? Like we don't have these plans. We don't we need those plans. Okay. So,
um, how did these permits get? Yes. Would you Yeah, I I'll address that when I bring my architect up and he can explain the process to you and what But were those plans already issued prior to the permits being awarded to the builder? Again, I I
were they passed here at this at this Were they approved here? the plans that were submitted before you were approved as part of the building build building permit process and I can have our architect explain that process because what's before you is the zoning approval. Right. Okay.
So I I have one question. Is this a as a right project? Yes, that's that's our that's our uh Well, we're we're disputing that. Yeah, that's that's our our position is right. So you're disputing that. It's a disputed issue. Gotcha. Okay. Yeah.
So, can we have the architect? Yeah. Um, well, Cynthia, are you finished with what you have to present? Do you have any other experts? We have a we have our uh my client's going to be the fact witness uh tonight, but she's this is our only expert witness. I don't know which order you'd
like to Well, why don't you bring your witnesses and then we'll have Mr. Harrington present his. Okay. So, thank you all for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Um, our next witness is Mr. Amatuso. Did you bring your photos with you? Okay.
Okay. Keep one set for yourself. Give one to Chuck. He got one. Keep one for you. Yeah. Not only that, but let me So, um I have a packet of photos. It's about How many is it? 10.
There's uh 13 of them. Oh, 13 photos that my client now prepared. This these are from my client. He prepared a packet for everyone. They're stapled. But it's not.
We're at A6 that you said. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Ah, the ordinance, right? It hasn't been declared yet. Thank you very much. So, how long does this take? How long?
Thank you. Do you want to witness? Yes. I'm sorry. I just I just feel I don't think it was Yes, I do. Paul Ematuso, A M A T U Z O.
Thank you. I'm sorry. 83 Sherman Place. Okay. So, good evening, Mr. Amatuso. Good evening. Good evening, board. Thank you all for your time tonight. Okay. So, would you um tell the board a
little bit about your um background and your connection to Jersey City? Sure. Um my story begins at the Margaret Hey Hospital in 1963. Jesus and I'm still here. Um, yeah, my my
grandparents moved bought a house downtown in 1920 and they were never going to leave and it forced all of us to stay and I'm happy I did. Um, so I've been in downtown I lived
downtown uh 42 years and several different locations in the Hamilton Park Historic District. And um my background is in construction. Uh early on I worked at a uh high-end
construction company in Manhattan. From there I had a landscaping business in downtown Jersey City in Hoboken. Um from there I built sets for the soap operas. And then in 1996 I became a real
estate agent in Jersey City which I have been doing for the last 30 years. Okay. And when did you first move to Sherman Place? Um, my first move to Sherman Place because, well, if if any of you grew up here, you all know there are three
streets that everybody knows about. Sherman Place, Gford Avenue, and Bentley Avenue. And it's always they were always streets that myself growing up as a kid, um, my mom used to go to her doctor on Gford Avenue. And as a little child, I
was always in awe because the porch that we I'd stand on was bigger than the house we lived in downtown. And um I've always had a strong passion for beautiful houses.
And um so what that's what brought me to Sherman Place. One of the ladies in my office listed the house. I walked in there. I was very happy in my house downtown. And by the weekend, I had purchased the
house. I show the owner of the house the restoration I did to my townhouse downtown and she insisted that I be the person who gets her house. There was six other bids at the time. Okay. And what year did you buy your house on Sherman? 2004. Okay. And since the time you bought your
house and just briefly, what what work have you done on your house? Um if uh if you all would like to switch to the next page of the photos. Um recently in this past year we've had the entire outside of the house
repointed, repainted. I just put those uh new steps in which match the historic Victorian steps that were there. Um the ones I replaced were brick and limestone and they were completely falling apart. So, that's the
last project I did. We put all new historic Marvin windows in uh to match our 1938 photograph. And we did these 10 years ago before there was even talk about Sherman Place being a historic
district. Um I just felt like because the street was so intact that it deserved for that pattern to be continued. Okay. And you've been very involved in your neighborhood and in the community. Could you briefly describe to the board
what uh types of public service you've done and what things you've worked on? My public service goes back to the mid70s. Um if any of you grew up here, you knew downtown Jersey City was a burnedout ghetto mostly then. And
um it really bothered me because my family lived there, my grandparents lived there, my aunts and uncles. You could barely walk the streets. They were littered with trash. It was extremely unsafe. There was abandonment all over
the place. And but focus on what you've done. Yeah. So, what I've done is um I was uh president of Hamilton Park Neighborhood Association very early on when they formed in the late 70s. I joined that
group. I was president by 1990 and 1991. We convinced the city not to demolish the gazebo in the middle of the park which was in grave condition and I planted the first community garden around it through my landscaping
business at the time. From there I moved up to the heights and um in that was in 2004. I want to say in 2006, myself and a bunch of the neighbors partnered with the New Jersey Tree
Foundation and had 17 trees planted on Sherman Place because there we were starting to see some empty um spaces and Sherman Place is known for its beautiful tree canopy. And then around 2017, a developer bought
one of the mansions across the street and asked to meet with some of the neighbors when he said he wanted to put a 32 unit building where a three family mansion stood. um we basically threw them out of the meeting and he
basically decided that he was not going to get into a conflict with us and he restored the mansion the way it w it sat in the same footprint. He made three condos in the main building and in the closedin pool house which was in the
backyard, he turned that into the fourth unit and then he removed over a,000 square ft of cement from the backyard to create permeable green space for all the owners to use. So So was that like a win a win?
That was a win-win for Sherman Place. And then right around after that um the city contacted us because development was starting to encroach to our neighborhood and there was no neighborhood association.
So we formed a neighborhood association of which I was elected president given I had previous experience and I stayed in that position from 2018 when the when we formed until 2025
and because co came in around 2020 which was when our offices were supposed to change that never happened and I just stood the course. I was on the historic preservation commission for 15 years.
Um, Mayor Healey appointed me sometime around 2010 and I resigned in March of this year and I think I missed four meetings in 15 years. I'm also an elected official for Ward District 21
which I've been committee man now for six years I want to say. Okay. And and you recently or or not not so recently, but you worked on getting this Sherman Place residential historic district in place. Can you tell us about that work?
Absolutely. So, when we started to get development, uh, we had spoke about possibly getting designation. I was on the commission at that time and it seemed favorable. I spoke to Mayor Phillip. He said to me, "If you can get
the community behind you on this, I'll be I'll get behind you." So, we reached out to a lot of the homeowners and there's only about 200 houses in the district. So, it's compared to the other districts, it's quite small in size.
We then uh were told we needed a survey, a historic survey. So, we reached out to Hunter Research who had just finished a a few years back the Westber and East Lincoln Park survey. Um, the residents
raised money, all of us homeowners. It cost us, I think, $18,000 out of our own money to have the survey done. And of course, that happened during CO as well. So, what should have taken probably a year ended up stretching all the way
into 2023 before the survey was done. When the survey was done, the city then let us know that we needed to have a designation report done. So, we reached back out to Hunter Research and
that price was going to be $12,000. So, we were scrambling and we decided to reach out to Shipo, which is the state historic preservation office. They were giving out grant money for historic preservation projects. So, Persianfield Neighborhood
Association, we filled out the form. It was in April. Shipo contacted us that they had received our application, but they wanted to do a walkthrough of the district. So, some of us met with three of the ladies from Shipo. We walked the
whole district. A couple of days later, they notified us that the district was eligible for grant money and they were going to submit our application. So that was in April. And then sometime around June, I want to say late June or July,
Tanya Marion reached out to us and said that she had possibly found the money in the city's budget in one of their coffers that had money left in it um that had to be spent. So lo and behold,
the city came up with the $12,000 for our designation report and we were absolutely thrilled. So we contacted Shipo and we withdrew our application, but they did give us a certifi a certificate of eligibility for the
district when they came and uh I believe we have that in the record someplace. Yes. Um so now so now focusing on this development project, how did you first um find out about the the project plan at 85 Sherman? When the house went up
for sale, we noticed there was a lot of activity, a lot of young families standing outside, people coming and going. And um back in February, I want to say, I believe that
Mr. Patel had come to purchase the house and he was a developer and I believe he um inquired with the city with planning for a determination of which he was given a determination
letter that stated that he could not demolish the house and that there was strict design standards that had to be followed on any kind of improvement that was going to happen there. So he passed and he decided not to purchase the
house. Few more weeks went by and I noticed that the house went into contract. On April 16th, the house closed and about a week and a half later, I noticed a crew show up. There was a
demolition permit, an interior demolition permit uh was um given and they gutted the house completely within a week. Every single thing on the inside was gone. Walls, floors, gone.
So about two weeks, three weeks went by and I was getting suspicious because silence equals death in this town. And I reached out to Miss Marion on June the 3 and I through an email and I said and I also CCD Michael and I said, "Can you
please tell me what's going on at this address? I'm getting a little suspicious. It's a little too quiet." Tanya immediately emailed me back and said, "Funny you should ask. I just approved those plans." And I thought to myself, she approved the plans. It's
been six weeks since the house closed. how could we have full plans approved? So, she sent them to me and I looked at the plans and I immediately noticed that the 125year-old tree that was in front
of the house was missing from the current site conditions on the plans. The piece of grass that's left because there's two parking spaces to the left when you pull into the front of the house. Two parking spaces and 8 ft of
grass. And on the plans, it said that they were going to um continue with the three parking places that were already there and the tree was not in the plan, the old tree. Okay. So, there was a misrepresentation.
Misrepresentation. They they omitted the tree. They added parking that they said was already there. And they had a new tree planted next to my driveway in the in their drawing. And then I noticed that they were demolishing part of the house
in order to create access to an ADU. And I specifically remember when we walked around with Matt Ward and a bunch of other people from the neighborhood associations and we spoke about ADUs
that it was explained to us that it was for only for existing structures that existed in backyards that had access of their own from the street. aka a garage, an old shed building, or some other
structure that did not need access from the main house. And that those could either be uh have a story added on to them because they would only be a twotory limit. And you could either put a story on top, convert the garage, or make both things
the accessory dwelling unit. Okay. And when you say when you walked around with Matt W. Do you do you mean the the sort of public participation that was part of the master plan process? Yes. That's when we walked around. We walked around the northern part of the
heights. And Matt also explained to us at the time that they were looking to upzone the corners so that they can put larger buildings at corners to complete the streetscape. And I pointed out that that could be a
good idea, but not every corner in Jersey City can accommodate 100% lot coverage because not every corner is Okay, but let's let Okay. So, just now you at at some point you received a second set of revised plans.
Yes. When when was that? The second set of revised plans came on July the 25th. Okay. And um what what was your re now? Now now do did you understand why there
was a second like what why did they revised the plans? They revised the plans because in the first set of plans we found the debacle with the tree. It turned out they needed four variances. The lot coverage was almost 80%.
And uh let's there was the the lot coverage, the tree in the front, the parking place. Uh the last one evades me at the moment. Um but we kicked that back to Miss Marion and the new plans were approved,
I believe, the day she received them from the CL the um the owner of 85. Okay. And so, so the original set of plans, everyone had said they were zoning compliant, but in reality it turned out they were not. Okay. Um, so
what was your reaction to the second set of plans? Uh, the second set of plans I thought were just as bogus and egregious as the first set of plans. The addition was still 35 feet beyond the original house,
making it 85 feet long. And a three-story addition from the attic out. Uh was there's no addition on Sherman Place that's that big, at least on my side of the street. Um it does not follow the development pattern of the
block. There's no ADUs. There's no additions. Okay? And if they are, they're one story. Okay. And um now did did you try to communicate with Miss Marion after you received the second set of plans? No. Okay.
Um now now could you just describe what it is about the about the size and scale? I mean you sort of just talked about it but just if you could just quickly explain like what is it about the size and scale of the project that you find so objectionable. Okay. Well, if you look at the cover
photograph I sent you all, that is the aerial view of our backyards and it takes you from 75 Sherman Place to 99 Sherman Place. Okay, so 75 Sherman Place is the house on the far right. It's an
original house. And then at some point in time, 77 was a Victorian house. And in 1975, before we had zoning, it was torn down and they put these condos in place
filling not the entire lot. There's still about 40 ft left behind and it's used for parking. Then in 1988, number 81, which is the house next to me, subdivided
and that's where the second house comes in, which is 79, which also is an intrusion into the backyard space. But if you look at the rest of the the streetscape, none of us has an addition. None of us
has an ADU. We don't have uh actually the houses with the beige roof. You see parking in the back, but that's because they have full access. Their lot is, I think, um, 60 or 75 ft wide with
driveways on either end with garages in the back. So, that's been their setup from day one, but the rest of us don't have garages or anything in the back. Okay. So I brought you this so you could see the current
situation of what our backyard situation is. Okay. Now if the project goes forward, how will you be affected? Well, if the project goes through um the way I will be affected is
um if you go to one, two, three, four, the fifth photograph. Okay, this is the view from my deck looking toward 85. The white plastic that you see on the
ground is the addition. Three stories high will be a wall for me. and it blocks out all of our light, all of our air, and it walls us in because I'm Manhattan
Avenue. At the end of our property, there's a fivestory pre-war building. And then we have 79 and 77 uh uh 79 and um yeah, 77 and 79 who block us in from the east light and air.
So with 85 being extended the way it is, it basically cuts our beautiful atrium uh I want to say arubberatom like space that we all collectively share together from each other's house or or deck or
whatever and it cuts it in half. So because of 77 and 79 my neighbors at 81 and myself we get no morning light. So, our yards are in the shade in the morning.
So, if 85 gets built next to me here, I'll never get any light from the west. So, I'll only get the sun when it's up above. In the wintertime, the fivetory building in the back cuts out everybody's light. The sun is below it.
So, all the backyards halfway up are in the shade all winter long. Um, so that's how it'll affect me. Um, the next picture if you look is the current my current backyard space
which I have spent 20 years creating. I have spent tens of thousands of dollars landscaping this space, having professionals come to trim, to plant,
and for it to lose all of its western light is just going to be a ruation. Aside from the fact that many of the tree roots have been cut already because the owners of 85 started excavating the backyards without having permission to
do it. We had a stay issued and they still came and did work. Okay. Permits were issued after the stay was was issued. Okay. Which should not have happened. How Okay, let me just ask you now. If if this project goes forward, how will the
planned district be affected? If this happened, the planned district will definitely be affected because it's going to set precedent not only for the district but for the whole city because it means anybody who decides that they
want to put an ADU in their backyard can come before the city and say, "I want to knock five feet off my house because I want to put an ADU in the backyard. Is this the kind of precedent that we want to set here in Jersey City?
No. At this point in time with all the development that's going on, every inch of space is being built on, bulked up, big buildings on corners, big buildings everywhere you go. Do we have to ruin
every street in Jersey City? Seriously. Okay. And the thing that hurts most about this is that the city has been our partner. For six years, they have denied
additions, demolitions, all kinds of stuff that people wanted to do within the district have been denied up until April. Okay. Could you just briefly describe what's
the pattern of development on your side of Sherman? The pattern of development on my side of on my block of Sherman Place has been we have a couple of pre-war intrusions. There's one at 63 Sherman Place. There's one and two on
Manhattan Avenue. We have 75 Sherman Place, which is in the picture, the big condo building. And um 79 Sherman Place, which was built in the 80s. There has been nothing happened on our street in
40 years. So that has been the development pattern of the street. But what was the what was the pattern be what was the original pattern though that you pattern before preserve? Yeah, the original pattern before were
open spaces and um you know our large lots. We're known for our 200 foot lots that create a park-like space. Um and there were almost no intrusions until that point in time. Okay. And and what will this addition be
visible from? Yes. Any vantage points? This vis this um if you go to one, two, three, the fourth page of my photographs.
This is the view from Sanford Place which is also in our district. You can clearly see the back of my house with the orange windows and you can clearly see 85 which is next to me with the pitched roof and the dormer.
Now by putting a threestory 37 ft addition on this house you completely wall out my house and the yellow house which are also historic structures on Sherman Place and are in the district.
So, this is very completely noticeable from the public right of way. It's not just the facade in the front that you're going to notice because if you look at the house from the front, it starts out narrow and as it steps back, it steps
out. It steps back, it steps out. So by cutting off the last step out and putting it in line with the bay window, that's a character definfining feature that you are removing. It's noticeable from the street.
Okay. Um and just as a as a final question, I um so this is an appeal of a zoning approval. Cynthia Cynthia, we take a fivem minute break. One of the commissioners had to leave. Oh, my apologies. I'm sorry. That's okay. You didn't notice that you're
miss. Yes, it's the 5 minute break. 7:30 7:35. We had to go to the bathroom for two seconds. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Um, so we're back on
the record. Um, Mr. Amatuso, now um you saw a memorandum dated August 1st that was prepared by uh the city's senior historic preserv preservation specialist, Michael Achimoff. And what
did what did you think about that memo? But wait, wait, wait a second. You're gonna have him comment on the HPC's? It's part of the record. This is an appeal. Yeah, but who is he to comment on it? He's not an expert. What is he going to
say? He doesn't agree with it, obviously. Otherwise, he wouldn't be here. Can Can he say anything other than that? No. Well, I don't think you know what he's going to say until he starts talking. Do you agree with the report? Not at all.
Thank you. Okay. Next next question. Okay. And you saw the um well, what was the date on that report? I don't recall Okay. what the date was, but I can tell you that because
in my opinion, Michael should have referred that to the HPC, which is a board I sat on for 15 years. I believe I said that before because when 32 Sherman Place was denied
three times by demolition by our demolition ordinance, he challenged the owner, Mr. Barado, challenged that at the state appellet level. And the state appellet ruling was that one person was no longer to make determinations about
demolitions. It had to go before the commission. Okay. And um and I'm sure your since this board was a defendant in that case and your attorney attorney on that case. That's not quite what the appellet division said, but
that was the gist of it. But that's not quite what they said, right? The gist of it. Well, we'll we'll talk about that in the summation because I think it is important precedent for this board. Um so, uh Okay. So, and then you saw um
well, you you know you you so this is an appeal of Miss Marion's zoning approval. Yes. So, obviously you think she made a mistake when she issued that approval. What just could you just summarize what
it is you feel she did that was a mistake? Yes. She did not take the time to look over the plans carefully to notice that it had needed four variances. She admitted in an email that she never noticed that there was a partial
demolition that was involved with this application. She never noticed that the tree in the front was missing from the plans. I know why. Can I just You know why? No, let me finish. because she never did a
site visit and neither did Michael. And I sat on the historic commission for 15 years and part of the deal is you need to do a site visit so that you have a complete understanding of the building and what is about to
happen there. You can't go by what an architect says or or what the owner says. You need to physically go there and look for yourself. Okay. Okay. Anything that anything else about the approval that you found to be the you know just anything else that was
a problem? Um yeah the the the demolition of the of the house that she did not notice that they were the the back wall was also going to disappear. How do you how do you not have plans or some sort of something to back that up?
You're just going to take somebody's word that they know what they're doing. Okay. Um, now you have some more photos you wanted to show the board. Yes. Um, just to go through the photos quickly. On the third photo,
you can see that we've restored the complete back of our house to its original form. Um, all the details, siding, wind, Marvin windows throughout. Who puts Marvin windows in the back of their
house? But I did because this was going to be a district. Okay. Restored the whole back of the house. Um, page four we saw already. Page five we saw. Page six we saw. Page seven is the view out the window where
you could see the current edition of 85. And you could see I could see the view is all the way out to the west. I could see the hills of West Orange. We see sunset. If you continue flipping through
the page, this is our winter view across the backyards out to the west. This is the fall view on the next page. And then you have our all the time
amazing sunsets. And all this will disappear. And when I brought Mr. Melms to my house so we can have a man-to-man conversation about what he was going to do.
He was not concerned about my view. He was not concerned about my property value because this having being walled in definitely takes away from your property value. And anybody who's ever
watched HGTV knows it. If you have a house that va faces a a view or your house faces the wall, the house with the view is worth more money and more desirable. So now I'll be facing a wall in the to
the east, to the west, and to the south in a courtyard. Not what I signed up for. Not what Sherman Place is about. Not what Sherman Place was designed to be. Okay. Okay. And I actually have one one
last exhibit I'd like to show you and um that we've been referring to throughout the hearing. Um this is entitled City of Jersey City Local Landmark Designation Report. Sherman Place Residential Historic District Prepared for City of
Jersey City Division of Planning. Um so it's up it's a it's dated December 2024. It's a 524 page report. So, I just printed it out without the appendices, but I just would like you to identify that.
Yes. This is the report that we um Hunter Research was hired to do by Jersey City. It was the last phase of getting our um information together, all of our documentation together. Um, as I
spoke before, the residents paid for the first part, which was almost $20,000. And then miraculously, Tanya found the $12,000 to finish this. And when we got it in, I remember her email to Maggie and myself saying, "What
else do we got to do to get this done? Let's get this done. Let's get this done." And here it is, September. We haven't moved a word forward. The district hasn't moved an inch forward. Okay. And um and then this is also from
the survey of the report. Could you just describe that for the Sure. for the board? Um this is the survey from the um is this from the Shipo office or is this from
It's part of the appendix of the Hunter. Oh, I'm sorry. It's part of the appendix of the Hunter research. And um it basically shows the development pattern of the street and how all the houses are in line with
each other and nobody's house aside from the two I mentioned earlier 77 and 79 um are the only intrusions on that on our side of the street. Um
it also says that the exterior finish um has asbestous shingles. The hip frontfacing cross gable and east facing cross gable roofs are asphalt shingles. It has a box corners, a stucco
chimney. Um, but ma but mainly I just I just wanted you to I guess I probably shouldn't have surprised you like that. Is does this say that 83 Sherman Place is a contributing contributing I'm sorry 85
Sherman Place is a contributing structure to the planned historic district? Yes. Okay. So I did I did just for the record want to include the Hunter research report and the part of the appendix that addresses 85 and this is from Sherman and have that marked in as an
exhibit. It's it's marked contributing. Okay. I think so. I think so. Yes. Okay. That's it for us. Thank you. Okay. Thank you,
Mr. Harrington. Okay. How are you, Mr. Amatuso? Good, Chuck. How are you? Good, thanks. So, um, yeah, you showed photographs of of, um, your property, and my understanding is you've owned it since 2004. Is that correct? Yes.
Okay. And I acknowledge that your property looks great. So, you did a lot of improvements since 2004, correct? Yes. Lot of restoration work, right? And and and am I am I correct in my assumption that you did not go to the Historic Preservation Commission for the
approval of any of those improvements? Um, not for windows. Um we the steps in the front of the house are considered a ma general maintenance um repair and the paint job. No, but we can agree that you weren't required to go to the historic
preservation commission because it's not a historic district, right? Um no, no, you don't you don't agree with that. Let's rephrase that. The city has changed their ordinance so you can put a
roof on your house. You can you can paint your house. Please speak into make general maintenance repairs. You can make general maintenance repairs without requiring a permit. But if you were in a historic district, you'd be required to go to historic preservation for Yes. a number of these.
Correct. Okay. Thank you. And you talked about Mr. Patel uh uh who I guess allegedly was looking to buy the property, the subject property. Mhm. Uh are you aware if that request for demolition was for a full demolition or a partial demolition?
Both. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And and you spoke about the variances that that were on the initial set of plans. Correct. And and you're you're aware that those have been addressed during the updated plans? I'm aware of it.
Okay. So, the plans that are now before this board do not have those variances. Correct. No, they don't. Okay. Okay. And um did you get a chance to review uh the uh report the HBO report that Michael prepared? Okay. And
did you get a chance to review the Sandborn map that was attached to that? Yes. And and can we agree that the sandborn map shows that there were structures in rear yards within this neighborhood uh at on the Sandborn map? Um yes, but they have disappeared and
the ones that had structures had access. This house does not have access, has two feet, right? As as a former member of the uh historic preservation commission, isn't don't you look at historic the history of the properties as well when reviewing an application? Absolutely.
Okay. Um and um is your is your house still listed for sale? My house hasn't been for sale since February. Okay. But it but it was listed. It was for sale, but I'm not going
anywhere now. Okay. [Applause] And when did when did you Oh, when did you took it down? In February, you're saying? Yes. When the house next door to me went up for a million dollars less than my
house, I had no choice but to take my house off the market, Chuck. Okay. Okay. What was the point of that? So, if you brought it if you took it down in in February, uh that happened before this application was right. But the house went up for sale when my house went up for sale. And I
was not going to leave my house up for sale for a million dollars more when the house next door had crowds of people outside for 700,000. Okay. Okay. That's all I have for Mr. I have a I have like a quick redirect. So, um
but did did you ever propose to do a partial demolition of your home? Never. And never would. Okay. And when you're comparing the accessory structures that were um on Sherman Place through Mhm.
uh you know the period of significance of the planned district. How would you compare that to what the applicant's proposing here? There's no comparison because some of the houses like 91 and 93 still have their garages in the back.
They're only 20 ft deep if that to put a carriage in. They're not 35 ft deep and two stories high. They're just singlestory garages. Thank you. Thank you. Is that it?
I I have I have a question. Yeah. Um, as a member of the Historic Preservation Commission, how many years you served? 15. Over those 15 years, did you ever see applications with beer additions? With what? With rear editions. Absolutely.
Um, were they approved? Some. Yeah. Some not. It depends on the development pattern of the street. Okay. That's what we always go by. Okay. And and of course if it's visible from
the public right of way there are often breaks though like I feel downtown there's often breaks on the corners right you can see an oblique um in those cases do you remember if there was ever addition that was
approved no I will remember no I remember if if something was visible from the public right of way it typically was not approved D. And even if it was a railing on a roof deck, we made sure they would change the railing to be less visible,
move it back. Um, and and any additions that and and Historic has approved many three-story additions in the in the downtown district, but they follow the development pattern of the block. So, if
six houses in the row of 10 already have additions, then you're not really you're following the design pattern of the street. The street I'm on, nobody has an addition. Three stories high and 35 ft deep. So, this would be
the first intrusion. Okay, Mr. Harrington. Do you have anything else to present or do? Yeah, I have my architect. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Who's the guy? Yes, sir.
He's the owner. Who's the guy in the back? The guy in the red shirt you talking The red shirt guy is running. She's running on what position. Yes, I do. Against the project. Jeffrey Lewis Lis.
Yeah. Mr. Lewis. He has he has testified before this board. Yes. Number of times. Okay. Okay. And Mr. Los, could you also give us the the the board the benefit of your experience with historic uh properties? Sure. Um, yeah, I do want to mention since everyone else is talking about
their bonafides here, um, I have worked on historic buildings in Jersey City. Um, and I think more importantly, I am the recipient of, um, a state preservation, a new a historic preservation award from the historic preservation office of the state of New
Jersey. I received that for my work done on 301 Market Street in Camden, New Jersey. It was a building listed on the 10 most endangered buildings in the state of New Jersey, and it's now a senior citizen building with 35 senior
units. So, I've done this before, too. Okay. And and Mr. Lewis, uh, the plans that that we you have before you, um, and and we're looking at, are these in and these are the plans that were submitted for the zoning review? That's correct. Yes.
Okay. And in your experience in in Jersey City, uh, on your projects, are these plans typical and consistent with what you would submit for zoning and review and and, uh, building permits?
Yes. And can you explain why or take us through what what's part of these points? Sure. I mean I can go through the process. Um generally the zoning board, the zoning department is not concerned with structural things with um lighting, electric, mechanical, plumbing. Those are generally plans that go to the
building department. So our first set of plans is usually just floor plans, elevations, um and site plans showing what we're doing on the site. Those are the things that are generally the purview of the zoning board. They or the zoning department. They want to know are we complying with you know all anything for
variances regardless regarding um the building. Um after that process is when we after that gets approved that's when we go to the building department and that's when we do our mechanical electrical plumbing drawings. That's when we do our structural drawings. So those generally aren't part of the
process for submitting to the zoning board. Okay. And um when in your experience uh and understanding or the premise this this is not a historic district, but when you do an application or a plan for a
property in a historic district or are the requirements for uh the the project and the plans uh a lot more detailed? Oh yeah, there are many more pages of details for historic districts. So, but would you be expected to provide for for
that type of detail in this application? No. And why is that? That's just not the level of detail that the building department needs to approve as a right building. Okay. And um let's uh maybe at this point, could you
take us through the plans and and touch upon, you know, the the changes and and and some of the historic preservation efforts that they're they're make. they're making as part of this project. I do um want to start just by showing the existing front and rear of the building. Again, we've talked a lot
about the historic character of the building, which is really the shape of the building that's left, the mass. Um, however, most of the details you can see are gone. Um, however, I'll show our proposed plan, our proposed elevations. We're actually doing some restoration
work. We're bringing this elevation more into line with the 1938 uh tax card that we have. So you can see I'm sorry to interrupt you, but can you speak to the 1938 tax card? Why is that significant? Why? Well, that's I mean that's really
the board. I I don't know. They're not the HPC. That's something that was done in the city of Jersey City. It was done in many cities during the depression to keep people in work really. Uh but it has the photograph of the building in 1938 along with what the building was used for, the number of floors, number of bedrooms,
all the details about the building itself. So, it's a really nice reference that you have in the city to go back and restore these buildings to closer to what they were. That's that's kind of like the magical point in time that they refer to for restoration or preservation, right? Because that's the best information we have of the past.
Thank you. So, uh the things you can see there's a lot that's not original here that we would be restoring to come as close as we can to that. So, for example, these these um lattice metal columns are not original. Basically, this whole porch is not
original. It's all been rebuilt. The brick is not original. The railings aren't original. The windows, you can see it has this this kind of triple window here. That's not a historic window. That's not how we did it. So, we're restoring the window pattern back to what it was previously. Again, I'll show you that uh when we get to the
front. Uh this is the back. I failed to see the historic character here personally. Again, this is not an original window. This is not the original finish. This is not an original porch. This is a brick foundation which has been stuckcoed over. Um,
again just to reference the existing to start with and then do you would you like me to go right to the new elevation so we can Yeah, let's let's let's keep moving on that. So here we have the new front elevation. So, we can see
we are replacing the siding with the vinyl siding is going to be removed and it's going to be hardy plank siding which is a little it's obviously not what was there originally, but it's more appropriate I would say and more um um stronger to be honest with you than the vinyl siding. It's a much better
look. We are replacing some of the details at the top. We're keeping um some of the details that are still there below the um below the main roof. You can see at this um at the porch, these are new columns
that we're adding. I mentioned the windows that we're adding these four new windows. It's new railing. It is a new um brick and that's um one of the things we agreed to. Do we want to get into that now? Yeah. Yeah. Why don't we why don't we uh just note that for the record. uh you
you reviewed Mr. Ward's uh um report that he submitted. Is that and and and you remember he referenced uh one possible variance with regard to the brick that that was on on the plan, right? Okay. And and are we what are we going
to do to address that? Right. So, we were proposing a brick veneer. It's the same as a brick, but it's only like half inch thick. Um that was deemed to not be appropriate. So, we are going to be using a full brick here. Um, on the addition, that's very easy. Um, it's just a different wall. We just
um it's part of the construction at the addition um at the existing building. It they are existing brick foundation walls. So, we are actually but they're painted so that it's not really something we're going to be able to bring back to what it was. So, we are going to remove the first course of that
brick and replace it with a new brick so that everything is going to match here. And that includes the porch as well. And and then that then eliminates any variances within this project. Correct. That's correct. Okay. Where do you want to go next? Maybe uh go let's let's talk about the
the addition and what's being uh partially demolished. Sure. Um I think here on the first floor might be the easiest way to show it. So we can see here there's a section of building that's dotted. It's about 30 feet long
at the back of the building. That's currently about 30 inches off of the property line. Um, if this building was being built today, that would not be allowed. Um, not just for the addition, not just for the ADU, but the existing building itself. And I'll go to that
plan just to make that clear because we do have a demolition plan. So, the existing building here are the existing plans. And you can see on the first floor we have two bedrooms in the back here. So these people would not have an accessible means of egress out of their bedrooms
which is a building code violation. And on the third floor we actually have a window facing that property line which again is not in compliance with the building code. You need to have 3 feet minimum for a window. So if you tried to build the existing building today, it
would be denied and we would have to change it. So that's and that is the main impetus for cutting that wall out and bringing it in. It's to make the entire building um compliant from a fire safety point of view.
And let me just take a side step here where we have we have all all these sheets here and you have references. You said the this is a demolition plan and it says D1 in the bottom right hand corner. Uh what are the significance because there was a question about
structural and civil uh plans. So we'll what do those what do those mean? Um again this is just a simple demolition plan. This is just a floor plan showing the walls that are going to be removed which were the interior walls, the back wall and then as was mentioned 30 ft of this sidewall. Um
further in the set I didn't I have the whole set um not up but somewhere else because it's just so big. It's like 30 sheets. There are structural sheets of details. There's five six sheets of all the structural details for the new foundation walls for all the new walls, all the new details. So, so that is part
of our construction set and as an architect I am licensed to do that. I don't need to have an engineer. Architects are allowed to do those drawings. And that's why we don't have civil separate civil engineering plans here. Correct. Correct.
Um let's uh maybe I'd like to talk about the um this the ADU in the in the back. Um but before we get there, if you could give us a little bit about your
experience uh in Jersey City with um the construction or or applications for accessory dwelling units. Have you been involved in any? Sure. Yes, I have done a few accessory dwelling units. Um they are pretty popular. Um they're they're an interesting way to get um an additional
apartment on a property that can that can fit it. Um, and construction-wise, they I mean, they have been pretty easy to construct. They're not huge construction. Um, most of these buildings only have alleyways to get into the back, and we haven't had any problems with that so far.
And and have you had accessory dwelling units approved? Yes. Okay. And have they been limited to the the adaptive uh use of existing structures in the back or just No, that's not how the ordinance is written. Okay. The ordinance is pretty clear that
you can build a new accessory dwelling unit. Okay. And um I anything else you you maybe you want to show that if you could speak to the accessory dwelling unit uh as part of this project. Sure. Um another thing I do want to mention which is a little strange about
this site and most sites is we are we do have I want to go back to the side elevation just so you can see we are sloping down here. So, I think calling this a three-story building is a little disingenuous. It's
two stories with a basement that's a walkout basement in the back. Um, you can see that the new addition is actually lower than the roof line. Um, the floor for the new uh edition is actually at the same level as the floor
um of well, not of the floor, I'm sorry, but uh this is actually the power pit. So, about four feet down from that parit is where the actual floor is of this roof. So, we're lower than the existing roof line. This is not something that you're going to see from the street.
It's hidden behind our roof. Um, going back, you want to go back to the accessory dwelling unit or Yes, please. So, so accessory dwelling units in Jersey City are allowed to be two stories. They're a maximum of 18 feet. So, it's it's 8 foot. It's 9 foot, 9
foot, and that's it. It's flat roof, very simple building. We are allowed to have uh two feet uh sideyards and a two- foot rear yard setback. And we're proposing more than that here. We have a three-foot sideyard and we have 10 foot in the rear of the building. So again,
we aren't we're only building a two uh two family building, a two family, I'm sorry, a twobedroom accessory dwelling unit where it would have been easier to build something larger and we um decided not to. Uh the bedroom the apartment itself is
just living dining kitchen on the ground floor as I mentioned and then the floor above it's two bedrooms, two bathrooms and there is no use of the roof. So we're not proposing a roof deck on this either. We um we purposely gave the 10 ft here so that the dwelling unit, the
accessory dwelling unit could have its own little private backyard. Okay. And um anything else you want to uh point out about the the project or is that um I mean as far as the accessory dwelling unit I would say that that's
it. Um as far as the building itself um I would note a few things just that I do understand the tree was left out. The tree was never um noted to be demolished. It was never going to be cut down. Um just because a tree isn't shown on the drawing doesn't mean it's going
to get cut down. You have to actually ask to cut down the tree. We did get forestry's approval here. Um, and then I guess not not to cut it down. We didn't get approval to cut it down. No, we got approval for the project to not cut any trees down. I'm sorry. I'm
sorry for that. Um, and let me ask you, I just want it's it's not directly in the plans. There was a comment earlier uh a a surprise that that plans could be submitted and approved in in 6 weeks in in your
experience and working in Jersey City. Is is that something that's impossible or is that something that that can be done? No, it's not impossible at all. It's it's very easy to finish a set of plans like this. If you have a larger office, you can do this in a few weeks. Excuse me.
Repeat your answer. Sure. Um, if you if you have an office with some people working for you, you can finish a set of drawings like this in a week or two. And not I mean, would this be a smaller scale project? Yeah. A three story a three unit a two-unit building is a smaller scale
project. Yes. Okay. And I do think I guess the other thing we should note is the bulk of this building is fully in compliance with the zoning ordinance. This is exactly what Jersey City tells us to build here. We're not asking for a single variance for height for for the bulk of the
building for setbacks. We're in compliance with the RH1 zone 100% as far as we're concerned and as far as I think the city is concerned. And and you again, just not not to repeat it, but I I guess I am. You have been involved in in the approval and
construction of ADU u structures throughout the city, right? Yes. And I think again in this zone it's very clear that ADUs are an allowable use. Okay. Thank you. Um that's that's all I have for for Mr. Lewis.
Cynthia. Hi. Good evening, Mr. Lewis. Um hold on. I'm going to put my my notebook down. Cynthia, it's easier to ask the questions from over here where you were before. Oh, you can go back there. I'm sorry. I
can turn around. Okay. Uh, good evening, Mr. Lewis. Um, now, were you the architect who signed and sealed these plans? No. Who was the architect? I believe it's Min who signed the drawings. Okay. And why are you here presenting someone else's plans?
Because we work in the same office. Okay. Okay. Um, when you say work in the same office, are you like a regular employee? Oh, no. I work with and for Hampton Hill Architecture. Okay. In in what capacity? I generally review drawings for them. I
help them with design and I do their presentations. Okay. But you're not as like a salaried employee at Hampton Hill. No. Okay. Um, were you the point of contact with the zoning department on these plans? No. Were you the point of contact with
the building department? No. Did you talk to Michael Achimoff about the um prior approval review that he did? No. Okay. Like I was not involved in that. Okay. So,
okay. That's that that answers my question. All right. Um now you just mentioned that ADUs that are new construction are being approved all over the city. Is that correct? I did. Okay. Do you know which addresses you're
do you have any addresses in mind? I can't. Not off the top of my head. No. Okay. Okay. So, um let me ask you this. Do you know if um what the ownership structure is of those ADUs? That's not really the architect's
purview. No. Okay. So, let me ask you a hypothetical question. Um, if an ADU is a condominium Mhm. and the ADU is sold as a separate condominium unit, is it still an
accessory structure? Yes. Okay. What is it an accessory to? Accessory dwelling unit. Okay. And but do you know what the um definition of an accessory building structure or use is? You know what the
accessory accessory dwelling unit is defined as? How is that defined? I mean it's you can read it if you like. Is it considered a permitted use or an accessory use? This is a permitted use in the RH1 zone.
It's very clear. It's it's number nine in the permitted us. It's a it's actually number nine in the permitted accessory uses, not in the permitted uses. That's a red dwelling unit and it's accessory use. So, wouldn't you admit that a permitted use is different than a permitted accessory use?
No, I don't think I would. Okay. Doesn't an accessory use have to be an accessory to a principal building or a principal use? You know, the first word in ADU is accessory. That's right. Accessory to the building, to the main
building. What makes it an accessory? That it's not the main building. Okay. So, I'm just gonna um it's Cynthia, you're losing me. What are you trying to establish that an accessory building has to be attached or has to be
it? It Well, okay. So, the definition of access So, there are certain permitted uses. I think the permitted uses in the zone are, you know, like one or two family dwellings and then there are certain accessory uses, right? So if you have an accessory dwelling unit, it has to be an accessory
to a principal structure. And the definition of an accessory building structure use is a building structure or use which is customarily associated with and is subordinate and incidental to the principal building structure or use and which is located on
the same lot there. And I guess what I'm and I'll probably we'll probably get into this with the planning department, but if it's accessory, any accessory use, whether it's a dwelling unit or a garage or a pool, has to be an accessory to a principal use.
Okay. If it's separately owned or if it's an investment property with an assortment of different owners, I I get it. So time out. So So it's not an accessory anymore. It's a second principal use. But you're It's a second principal use. And so is
she testifying or is there He asked me a question and I was trying to answer it. So you're assuming that this accessory building is going to be a condo unit. We don't well we don't we don't know that yet. But I I think when he I'm speaking to him saying these are legal throughout
Jersey City and I actually think there may be a legal issue um if it's not genuinely an accessory use. If it's a second principal use on the same lot and if there's a separate ownership or different tenants occupying each unit and it's an investment property then I
think the question arises as to whether the accessory dwelling unit is housing a real accessory use or if it's a second principal use. I think there's a legal problem with the way the city's applying the ordinance. Yeah, but that's not for us yet with me.
It it it is because the or the the application of the ordinance is something the board I think there's another interpretation that you can read into the ordinance. Now, maybe it's not zoning the zoning officer's interpretation, but I think the board's free to interpret what an accessory use
is in the RH1, what an accessory dwelling unit, that's an accessory use in the RH1 is. The board's free to apply this ordinance to this application and determine that the zoning officer made a mistake. Yeah, but we're not free to speculate
that this owner who we don't even know is going to make this a condo and sell this to somebody else. We're not free to speculate. That's true. So then later later before us, what before us is whether the zoning officer made a proper determination. Not whether the owner is going to do
something in the future with this ADU. Uh-huh. That's not our issue. We're just wasting our time here. And you're making the record go like this for no reason. That's not what we're here for. All right. Let's just continue. All right. So, okay. So,
are you familiar with the process for prior approvals in the new demo ordinance? Sure. Well, I mean, the one that was online, I don't know if they're different than the adopted. So, you haven't seen the new ordinance. That's not yet codified.
Right. Okay. Um, do you have a copy of the 1938 text photo? I I can represent that. It's in uh Mr. Chimos's report for for the board's reference. Okay. Now, you can't make this a separate. You
you said that it's okay for an architect to prepare demolition plans. Yes. Okay. And if it's a really complicated demolition, would would you want to bring in an engineer? This is not a complicated demolition,
but if it was, yes. Okay. Why do you think it's not a complicated demolition? It's a woodframe building with out outside bearing walls. It's pretty easy. And how many walls are being demolished? One and a half. Okay.
Um, now you had said this is in compliance with the RH1 zoning regulations. Were you referring to the bulk standards or the design standards? I'm referring to the bulk standards. Okay. Do you know whether it's in compliance with the design standards? I believe that it is.
Okay. If it weren't in compliance with the design standards, would the zoning officer be free to wave compliance? That's a question for them, not me. Okay, that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you.
I don't have anything further for Mr. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We'll now move to the You might have another You have something else? I'm sorry. Our planner. Yeah. Oh, okay. Mr. Bell, we don't know. Do you swear that he has provid?
Yes, I do. Samuel Bellamy, last name B E L L A M Y. This Mr. Bellamy has appeared many times before this board and and the planning board. So, to offer him as an expert in as a planner, we accept his qualifications. Okay,
great. and my license is current and in good standing. Um, and for the record, licensed professional planner with the firm Dresnner Robin. Thank you. So, Mr. Bellamy, if you did you have an opportunity to uh review the proposed plan and and the um uh and the
zoning with related to it. Yes. So, I did review the proposed plan. I also reviewed the review memos prepared by the uh city's review planner as well as the uh historic preservation officer. um in respect to the bulk criteria. So we've been referring to it
as the RH1 zone for the record. That's residential housing district large lots and one is the denominator. There's a one and a two district. Um and the difference just is the lot type for that. So with respect to the bulk criteria um as our architect testified
to this project does comply with all the bulk standards in the RH1 zone. It is a permitted height. Uh we are a permitted rear yard setback with the addition. I will note that that setback standard is a 40% requirement. That's for lots 120
ft or deeper, which this lot is. So that lot um that requirement is directly proportional. So larger, deeper lots have a greater rear yard setback. And and in this case, that's a 78 foot rear yard setback requirement that we are compliant with. Um we're also compliant
with the sideyard setbacks. We're actually improving the condition there. um by by moving the foundation wall slightly in. Um we're compliant building height, building coverage and lot coverage. And the accessory structure um
is in compliance with the accessory structure setbacks and height requirements. As our architect mentioned, it does have a 10-ft rear yard setback, which is greater than the zero foot that's permitted. Um getting into the uses, so we have a detached two
family home. uh that is a permitted principal use in the in the district. We also have the uh accessory dwelling unit, the ADU, that is an permitted accessory use in the in the district. And um between that definition of
accessory dwelling unit in the actual accessory use um section of the RH1 district as well as the definition in the zoning ordinance, I I do think that we meet those requirements. Um, so as I mentioned, the RH1 district
does have your standard bulk requirements. It also does have design standards and based on my review and the review of the city's um historic preservation officers report, I do believe that we are meeting those design standards with the proposed project as
well. Okay. And uh did you have an opportunity to review uh Mr. Ward's uh review uh report? Yes, I did. Okay. Well, and did you have an opportunity to review the issue as to whether a minor site plan or any site plan was required as part of this
project? Yeah, so I I did review that. Um, minor site plans are exempt under the municipal land use law. Back up what for minor site plans are exempt. You mean one and two families? Yeah, for uh Yes. One and two family
homes are exempt from minor site plan approval. And based on my review of just the standard LDO, beyond that exemption, I I don't think we meet the um threshold for gross floor area. Um and I believe the accessory dwelling unit is also
exempt from site plan approval based on the uh LDO's requirements, the land development ordinance requirements. So in in um in your professional opinion as a as a professional planner expert
opinion uh it's your it's your opinion that no variances are required. That's correct. And that no design variance design waiverss are required. That's correct. And that the accessory dwelling unit is a permitted use under the land development ordinance. Yes. A permitted accessory use um
accessory to the permitted uh two family detached structure. and that am and that any site plan approval is not required as part of this application. That's correct. No site plan repo approval would be required. So in short, you you agree and concur with the decision that was made by the
zoning officer in this matter. That's correct. Okay. I I have nothing further. Okay. Thank you. And before we um start to with public comment, do would you like a break? No, Cynthia has the Oh, Cynthia has the I'm sorry, Cynthia.
Cross again. a couple of questions and I wanted to briefly bring our expert back for rebuttal testimony. Um, so um I'm sorry, could you tell Mr. Bellamy? Samuel Bellamy. Oh, Mr. Bellamy. Right. Okay. Mr. Bellamy, do you usually review plans for
compliance with design standards? I frequently uh as part of my um profession as a licensed professional planner review applications and that includes a review of both zoning standards and design standards uh when they are applicable on a zone.
Okay. And um if if the design standards are not met, would do you believe the zoning officer has the power to wave them? When design standards aren't met for an application, they typically require a design waiver, which would have to be approved by a
zoning or planning board. So, it would have to go back to a land use board then. If a if it's if a design standard is not met um and that's determined by the the zoning officer, then yes, it would have to go go back typically. Okay. And the accessory dwelling unit,
do you do you have any idea if it's going to be a guest house or what it what it will be? No. And I I don't think that's under the purview of of zoning or or the zoning board. Um it's typically related to the use itself. In my opinion, what's being
proposed is an accessory dwelling unit. And um you know, whether it's rental for sale or or anything beyond that, it really is not the purview of of this board or a zoning officer's uh determination. Okay. And without knowing um what the
eventual ownership will be, c can you really determine that it is an accessory use to the principal structure? Yeah, I I think based on the definition or to the principal use, I'm sorry. I'm Yeah, I think based on the definitions of accessory dwelling unit, I think it's
clear just by the overall scale of what's being proposed that is support subordinate to the the principal structure. It's much smaller. It's one dwelling unit, which is what's permitted by an accessory dwelling, and it meets the bulk standards for accessory dwelling units.
So, so you're saying any any backyard ADU is always an accessory use, even if it's sold to a different owner. Again, I I really don't think that's the question of zoning. Okay. Okay. I think that's all I have.
And we're going to bring back um Miss Po Duon. But just uh one follow-up question for Mr. Bellamy to try to clear things up. When when um you're involved in a lot of applications before the board's uh correct? Yeah, that's that's and and you would have uh a residential
project before a board. Does it matter or is it relevant to the board if that's going to be be a rental property or a condominium property? Uh no, it's not. It's not under the the board's perview when approving applications or denying applications. Thank you. Okay. I have I do have I'm sorry one
more question. Later later if it at some future point it becomes say a separate condo unit would that be a zoning violation? Uh I don't believe so. Um a change in
use would have to be reviewed if it's a change in use and then at that point it would be determined if a if a use variance is required. But a change of rental and and and ownership, I I don't believe that has to go back or or it's considered a change of use um
from a zoning perspective. Okay. Thank you. [Music] Okay. We just Okay. Hello again, Jackie Puan again for the record. Okay. So, you heard Yes. Thanks. Um so, you heard Mr. Lewis and
Mr. Bellamy. Um, you heard their testimony. Do you have anything uh to say in response to that? Yes, I do have a few comments um just in response to some of the comments of the advising architect. I know it's late. I know you have public testimony to move on to. So, I just want to make a few points, which is that uh he did note
that they plan to restore the front facade at least to some degree to the 1930s tax photo conditions. I I really don't see that in in his elevation drawings. Um he said everything significant had been stripped from the front of the house or otherwise altered.
There are still um wood cornises that are still there that are visible that can still be restored and and uh repainted, reused. Um as I said earlier, the asphalt shingle siding, it's probably covering the original wood clabard. That would be easy enough to take that off, look at the condition of
the wood, see if you could retain the original wood and just repaint it. Um I question the use of Hardy Plank. that would not to my knowledge be able to replicate the original the original size and overlap of the original uh clabard
sighting. Um I question the use of fibreex windows in a historic district or potential historic district. Fibrex is basically plastic. Um at the rear he mentioned the addition that's there is not have doesn't have any you know historical
architectural merit. I agree with that but it is you can see the difference. it is of a scale that is more appropriate to the the bu the existing building. You can still read the existing building. It doesn't overwhelm the existing building. Not that I'm saying you have to keep the
the existing um rear edition in its current form, but you can see the difference the in that massing. Um and I'm I'm still left with the question. I I understand that the the city doesn't require apparently um shoring plans to
be filed at the same time as demo plans, but I'm still left with the the question of how are these two remaining walls going to be held up under the course of construction when you're replacing everything else in the building. Thank you.
Thanks. Okay. Chuck, you did you want to ask a question? No, I don't have any questions for her. Nothing. Okay, I'm good. I think Iris a break. Yeah, and then we'll go to public comment. Okay, thank you. Uh we'll take
a uh 10-minute break, Iris. Is that enough? Okay, so we'll be back here at uh 8:45 for public comment. We'll have um public comment. Um a reminder that each person speaking uh will be given 3 minutes. Um, Commissioner uh, Shahid
will be timing you and when there's a minute left, he will give you notice that there is one minute left. So, anyone who would like to speak, uh, please come up to the podium so that you can, um, you can line up if you'd like and get ready to speak. Okay. Thank you.
Please raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you will provide this evening will be the truth, the truth, and the truth? I do. Your full name, please. You asked Sasha Greco. G R Eco O. Can you address please? 125 Sherman Place. Thank you. Sure. I'm a little nervous, so I'm going
to read off my notes. Um I don't know if you guys will care about an emotional appeal, but I hope as representatives of the residents of Jersey City, you'll give me a little bit of latitude here. Is Is the mic on so that we can everyone can hear you? It was on. There you go. Sorry again. Very nervous here.
Okay. Um, I bought my house on Sherman Place in 2008, not on the grand block that Paul lives on closer to Kenny Boulevard, but still special to me. Um, it was in a state of disrepair at the time, but what I saw was inlaid floors, stained glass windows, moldings, and
incredible historic beauty. My husband and I have spent 17 years restoring our property, and it's a gem and a haven, and we love it. The house next door to us, 127, had similar features, but it was bought offmarket by a developer a few years ago when the original owners
died. And I watched brokenhearted as I saw stained glass windows, inlaid floors, crown moldings, a beautiful staircase and banister carded out and thrown into a dumpster. Um, our house has a tiny room at the
back, barely bigger than this table, that has windows on two sides. And for many years, it was my favorite room because of the windows like Paul's deck. I could see trees. I could see the sky. I could see the sunsets. I would sit out there with a glass of wine and a book
and enjoy that view. And when the developers um refurbished 127, they extended it almost all the way to the back of the property as well. And so now um my windows look at vinyl siding because they didn't put any windows in and it goes right up against my
property. So, I really feel for Paul when he talks about losing his light because I lost mine. And personally, I'm really tired of developers who don't care about our community or our residents or neighborhood because all they care about are profits.
This is a terrible precedence and it's not what Sherman Place is about. Thank you. Thank you. That was beautiful. Hi everyone. Um, do you swear that testimony you provide this evening will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but truth. Yes. Can you please your last name?
Sure. Katherine Healey, H E A L Y. And your address, please. 125 Charles Street, Jersey City, New Jersey. Thank you. Thanks. Uh, good evening, everybody. So, I got involved in this. I'm a lifelong
resident of Ward D. I lived there for 44 years. Um, here not as an attorney today. I know nothing about land use. I am here uh to object to this project. I'm asking that you guys please resin
that approval and revoke the permit that was issued. Uh Tanya's conflicted out. She's she's d the director of two different departments. To me, that's clearly a conflict. You can't uh make the same decision on from two separate
uh departments. Also, the fact that a Mr. Patel uh already got turned down for the same project, but then the new developer gets approval uh two weeks later. It it just
stinks. Um it stinks of corruption, frankly. Um also, I I I had no knowledge of this. I am running for WD D Council in in the Heights on Governor McGrevy's ticket and
we want to do preservation citywide because I've had it with the developers knocking down our gorgeous Victorian homes and putting up these ugly bon boxes. Enough is enough. So, and McGrevy agrees with this. So, he said we're
going to do preservation citywide. So, I walked over to Paul's house, Paul Ematuso, because I know he's an expert in historic preservation. So, I went to Paul to get some advice on how are we going to push through legislation in Jersey City for historic preservation.
And that's when Paul unloaded on me about his neighbor's home. Why would you purchase a home next to Paul Amatuso and try to destroy it? Like, cut your losses. Step away. You know, once I'm elected, we're going to be passing
draconian ordinances so that we are going to shut down development citywide. Okay, everyone here, you can tell these developers that they are done because we've had it. We've had it. We our streets are filthy. Our quality of
there's no quality of life for the residents. Our fees go up and our quality of life goes down. Uh you said I have 30 seconds. What did you say? Yes. Okay. Um, so you you have to rescend
this. If if this is not rescended, I I assure you we will be passing draconian ordinances on zoning, historic preservation. We're going to do it citywide. We're going to go crazy and now no one will be able to develop. I mean that. I've had it.
Yeah. Yes, I do. Alexandra Baraken. I be E R R A K N. 81 Sherman Place. Good evening everybody. Um my name is
Ally and live in 81 Sherman Place. So just the other side um with Paul's other nextdoor neighbor. Um, a year and a half ago, we bought our home and fell in love with the historic charm of the block. But truly, what sold us the house was
this beautiful outdoor space. We have this lovely yard and this gorgeous leafy vista through all of our neighbors gardens towards the end of the block. And um, it's a real green oasis within the city. We have two young children who
are four and six and they spend hours out there playing in the yard enjoying the trees, the fresh air and the natural light. So for us, we absolutely oppose the idea of having this large extension
and this extra ADU which will just wall us in. Additionally, I'm concerned about the construction. I worry about the months of dust and noise right next to where our children will be playing and breathing. I think something really important to note is the number of
people that have come out this evening to show how special and unique Sherman places and how much we value the history and the nature that we are so lucky to enjoy right now. Thank you very much. Do you testimony?
I do. Please state your full name. Ivan Garcia, G A R CIA. And your address, please. 89 Sherman Place. Thank you. Please proceed. Thanks for uh allowing me to come up here and speak. I live on 89 Sherman Place, a couple houses down from uh what
these guys want to do. Went ahead and purchased a house back in 2012. We moved into Jersey City back in 2010. Between 2010 and 2012, we would always walk down Sherman Place. And I used to tell my wife at the time, you know, one day we'll, if we're lucky enough, we'll
we'll get a house here. And we were lucky enough to to get a house here. It's guys, if you ever walk down the block, it really is it's an amazing block. The the trees, the backyards, they're gorgeous. This gentleman over here, they asked him what's special about the house. He said nothing. I
mean, it's not a bayon box. It's not like any other. If you go down the street, it's not like other houses that you see there. It's definitely different. I I don't know what you're talking about. But enough about, you know, today you're having a lot of people talk about how great this this block is. They live on the block. Obviously, they're going to
speak highly of it. I want to talk about what this block means to the community. Every night we go out on the porch, we sit down, we talk to our neighbors, and the amount of foot traffic you get on this block from people that don't live on this block. It's not a mean thorough uh way. There's no reason people should
be walking down this block. People love walking down this block looking at the houses, pointing at the flowers, pointing at the various plants, pointing at the trees. We're going to destroy this. Please guys, on your watch, don't allow this to happen. Don't allow this block to change. We talk about the one
some of the great blocks on Jersey City. Sherman Place is one of them. Let's please make sure that we hold on to some of this. I appreciate I'm for development. I'm not anti-development. That's not that's not what I am. But you do need to hold on some culture when it comes to a to a city and Sherman Place
is part of that culture. Thanks guys. I appreciate it. [Applause] I do. Cynthia Scott, SCT
63 Sherman Place. I'm going to read my notes, too. Good evening. I have lived in Jersey City my entire life and most of it has been on Sherman Place. Excuse me. Pull the mic to your mouth and Is that better? Yes. Okay. Should I start over again? Sure.
Okay. I have lived in Jersey City my entire life and most of it has been on Sherman Place. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak before you tonight. However, I am only able to do so because of this appeal. It is difficult to understand how this happened considering
the scope of this project. 85 Sherman Place is located in a proposed historic district. Neighbors have been working to complete the steps needed for the process and the city's historic preservation office and planning department have been part of that process. We have been working on this
for over six years. The proposed historic district is also included in the city's master plan. The survey has been done and the designation report was filed about nine months ago. It seems that the project at 85 Sherman Place should have been looked at more
closely. Considering the scope, the public, neighbors, and those of us who live here should have been given an opportunity to be heard and considered. The project allows for demol partial demolition of an historically contributing home in order to gain access to construct an ADU in the
backyard. Initially, ADUs were described by planning on a walk that I was on as converting existing structures such as garages or carriage houses. How is it all permitted for a new structure which needs partial demolition
without public notice or input? Public trust still matters and we need to trust that government is considering what is best for the community. The proposed historic district was not fully considered here and no public discussion was scheduled. You have an opportunity
to re-evaluate and to make sure that more consideration and discussion takes place going forward. We live here and the decisions affect our lives and our investment in our community. Thank you for your attention to this appeal. Thank you.
Do you swear that the testimony you will provide this evening truth of the truth? I do. Please state your full name. Spell your last J ball. B A L L. And your first name is J A Y. Correct. Correct. Yes.
J, please. 108 Sherman Place. My wife and I discovered this magical showpiece street when we were looking for a house in Jersey City, riding our bikes all over the place. And this reminded me of where I grew up.
Beautiful old big homes. Um, giant yards, tons of trees. And when we bought it in the middle of winter, we just sat in our backyard because Hope Oak doesn't have yards. I have a yard now. And in this yard, I have squirrels, possums,
raccoons, skunks, and woodchucks. It's pretty cool. Um, there's blue jay, sparrows, hummingbirds, and this giant redtailed hawk that sits in the tree above my house, happily munching on the pigeons from my yard. This managerie of wildlife would not
exist if it were not for the continuous yards of the street. This openness allows variety and ranging for all of the animals. We get morning sunlight. It wakes up the critters and keeps our yards alive. If my neighbor were to build an ADU, I'd lose all of this. they
double their length of their house, I would lose all of this, resulting in a dank and dusty and depressing wasteland that would be well my yard. I'm not against development. I'm not against creating additional housing on Sherman Place, but I am against the ADU and the
way that they are extending this house too big. I also own 21 Sherman Place, so I am for housing. I would like maybe in the future to use my garage. We need less cars. An accessible house would be great back there for a handicap person.
I'd like an ADU. Maybe in the future, but not ripping up the yards that exist and blocking off the sunlight of my neighbors. I would use what's there. So guys, give us a nice plan for a two to three unit building with a really hip garden level bachelor pad. That would be
pretty cool. Can you do this? And I think our neighbors might support this, but what is there now definitely is not appropriate for the neighborhood and is not something that I want to see and live near. Thank you. Thank you. Do you swear that the testimony you
provide this evening will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing? I do. Please state your full name. My name is Elvin Dominician Carian. And what's your last name? Uh, it's D O M I N I CI. My second last
name is En Ca RN A C I O N. And your address, please? It's one Congress Street. Thank you. Good evening, board members. Uh my name is Elvin and I'm an activist in Jersey City. I started here with the community to make sure that we protect 85 Chairman
Place. Um, for many years, Jersey City has lost many properties, many areas that are valuable for this community and we got one of the left historic district and we as a community and some people that care about this city. We need to
step together. Um, I understand um, you know, the developer and the lawyer, they just keep talking about this is not a historic district yet. the disregarding the work and the effort of this community for years to make sure that this happen as the lady that was speaking before just because they want
to build this property. So imagine what is going to happen to this block if we allow this building to be as it is. You're going to open the door for a new way for other developers to come into the block to build this type of property. And we cannot allow that. We
got to make sure that we protect this at least this district in Jersey City and we show that when they don't come and have conversations with the community first before they start proposing these projects, we always going to have these type of meetings. I'm against it and you
should be against it. Thank you. Thank you. will be the truth. I do. Uh, it's Kern K E R N. Last name is Weissman. We SS M
576 Palisade Avenue. Thank you. Uh, great. Uh, good evening. Uh, thank you, commissioners. Um, so I'll be brief. Uh I I want I'm speaking on behalf of the uh the Riverview Neighbors Association Development Committee, which as you know is the neighbors association to the to the um east of uh the
Persingfield Neighbor Association. Um we are uh lending our support 100% to the uh Sherman Place community. Um we the the biggest thing that we've identified here um in our review of this situation is that the precedent that could be set
here is definitely not a good one. Um, the idea that you can basically demolish portions of a historic property in order to plant an ADU without proper HBC
review is really not good. And I I I think it's actually even more dangerous than it sounds because I know of and I and I pulled our community three different uh uh when I went to my neighbors, three different lots. I went down and I saw that if this was in fact
this precedent was able to be set a similar thing would could happen on their lots and and there's actually one that on the same block where it very likely could this midblock idea that okay well we we how else are we going to get back there we got to demolish part of the uh historic building. So, I'm not
against the concept of an ADU, but I certainly am against the concept of allowing demolition of any portions of historic properties without proper review. That is a terrible precedent and I and you have the power here to block that and stop that. So, please do uh you
know uh grant this appeal and let this go through the proper review process and protect this neighborhood. It's very important. Thank you. You swear that the testimony you will provide this evening will be the truth and nothing. I do. State your full name please.
My name is Colin Egan. Egn at 35 Sherman Place. Thank you. Um I have some working knowledge of preservation and but I can't claim any working knowledge of zoning. What I do claim is that I'm one of the millions
and millions of people in Jersey City now and in decades past who've always known there's something very special about Sherman Place. And the reason we know it's special is that it has maintained its historic sense of place
and feeling. You go there, you know not only that generations before you have enjoyed it, you have the feeling that generations ahead of you will. It has a comfortable feeling. And the reason all of this is there is the relationship of
the buildings to the open space and the buildings to each other and the various open space to each other. Um that that is critical to the district. Now,
we know, we've heard that unfortunately the historic district is pending and uh the builder's lawyer has pointed out it is not in force, but we do have RH1 and RH1
and that's what Sherman Place is. And in RH1, it has a specific requirement that I'm lousy reading things at the pony, I'm sorry. buildings be cited so that their placement and relationship to surrounding property is equivalent to
the existing pattern of uh development on the street. That means the existing relationship of buildings to open space front back side is very important and I submit that it
is at least an open question that the plans being submitted now don't require a variance to conform to those standards. So what I would suggest and ask is that the current permits be retracted and this be sent back to
planning and zoning and that planning and zoning ask HBC to weigh in because HPC has the expertise as was pointed out this body doesn't. Uh you don't have to that's what HPC is for.
HPC should look into that issue and also as Colonel Weisman said the issue of demolition. That's what has to happen. Go back to the HPC and allow a public hearing. Thank you for your time. Thank you.
Truth. I do. State your full name please. Janette Pilat J E A N E T E P I L A T. And your address please. 106 Sherman please. Thank you.
Um so I'm French actually in American. Um please speak into the mic. Hello. I just wanted to share my perspective as a neighbor and also someone coming from a different uh country. I used to live in Paris for more than 15 years and uh I was
hesitating about going back or staying here and actually what convinced me to stay in Jersey City was uh Sherman Place and all this um the dynamic and the positive energy that we have from the fact that it's going to be um a historic
district and I could feel that whatever we have in France in Paris that we had about preservation restoration not renovation but really restoration all the little details that we can have in each houses uh is starting to be valued
and it's not uh neglected in a way I have two little kids uh five and seven or four and six depending on whether you ask me or my husband um and uh I often walk on the streets with them and they actually recognize the houses from the little details I
don't know if it's because we actually put the emphasis on that or if it's just because they're interested. But they can tell you which house is the purple one with the little detail. Uh the yellow the yellow one that is bigger with the front porch with those pillars. Uh all
of those little things that I wouldn't even think about. Um, and it's not lost on them when uh someone has a longer backyard and someone has a smaller one because they detail those things too and they have friends. So, they often go and and play in those backyards and actually
talk about how cool it is and um why don't we put some hens or maybe cows or goats in there because they they just see how incredible this is and how unique it is. Uh we used to live in Manhattan in a very tiny one-bedroom
apartment, the four of us. So actually the fact that we have those backyard, that's what the whole appeal. It's not just the front, it's like the whole house that makes sense and it not makes sense only to adults, but also to kids.
Um so thank you. I don't think I have a lot of more to say than the fact that they uh also recognize the patterns. So they can they actually do talk about oh this is the yellow this is the they do at school you know the iterations of
find the error they are able to do that on the streets too. So, just to say that if we want to have that for the kids and this is what I want for Jersey City and this is why I actually wanted to stay for the energy um not just talking about
downtown because honestly coming from Manhattan I I didn't know whether to go to uh Hoboken Jersey City downtown and that was pretty much it. Now I see that there is the heights and the value of Jersey City overall is being is growing through the fact that there is this
historical potential uh district in a way. So seeing that that development I'm just afraid that it will threaten the whole preservation. Thank you. Thank you. Do you swear that the testimony you
provide will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing the truth? So help me God. Yes, I do. State your full name, please. My name is Laura Ford. F O R D. Two O's. And your address? And I live at 101 Sherman Place, right down the street from where all this is
supposed to take place. Um, a lot of what I was going to say has already been said in and much better than I could say it by my neighbors and um other people in this community. Um, this is really important to all of us.
Um, when I first moved to um to Sherman Place uh in 1988, I think it was, a lot of the houses were kind of run down and they needed work and they really were not pretty, including my own were
nowhere near as pretty as what you see today. And over the uh the years from that time to now, an enormous amount of effort and love and care and community spirit has gone into turning Sherman Place into what it is now. Um we are
invested in our community. Uh we partnered with the city to to get uh closer to becoming Jersey City's sixth historic district. We obtained the necessary data from the experts in historic architecture to to confirm that
historic designation is warranted and should happen here. Uh the city has accepted and supported historic designation. We've been partners with the city up till now. Uh the new master plan of Jersey City cites the RH1 and RH2 zoning as intended to protect
property as historic designated zones. So, it's been the city's stated objective to protect these neighborhoods. We share a common goal. Another common goal, increasing density in a matter that's responsible and respects the character of historic areas
is also a goal shared by the city and also our residents in our neighborhood. I would love to be able to have an accessory unit in my backyard that a u a relative or a friend in need could could come and live in. Um, we we have the
option now to have an accessory dwelling unit, which we were made to understand would be something that would be built onto an exist. One minute to go. Oh, wow. Okay. All right. I'll have to I'll have to go up. Um, the city has zoning and planning
ordinances that are to be followed in determining whether a developer's plan should be allowed. The historic commission has an important role in the process. Uh I think Miss Aianis has outlined tonight that the application for 85 Sherman Place did not proceed properly
through the process as it should have. As a result, we have a developer waiting to partially demolish a house that is listed as a contributing historic building. The section of the house that the developer wants to demolish is actually listed on the official survey as a main characteristic of the house
that makes it valuable historically. Our neighbors have several valid concerns about this plan, including the lack of emergency access in the event of fire and whether the house would retain structural soundness after the removal of a significant portion of its original
wall. Excuse. Your time is your time is up. I'm done. Last sentence. It went so fast. Thank you very much for listening. Thank you. The testimony that you provide will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth. I hope you die. I do. Please state your full name. Anthony Sandamp. And your address? 91 Bright Street. Thank you. Um, I'm a neighbor from the Vanores Park neighborhood. Um, I've been living in
that historic district for 24 years. Um, I've also been a commissioner on the Jersey City Historic Preservation Commission for 22 years. So, I'm used to being on that side of the DS, not this side. Um, however, um, I'm here in to
voice my my strong opposition to the approval and the process that was conducted for the application at 85 Sherman Place. I'm someone dedicated to justice in all parts of my life and today that dedication is focused on Jersey City's zoning office.
Uh the New Jersey Appellet Court had previously ruled that municipalities cannot delegate the powers of the HPC to other entities. The court stated, "Instead, the MLUL mandates that the commission that a commission made up of
five, seven, or nine people re review demolition permit applications involving property for historic significance and render written recommendations to the administrative officer or planning board. Plainif is permitted to file a request
for demolition permit to be considered by the commission and if necessary exhaust his administrative remedies. The building in this application is listed as a contributing structure in the Hunter research survey as a
requisite to determination as a municipal historic district. This uh distinctive historic neighborhood, in my opinion, will become the next historic district in Jersey City. As early as late this year,
the Jersey City HPC routinely renders opinion on demolition for Jersey City properties every month, both inside and outside of historic districts, as part of our meetings. Um, having a determination by the HPC does not constitute a hardship.
One minute for a building owner. The building demolition application never came before the HPC. As such, the current approval needs to be rescended. The application should then be heard by the Jersey City HPC for determination.
All property owners should be afforded equal justice by our city. Owners with power and connections need to be subject to the same review as those without. This board and all city boards are critical to providing that equal
justice. Thank you for your time. Hi. Will you both be speaking? Yes. Okay. So, I'll swear you together. Do you swear that the testimony you will provide this evening will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but truth. So help you God. Yes, we do. Please state your name first, sir. Victor Quinnon. Your last name?
Q UI N O N E S. N O E S. And your name? Mary Konus. Okay. And your address, please. 105 Sherman, please. Thank you. Please proceed. Yeah. My my concern is about that construction they're trying to do to is about fire issue because we had building
downtown. we was locked out and my house in the back got burnt and that's one of the issues that I want not to permit the permit for that kind of building in there. So I'm supporting Mr. Paul,
I guess I guess what he's trying to say is our issue is that we own a building in downtown and we were landlocked and we have a little twostory one family house in the back and it burned down because the firemen could not find where
to go because we have the building in the front and we have a little hallway to get to the back and our house burns because they couldn't find it. So, it's just a fire issue with us. Like, how safe is it if there's a fire and you're
landlocked back there? How do you know where to go? Like, it, you know, it's minutes. Someone can get hurt, die. So, how big are it? 36 inch wide to get in there. Our door was 30 in wide and there was a
door. So, they couldn't find the house and they found it too late. So, three homes burnt because of that. So, we just wanted to let you know that it's also a fire, you know, safety issue. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much. Deborah D O R A H Mc Williams M Capital W I L L I A MS. And your address? 787 Summit Avenue, Unit One. I hadn't planned to speak tonight, but
after listening to everything, I have something to say. I've been in Jersey City for 35 years, originally from Brooklyn. I've been in the Heights for 25. I'm a walker. I use public transportation. I've been to different parts of Jersey City. And one of the
things that I like is the different architecture, the variety of housing from the beautiful brownstones in Greenville to just even my building which is a pre-war building or just walking down Sherman Place. Sherman Place is like
going into another world, the Victorian houses, the trees, just to hear the sounds of the birds. It's like being in the country where my mother grew up down south. Even on Manhattan Avenue, if you walk up Summit, all the beautiful large
Victorian houses. But we're losing it. We're losing it because developers are not working with the people and with the community. They're working against us. We're losing that variety. And all they're building is these bon boxes that
are ugly or these glass skyscrapers. I grew up in Brooklyn. I worked in Manhattan. This is what I saw. We're not against development. We want appropriate development. We want the developers to
work with us to keep it. I don't want to live somewhere that's like Manhattan. That's why I left New York. I want the variety, especially as someone who's retired and walks around a lot. I want the variety whether I walk down Troy
Street and see the different houses there or Sherman Place or Franklin. But we're losing it because the board, the zoning board, the planning board, you're approving whatever the developers want without
input from the community. Don't work against us. work with us. That's all we're asking because do you want Jersey City to look like Manhattan? Have y'all been on Cottage Street lately? Have y'all walked at Journal Square? Go take
a walk down Cottage Street between Summit and Central and and Kennedy. You'd be shocked. Little houses, all these big glass buildings. It's just ugly. Please work with us. We ask the developers, work
with us. Please work with us. We want you guys here, but it has to be appropriate. Thank you for your time. And I wasn't going to speak tonight, but I had to. Thank you.
Yes. Deborah Divinesia de capital Capital V like Victor E ne Z I A and your address please. 72 Bleecker Street. I She stole my opening line. I wasn't going to speak either tonight. We're
both named Debbie, so maybe that had something to do with it. Um I felt compelled to to speak because um I wanted the zoning board here to know how important this is for the whole city. I don't live on Sherman Place. I don't
live anywhere near Sherman Place, but I felt compelled to speak because it it it will impact my life and where I live. And what happens here tonight on this decision will affect the rest of the city. And I I know that in my heart. Um
I live on Bleecker Street. I have lost every historic home on our block as I've lived there. I am the last historic home on that block. We last year, two years ago, we we restored our home and people now walk our block to see our house. It
is of no great scale like the SH ones on Sherman Place, but it is the last home on our block and I don't want to see that happen to any other neighborhood anywhere in the city. Um, thoughtful
development is possible. My father was a developer. I loved that man. So, I'm not against development, but it's thoughtful and as Debbie said, working with the community, not against it. And I just felt compelled to speak because I wanted you to know it's not just the people living on Sherman Place trying to
protect their little world. It's it's for all of us. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other members of the community that need to say anything before I close out the public portion? Okay. Um, okay.
So, we are now closing the public portion. Um, do our commissioners have any comments or do should we We'll hear any comments and then we'll hear from the staff. Okay. So, do you have any comments?
Okay. Let's see from the staff. Michael, I'm sitting over here today. Yes, I know. But I had asked Michael was going to speak as well. Oh, okay. [Music] I just have a comment. I mean, he is he a witness or is he making a staff comment? A staff comment.
Yeah, but he's we're it's a review of a decision he was involved in. I mean, this is what I'm talking about with a conflict of interest is where I I if he's being put on as a witness by the city, then I should have
the opportunity to question him. Okay, then didn't he write a report in this case? It's the It's part of the what's being challenged. I thought you were challenging Tanya's zoning officers. his we were also
challenging the compliance with the demolition regulations and Michael was part of uh G giving a prior approval and he wrote that's part of the appeal. Yeah. Okay. So then we have to
he's not part of the community then uh okay then Matt from you then Matt. Okay. Um, I'm Matt Ward. For everyone that hasn't
met me before, recognize many faces. Uh, I am a supervising planner here in Jersey City in the division of city planning. I have not consulted with Tanya Marion as the director of city planning on the writing of this report
or the testimony I'm about to give. Uh I have authored a report dated uh September 8th, 2025 uh to the zoning board commissioners. In that report, I have a overview, a
timeline, and I address uh the statement of the appellant in their statement of law. Uh I'll start by uh quoting uh that statement. The zoning approval was
issued without requiring any variance or waiver from the RH1 standards without requiring compliance with newly amended demolition permit procedures to re or review by the historic preservation commission and without any minor site
plan approval from the land use board. Moreover, the accessory dwelling unit ADU is new construction whereas the permitted use is limited to the conversion of existing accessory structure into accessory dwellings.
The appellent statement alleges that the ZRA approval is invalid because the zoning officer did not require any variance or waiver from the RH1 district standards. The zoning officer determined that their development does not include any variance or waiverss, but city planning
staff review, however, has confirmed a prohibited material, namely the brick face, is used on the sides and rear facades of the principal structure and on the accessory structure. Beyond that, city planning identified no other variants or waiverss from the RH1
standards. Because of that, the brick face and the uses thereof would require a variance relief pursuant to NJSA 405D-70C. Pursuant to chapter 34540 of the LDO, the purpose of the RH1 district is to
preserve the pattern, quality, and architectural individuality of the existing detached one and two family uh two unit structures and is to discourage subdivision and demolition. This district is similar to the RH2 and
R1 zones except that it is intended to protect clusters of lot sizes that are larger than the standard 25 by 100 lot size for Jersey City. The purpose is not to create historic districts. It's not for historic districts. There are areas
of R1, formerly the R1A and R1F districts prior to the creation of the RH1 zone. And Sherman Place wasn't it because the
original R1A and R1F were 40x 100 lots. There are 40x 100 lot clusters that were zoned that way and now all of them are now in this new RH1. The RH1 district in its entirety
throughout the entire city. Uh in some cases that includes areas like this that are eligible for historic designation and in some cases are not eligible and upon my opinion would not be eligible.
Clusters being as small as they are in some areas. All right. Okay. the uh the importance of kind of explaining some of that background was the 40x100 lot was the rear yard
standard that was written into the RH1 zone specified um two rear yard standards. One is this 40% of rear lot depth or of lot depth being your rear yard setback that was
created specifically for the inclusion of lots that are greater than 100 ft deep namely Sherman Place. the rear yard standard in this application that was approved by or not this application but
that was approved by the zoning officer the subject of this appeal meets that setback. Uh I think there's no question here this is not a historic district yet that was not contended um by the appellant.
Uh this development just summarize what it includes. It's an existing detached two-unit structure that they're creating that's formerly a one-unit structure that is a permitted principal use. A partial demolition of a building that is not a local landmark nor part of a
locally designated historic district. An additional an addition and site work compliant with the R1H bulk standards. Currently, the principal structure is a non-conforming pre-existing structure. This application that was approved by
the zoning officer brings the project into compliance with the standards of the zone with regards to the sideyard setback and uh it is observing the other standards that are in the in the zoning.
An ADU compliant with the R1H permitted accessory uses standards. Continuation of a pre-existing non-conforming parking arrangement in the front yard and exterior work deemed largely compliant with RH1 design standards and
recommended for approval by the historic preservation officer contingent on changing the brick face to full brick. This project is compliance compliant with the demolition standards and the permit procedures therein. The approval
of the development is compliant with chapter 345-30 and chapter 105 of the municipal code. The development does not propose whole demolition, instead proposing partial demolition. Chapter 105 of the municipal
code stipulates permit procedures for demolitions. for whole demolitions. The city has put in a permit procedure as a standalone application that incorporates historic preservation division of zoning in the construction code officials office since the full
scope of a demolition may not include P plans for development. For partial demolition, the scope of a project always includes a zoning review application or a ZRA. And therefore, the recommendation of or prior approval uh
that being a term referenced in the per the permit procedures uh uh the recommendation of a prior approval of the historic preservation officer is made part of the permit procedure of a of a zoning review application.
Furthermore, pursuant to chapter 105.3, applications approved by the zoning officer on recommendation of the historic preservation officer may thereafter be submitted to the construction official as a prior approval. Referring to the timeline in
my report, on June 25th, 2025, the historic preservation officer recommended approval of the ZRA ahead of any permits being issued by the construction code officials office or the building department.
In July 2025, the ZRA approved plans were revised and the historic preservation officer once again reviewed the plans to update their prior approval. In their August 1st update, the historic preservation officer recommends the following be
addressed prior to construction. One, the currently proposed thin brick veneer should be revised to full-size 4-in red brick along the entirety of the exposed foundation/b and ADU. And two, the existing below
grade foundation uh that is sorry below grade foundation that is below the proposed portion of the wall being removed should remain. any space between the existing foundation continuing uh on with his recommendation any space between the
existing foundation and propo and proposed I'm sorry new proposed foundation should be appropriately infilled recommendation one was not addressed in the ZRA approved plans that's what I mentioned earlier when there is when I
said that there is a variance but recommendation two was addressed and specified on sheet T uh-1 one of the plans. To date, the building permits have not been updated with the 2025 revisions, but work is stopped at the
site. This project complies with the design standards of the R RH1 district with the exception of that brick face. The development is compliant with those standards is confirmed in the prior approval authored by the historic
preservation officer. Compliance with the accessory use standards. The ZRA approved plans do not include any variances or waiverss from the RH1 accessory use standards pursuant to ordinance 23-103
approved in October 2023. Accessory dooring units are permitted use in the RH1 district. The governing body pursuant to NJSA455D/62 may adopt or amend a zoning ordinance substantially consistent with the land
use element and the housing plan element of the master plan or designed to effectuate such plan elements. Prior to ordinance 23-10385 Sherman Place was in the R1 district.
The R1 and the RH1 district both permit accessory structures. At any time, a property owner in the RH1 district may apply for permits to build and erect an accessory structure. Assuming no
variances or waiverss are proposed, once that accessory structure is built, it exists. It doesn't matter if that structure was there for a minute or a day or decades or was always built when the first that
first building was built. It exists and it was permitted. The appellant in their statement is correct. The master plan recommends the city allow detached garages and carriage houses to be converted to accessory dwelling units to
increase affordable housing options. Bud, excuse me. Excuse me. Can we lower the volume on that, please? Oh, sure, sure, sure. Thank you. But to read that conclusion or that recommendation and conclude, ADUs shall
not be permitted in new construction is a romantic notion to prohibit ADUs in new construction. to prohibit ADUs in new construction when accessory structures are permitted
would do nothing less than add administrative burden on city staff and application gymnastics for property owners seeking to diversify the housing stock in Jersey City. Tell that to my friend who moved out of Jersey City
because you guys would please please. The municipal council reserves the power to zone when they adopted 23-103. This case Z2025-0056 is not an appeal of whether the municipal count council misapplied a
recommendation from the master plan 2 years ago. The appeal period for ordinance 23-103 has long passed. That said, staff finds the definition of ADU and standards by which ADUs are permitted in Jersey City
substantially consistent with the land use element and the housing plan element of the of the Jersey City master plan. Lastly, the proposed partial demolition and addition creating a 3 foot 1-in sideyard setback renders access to the
rear yard and proposed ADU which while also removing a non-conforming sideyard setback condition. The development does not have any bulk variances. The last item in their uh appeal and statement
is that this should have received minor site plan approval. The pellants statement alleges uh sorry I'll skip that. Pursuant to NJSA 40 uh col 55D-
37A chapter 34516 of the land development ordinance stipulates when site plan approval is required defining threshold uh it stipulates when site plan approval is
required defining thresholds for major site plan review and minor site plan review pursuant to 33 345-16 16B1 projects whose total gross floor area is at least 5,000 and less than 10,000
square ft require M minor site plan approval. However, pursuant to NJSA 405D-37A individual lot applications for detached two you two unit buildings are exempt
from site plan review and approval. The principal structure of the development uh of the subject for tonight is therefore exempt from site plan review by state law. The non-exempt gross floor area of the development only totals
1,394 square ft. That's the ADU. Well below the 5,000 gross floor area threshold for minor site plan approval. No threshold for minor site plan review and approval is triggered by this
development. However, due to the brick face, city planning has determined a variance is present and no sight application uh or and that has made a variance no site no site plan
application um required uh for this application which would appear before this board. If you have any questions, I'm here at your disposal. Okay. Thank you. Uh, commissioners, uh,
do we have any questions for anyone? Jeffrey. Okay. Okay. So, I I only have one question. Um, it was stated that excavation was being done. Excavating was being done. Um, how is that being done
or what type of excavation excavating is being done and how is I guess is the question. I don't I think Chuck I don't know that was months ago uh when u the the I think the the permit had been been given uh the appeal was in process there was
no stop work order in place so my client went forward with that and then it was contacted by the by the uh construction official uh to stop work at at the property. So that was done prior to the stop work order.
So there was no um removal of windows or anything. It was just excavation in the back and they were pretty much bringing it out the side. I I don't know for sure. I I don't know that answer. So Commissioner Subli, do you have a
question? Uh just so I understand the uh the height of the building is equivalent to the height of the neighboring buildings. It's not higher elevated higher. Um that's correct. Okay. I just
we're not raising the height of the building. Okay. Okay. Other commissioners, you have any other questions? Um, backing up to what Commissioner Allen said, um, about the demolition, but the interior of the
house, was that already gutted? Yeah, that the answer to that is yes. And that was under the, you know, prior demolition. Um, there was no stop work order. So, they were believe they were they're working under uh the appropriate permit. Okay.
Okay. Are there Do you need to sum up or? Yeah. Okay. No, it's her application. So, so who goes first? She goes Cynthia. Okay. First. Yes. Go right ahead. Okay. So, um
thanks everyone uh for your attention this evening. So, um, so we're we're I think there have been a number of suggestions that make it sound as though we are asking you to ignore the law. Um, that's not what we're asking. I mean, we
we're asking you to apply the protections we have rigorously and strictly. Um, and we don't think the zoning officer did that and and we that's why we appealed her decision. So, um it doesn't matter that this is not a
district yet. And I think um I think what the city is grappling uh with here is we have a new demo regulation that really protects and you and you could see Chuck wasn't aware of it yet. Protects buildings not in a district.
um also protects uh and this was in the prior iteration of the ordinance from uh historic buildings from partial demolition. Now, I think if it's a complete demo, it's kind of a no-brainer. They they'd send it to the HPC. And I
think what you're what you see the city grappling with here is like h how do we look at an application for a partial demo? And I think you you know when you read the city documents and those are all uploaded to the portal. It seems like they thought like well it's just
one little part of a wall and you heard from our expert and it's it's a lot more than that. And once you remove two walls, you remove floor joists. I don't know what's holding everything up. I I think it's hard to tell without
really good engineering plans. And I think Mr. Ward suggested that someone else at some point in time might submit some that the building permits were already issued. No one is submitting any more plans. We have an architect's plans
that say a little bit about demo but don't have uh that much detail now. Um is it is it required? I I think if the planning department had said we'd like to see more detail on the demo demo, we'd like to see some engineering plans. I'm I'm sure they would have gotten
them. Um, so so I just want to talk about the the review that should have been required under the new demo rags. It's 345-3-30e.1. um you you have to undertake once the demo um application is submitted which
in this case was part of the zoning review application. It goes to the historic preservation officer to review for historic significance. And there there are about seven different criteria here. If you read anything Mr. Achima wrote, you'll see he
didn't undertake that review. There was no review for historic significance. And I don't think he really needed to review for historic significance because the city already had the Hunter study, the 524page report that it had commissioned in its
office, but for whatever reason, no one mentioned it in any of their memos. I don't know if Mr. Achimov didn't know about it. I think he's kind of new. I'm not sure what happened, but um wasn't mentioned anywhere. And and had Mr. Achimov testified on behalf of the city.
I would have asked him, why didn't you do this review? That's required under our demo rags. Um, why didn't you reference the master plan, the historic preservation element of the master plan, uh, lists this as a historic resource,
this particular property. No one mentioned the master plan. No one mentioned mentioned the historic preservation element of the master plan. Those are all parts of the review Mr. Achimov was supposed to do. Um, so I I I
would have asked him, "Why did you say the partial demo is not ideal?" He didn't really go into an explanation. I mean, we we agree with him, but um it it seems like even his recommendation wasn't that clear-cut. He sort of and and why wasn't it clear-cut? Um the
zoning approval for these plans were was issued by the acting zoning officer on May 30th, 2025. Mr. Achimov was supposed to make a finding or recommendation as a prior approval for the demolition. Um,
he did that. He was asked to do that a few weeks later. He issued like a one paragraph little thing that was that I only found about on Friday because it was sort of in a hidden part of the portal. Um, but he he issued a decision,
you know, a month after Tanya had already oaed the plans. Now, uh, she's the zoning officer, but she's also the director of city planning. She's his boss. Um, so you wonder how much how much
latitude did he feel he had in recommending denial of something his boss had alreadyed. It's uh I I think it's a he was put in a very very difficult position. I think his findings should have been requested prior to her
making a issuing a zoning approval for a project that required a partial demo. And you heard from our expert there was no engineering plan. There was no shoring plan. There's a lot of missing information on the plans that were submitted.
Um, now um I I was kind of surprised. Uh, okay. So, now we now we go to like is this a decision that the historic preservation officer is empowered to make? And I'm not even really sure who
thinks they did the prior approval. if it was the historic preservation officer or he only made findings and recommendations that were then adopted by the zoning officer. But if he had recommended denial, which we believe he should have, then then our ordinance
would have required this to go to the HPC um the historic preservation commission. Now, design standards, we we say it doesn't comply. This I think we gave you quite a bit of evidence that this is not consistent with the pattern of
development. This is not compatible with the size and scale of the neighborhood. Um and the zoning officer, I understand this as a compliant with the bulk standards, but
there are also these design standards that are trying to protect this uh RH1 neighborhood, which the which the purpose is to protect the historic and architectural character. Um so is this a decision that the zoning
officer is empowered to make? Can she wave design standards? just the design standards aren't satisfied and and I think the applicants planner agrees with us that it's got to go before a board. It's not something the zoning officer can just decide to wave on her own.
She's obligated to enforce the zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance has design standards. If the project doesn't comply, um then she's obligated to send it to a board. But that's not what happened here. What she did was she approved she issued her initial zoning
approval on May 30th and then asked the guy who works for her in her other capacity as the director of city planning to say to write a memo about the design standards and he you know it's no big shocker he
he he said they were satisfied and I'm I'm not sure he would have felt like he could say something different. um the ADUs. I I probably would have had Miss Marion testified as a witness
um to defend the the the zoning approval. Um I probably would have asked her a lot of questions. How was the ADU? Um what was the recommendation in the master plan? And
everybody agrees the master plan recommended conversion of existing accessory structures, not new construction. And there is a video online where Miss Marion tries to help people understand what's the phase 2
implementation of the master plan. And had she testified, I might have shown you her own her video as a prior statement she made because she explained the ADUs in that um in that presentation she made online. And this is like a city presentation. She showed two homes with
driveways with garages in the back. And she said, "Oh, you could build something on top of that little garage. You you you know and and uh or you could take over the whole garage." And she was showing ex converting an existing structure. That was her explanation to
the public of accessory dwelling units. And then she showed a block overview um like an aerial view of that same block. and she said, "Don't worry," or maybe it was a different block, but she said, "Don't worry. There won't be intrusions in the middle of the block because you can't get you can't get back
there. So, you don't have to worry about anyone putting a dwelling in the middle of the in the middle of the block behind their house." And that was her presentation. Um, so I I would and I think I think that people seem confused. Is an accessory
dwelling a permitted use or is it an accessory use? Those are two different things. When it's a permitted use, it's you're you're allowed to do it as a principal use. When it's an accessory dwelling unit is permitted as an accessory use. And the definition in our
ordinance uh section 345-6 defines what an accessory building structure or use is. And it says a building structure or use which is customarily associated with and is subordinate and incidental to the
principal building structure or use and which is located on the same lot therewith. So just because you're putting a smaller house in the backyard of the house, that doesn't make it an
accessory use under our definitions. Um, I think what you may be creating, depending on what ends up happening with the ownership, you may be creating a second principal use on the same lot. Um, so, you know, and I think your your board attorney is correct. We don't know
yet what the use is going to be. Is this going to be an illegal second principal use or is this going to be a bonafide accessory use? But I think without knowing, I'm not sure you can okay it just because we we I mean if you're
approving an accessory dwelling unit as an accessory use without really knowing how it's going to be used, how it's going to relate to the principal structure. And like I said, putting a smaller house in the backyard is not it doesn't cut it. That's not an accessory
use. Um, so I think we may be setting ourselves up for a future problem where we've got illegal second principal uses and I think that's happening already. People are selling these little things as condos and this may be I think this builder may be planning to do that. He's
going to have a big enforcement problem at that point in time the minute it goes up for sale um as a as a separately owned condo if it's not a genuine accessory use. Now, same thing with the ordinance. Mr. uh Ward said,
"Well, you know, it's too late to challenge the ordinance. We already did it." And even though it's not really about conversions, uh became a kind of a broader we kind of think it's broader than that. I think that there's there's if you read the ordinance strictly um and you read all of the materials that
document the legislative intent, it shows um that the permitted accessory use is the conversion. It is not necessarily that the ADU is automatically the permitted use and you can read the language yourselves and try to parse the
language. You don't have to accept the zoning officer's idea of what they think they mean now at this point in time even though it's different than what they thought they meant when they were explaining this to everybody during the master plan process. Um
so you you know I think you're free to use your own judgment on that one. Uh now um we have this Bardo case which is for also for a property that was on Sherman Place. The appellet division said it
doesn't have to be in a historic district for it to be subject to review by the Historic Preservation Commission. And my understanding is after that appellet case came down, it went back to the Historic Preservation Commission to consider the a demo permit application
and that building's still there. So, I'm fairly certain that the demo permit was denied. But the Bardo case is very instructive and I'm sure your lawyer can give you great advice, but it does talk about how to distinguish what are what what are the who should be making
different types of decisions and and our ordinance is a little kind of merges a lot of things together, but the a historic preservation officer has one type of role, the historic preservation commission has a different kind of role, zoning officer has a different role, and the zoning board has a different role.
And I I would submit to the board that here um non-compliant the partial demo should have been denied. It should have gone before the HPC. It is complicated. I I I I think you've you've
you you've heard enough from our expert about why. Um the zoning officer, can she wave the design regulations? We even we even or the design standards in the RH1. They're even saying right now they they figured out something needs a variance.
So obviously they can't wave it and they shouldn't have waved it. That has to go back to a board also for wa a waiver from the design standards. It might not be what these boards are used to doing but it is what is in our ordinance. It is something um that we have to we have
to enforce. And if uh the zoning officer does think or if you think in reviewing her decisions that the design standards weren't met, again, the project has to go back to the board. Um so I want to thank you for your patience this evening and for listening to all of this.
[Applause] Okay, thank you. Thank you for indulging us. uh today or tonight. So, I mean, obviously, we have a different take on on the review uh and the application before you and you appreciate all the
comments of of the public and and everyone tonight as with regard to the historic resources um you know, at along Sherman Sherman Place and the neighborhood, but it's you know, it's about um reviewing the existing zoning
uh you know, what's before you. Uh, and I know I've said it a number of times and it's clear, while this is eligible to be a historic district, it is not a historic district yet. So, you you know, you it may get there, it may not. I
mean, I've been doing this a long time. There's, you know, they they talk about uh, you know, uh, areas in Jersey City that should be a historic district. And, you know, they they move it along and sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. But, as of today, as of the time of this application, it was not a historic district. Um, so that that
being said, I think I think what you you know, with the review process here, I think was complete and and comprehensive. Uh, yeah, I did pull the wrong uh um demolition uh uh ordinance earlier, although I I did try to find it uh before here. I thought that was the
right one. But that doesn't change it. That's that's that um you know I've been involved in a lot of of uh applications um and review of of structures that are outside historic districts and and you work with the historic preservation officer and they'll they'll give you you
know their their opinion. Um it doesn't this criteria uh in that ordinance it doesn't say that it needs to be written down anywhere. It just says that you know you have to you have to review this and consider it. Uh in in Mr. Chimossson, I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing Michael's last name
correctly. Um, but his report, he he he comes to the conclusion that the demolition of of the sidewall here, the sidewalls are are not um a defining character of of the of the structure and and he he comes to the conclusion then
that that that it's okay. There's no requirement that he refer this to the uh historic preservation commission. So that that that review was done internally um that uh he is the you know
historic preservation officer that he he is the expert within that that field. I mean the implication that that he's you know going to carry the water for Miss Marion and and do what she says I you know I I I don't believe that and I I know from my dealings with the historic preservation officers in in the office
that they don't carry water for anybody. Um, so, uh, I mean, try to try to tell Dan Reen what to do. Uh, good luck. Um, anyway, uh, what we have before you, um, you know, tonight, we believe is it's
it's a project that that meets all the zoning uh, standards. We we've said that we were going to do the 4-in brick. That was the the plans always showed um, a brick facade, which or it was a veneered brick, which is like a two-inch brick. So essentially, uh, the the zoning says
you can't have the brick face or thin brick. So we're like, "No problem. We'll do the full brick." So that was the only variance. We've said that's fine. We're going to we're going to correct that. We agreed to that prior to tonight. Um, and everybody acknowledges then as far as the zoning and the bulk standards, it's
compliant, right? Um, the issue is over the design standards then. uh you have the design standards and um in in the report uh you you have um Mr. Chinos report and then you have the planners report from the city that supports that
that they reviewed that it's their opinion and interpretation that the project complies with the design standards you know they are the professionals that that you know work for the the city now you know Mr. Mr. Amatuso and his professionals, they may
disagree uh but that's the interpretation that was done by the zoning officer and and the historic preservation officer uh based upon their review of the of the property. You know, you can have different opinions, but their opinion is that that complies. Um
there's also um you know, the the the issues that were raised with regard to the the accessory dwelling uh unit. I you know, I I've heard you know, Cynthia's argument. And I I I just don't agree. I mean, I I I think
it's uh the the definition. Um Hold on, let me just get this. The definition in in the ordinance for an accessory dwelling unit says a single unit dwelling in an accessory structure that is detached from the principal building or structure and is in addition
to the principal permitted use which is located on the same lot therewith. I think it's pretty clear that the whole intent here was to have the principal structure and principal use as the front building uh and then they carved this out so that you could have the accessory dwelling unit in the back. It's not two
principal uses. It's it's by design an accessory dwelling unit is what they they want you to put uh in in the rear yard if appropriate. Right. So again, I I think that that's absolutely permitted. The the RH1 zoning
specifically says it's permitted as an accessory use and accessory structure. Um the um you kind of uh move over to the site plan requirement. There is none. uh section 34516 uh provides that accessory uh uses and
structures do not require uh site plan approval. Uh so there's been a lot of ADUs built. Uh they're not going to be before this board, but they're already existing throughout the board as as Mr. Lewis testified, he's been invol involved in those already. So this this
isn't something new. Um and um and as as as Mr. reward provided and what's what's in in the uh the LDO one and two family structures are exempt from minor site plan. So that also is is not a requirement here. So at the end of the
day what what you have here is is a uh a compliant project that meets all the bulk standards. It meets the design standards. Um it may not be a popular project uh you know with with the neighbors. Um, but you also saw the the
plan. There's a lot of historic renovation going here. Uh, the the the structure, the front porch is going to be restored. If you're looking from the street, it's going to it's going to be restored and look beautiful. The the allegations that you're going to see, you know, from the street in the back. I
I don't I don't know if I I buy that quite honestly. I get Mr. Antubu Emitus's concern about a structure being up there, but the zoning permits it. Um, and you know, and I, you know, I'm before these boards all the time, and it's, uh, you know, if the zoning
permits it, it's, you know, kind of the private property rights, right? You know, and I I know that that cuts both ways, but that's that's what we're here before you with uh an as of right project. Thank you.
Questions? Yeah. Uh, commissioners, do you have any other questions that you would like to ask at this time before we move to a vote? Okay. Okay. So, councelor, so that we know what we're voting on,
can you please So, uh, what we're here for is, uh, a review of the zoning officer and the zoning board's, uh, the zoning review application.
So, it's kind of a reverse of what we're going to decide now, right? In in this regard, if we're going to make a motion to approve this appeal, then in effect, what we're saying is we're voting to overturn the approval of
the zoning review application. Okay. Okay. If you the motion is to deny this appeal, then in effect, you're voting to affirm what the zoning uh review application determined.
Does that make sense? Right. Yes. Right. Good. Okay. Say it one more time. Okay. I can. The only reason I can is because I wrote it down. Cheat. Yeah. Cheat notes. So, I'm saying if the
motion is to approve this appeal, then in effect, you're voting to overturn the zoning officer or in effect what's you're overturning the approval of of this zoning review applications determination.
saying it in the reverse. If the motion is to deny this appeal, then in effect, we're voting to affirm what's gone on here. What the zoning officer said, what the zoning review application determined, that's what you're voting
on. So, if you're voting to approve this, it's then you're denying what the determination was. If you're voting to deny the appeal, then you're voting to approve what the zoning officer and the zoning review
application determined. Wow. Okay. Okay. So, how do you want me to read this? I just read it again. I'll be reading a third time. Take the vote. Well, somebody has to make a motion now. Okay. Now, I'm asking for a motion.
Simply a a motion to approve the appeal or a motion to deny the appeal. Okay. Got it. Whatever. whatever the the board, you know, whatever you whoever wants to make a motion. I'll make it easy. Go ahead. Make it easy. Madame Chair, I'd like to make a motion
to approve KZ2025-000056 as presented to the board this evening. Okay. So, means in effect, that was a good one. In effect, what what what the board would be voting to do would be to overturn what the what the zoning officer determined and the
zoning review application determined. Okay. So, we make it simple. So, forget that you you know you're going to move who wants to vote. First of all, is there a second? There's a second. Can I get a second? Second. Okay. So, now we all know what we're
voting on. Correct. If we're going to vote in the affirmative to approve this appeal, that means we're denying what the zoning officer did. So, we if we say yes, Mr. Denial and if we say no, it's approval.
No, don't look at it that way. No, no, no. Let me tell you, this is the first time this has been brought to this board. I Okay. Yeah. The appeal. No, I understand that. So still the motion has been made and second to
approve the appeal. Mr. Beasley, we need to take a vote now. Let's take the motion has been made. Two motions to approve the appeal. Um there are eight of us and uh just so for the record, one person will not be voting
tonight only because they came late, a little bit late and missed some of it and we want to protect the integrity of this decision tonight. So, no, you can't. No, you just don't have to vote. Okay. So, Mr. Beasley,
Commissioner Allen, um I I just want to say thank you for the public for coming out. We hear your concerns. We all are from Jersey City. We all have similar issues uh with zoning and developers. So, we're not up
here just listening and ignoring anything you say. First and foremost, um I'm I'm a no. I listen to everything. I don't want to go too deep into this,
but I just think the UL the the um United Land Use Law was followed. And yes, I'm a no. Commissioner Burns. No. Commissioner Baron,
no. Commissioner D'Angelo, no. Commissioner Shaded Commissioner Shadid, no. We're going over the vote. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
Just finished the vote. That's not nice. Um, let's finish the vote. That's not greed over community. That's not nice. It's not nice. No. Okay, Mr. Beasley, continue the vote, please. Vice Chair Rule,
I I have been giving this a lot of thought. I think people think that we sit here and we don't listen to the public. We do. I've been here 70 70 years in Jersey City and I've seen what's going on in the development. I don't agree with everything, but then I
also am a homeowner and when I want to do something to my property, I want to be able to do it if I spend my money. And I understand that sometimes we have to look at both sides of the picture, whether it's the neighborhood that doesn't want to do this or also my right
as a homeowner who actually spend a lot of money buying this property. So, we think about this. You know, it's not easy to be up here because we do we a lot of us are homeowners and like I said, we we've been here a lot of years.
So, we value what you say, but we also value the person that had the right and and and the he wanted to buy the property because he wanted to do something with it. I wish he would have known what was going on before he bought
the property. I don't know if he did. I don't know what he did, but there's a lot of times, excuse me, let me finish. This is not TV. Let me just finish. There's a shout out. Yeah. There's a lot of times when developers and architects sit in front of us and we send them back several
times and they come back and we send them back because we listen to the neighborhood. We want them to do the structure that coincide with the rest of the neighborhood. We don't arbitrarily just say yes to everything that comes across. But with that, we also have to
listen to the homeowner, to the owner, to the person that spend the money in buying the property. So, no, we have to look at both sides, you know. So, and I understand, you know, you want to look at we've all been I've been here 70 years and my and I've
had property. I've had five in my lifetime. And and and my light was my the light was blocked. I didn't see the view. I was able to go across the street and see the World Trade Center. I can't see that now. You know, so a lot of us do that. We and and that happens to a lot to a lot of us
in when we own property in Jersey City. And I'm sorry because we do want to side with you and we do want to understand what you're going through. But I I I also have to realize that this man or whoever bought that property would like
to do something with it. So with that said, I'm going to vote no. Chair Coyle. Um, I'll make this short. Um, I listen to everyone. I'm really sorry that the person who purchased the property and is
developing it didn't at least go to the neighbors and tried to work with them. Um, you're going to have to live in that neighborhood and I hope that these people um who are good people in Jersey City as we are. Um, whether he's from Jersey City or not, I don't know. Um but
at least um you have to live in that neighborhood and you could have made some efforts to meet with the people and speak with them and have their input. Um there are too many factors in this that I am not certain of. I think that the
zoning person made the right decision, but because I don't have all the answers for myself, I have to abstain on this vote tonight. So with that said, okay, motion to overturn the zoning officer's determination does not carry.
Um there's uh one abstension. Um zero yeses, six nos. Mhm. So the appeal is denied. Yes. Yes. Sorry about that. All suck.
That wasn't very unnecessary. All right. Do we have any resolutions that we have to memorialize? Yes. Okay. That's what they first. Okay. Send the letter to all the neighbor all the owner the house. We receive no no
notification. They was going to do that. Everybody own homes here. All of them. They develop a developer making money. I don't know who they don't get it. It's not our decision to make though. It's not our decision to make.
He followed the guidelines. It's not our decision to make. Planning the head of the planning department. That's a maybe one day it'll happen. I'm so sorry. It's not us. It's not our responsibility to write the
We I'm so sorry. We have one more application. Can we carry it on the record? Oh, yeah. That's right. Sorry. Um, we're going to have to carry till October 23rd. Can you carry with the preservation of notice? Yes. Preservation of notice.
I feel so bad for these people. Um, I'm so sorry. The only person Rebecca Marello, but I don't I this guy This is the guy here, I think, who was sitting here making at
everybody. I think that's a little I don't know. I mean at least go talk to but I would have at least What did we want to do? I'm sorry. Um we there was one more application tonight 162 summit. We just uh would like to request that this be carried to
the next available board meeting with preservation of notice. Vinnie, it's going to have to be October 23rd. This is one of the ju just a second. Just a second. Just just a second. You did it in three weeks.
It's going to have to be October 23rd. Okay. Thank you. Preservation of notice. That's okay. Yes. Thank you. Okay. And what about the rest of the calendar? We didn't really put that on the record, right? No, those items have already been carried.
Yes. To what dates? October 23rd. Item 11 carried to October 9th. Item 12 carried to October 23rd. Okay. Okay. I think Cynthia
just quickly then we'll continue. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'll I'll say it right now, but but I don't No, I have it. I have it. But I I don't I don't believe we're not on a record, right? I don't believe it should be in the resolution. And I'll just say something.
Yeah, we have to do that right this second. Yeah. So, would you authorize what do we what do we do now? Um, we're still as an attorney. What is he doing? There was no need for it.
What? What's the need? You're going to take this appeal. because you're not the first. They got a big building there. Oh, I know. Okay. So, at this time, uh we have some
uh resolutions that we need to memorialize. Um Eric, we're going to Hey, let's take it outside. We still have to do resolutions. request this resolution. I'm just getting tired of people saying
we don't listen. We listen. We listen. They called us names, too. They listen, I've been called worse. This is a So this is this was But you know what? We've never had a situation like this.
And so what do we do? Go against the zoning when we're so No, but I didn't want it to be. So why I anonymous? I did not want that to happen because they will say, you know, nobody I was going to say abstain, but then that would have that would have been
like what five would pass. So it passed. The first resolution we're going to memorialize is just to let that young lady go home since she's been here all night just for this.
And so this is uh 128 Glenwood. Uh that's application number Z 2025-000020 that was decided August 7th. It was an application for minor site plan approval with a use variance bulk variance design
waiverss. Okay. So present that evening were uh acting chair uh Aoyo uh and then commissioners Allen, Zablicki, Burns, Baron, Shaded, and D'Angelo. That application was approved. Seven in favor, none opposed. All in
favor of memorializing that. I And so just so the record is clear, there there was some correspondence in this particular matter. Um the the attorney for uh the neighborhood
on Glenwood uh wanted to add a a clause to this resolution uh talking about the prior case that was up in the u the superior court. That
prior case was resolved by saying it's going to be put aside until this case is f gone through its legal channels. So I don't know why Cynthia wanted a a note in this resolution, but that's not appropriate. That's what I
just told her. So just so the record is clear, I told her that I'm not doing that. So, the resolution is something that uh I went over with the applicant's attorney staff looked it over. It's fine. And and really, we don't have the authority to put something into the
resolution that was not before the board. So, that's why I told her we're not doing it. So, that's that. So, we know we know what that was about. Okay. A little chitchat on the side. Now, let's see the rest of this. I'm sorry I didn't have the time to put this in
order. So, let's just go one at a time instead of putting it in order. The next one in front of me is Z2025- Z0041 Hilltop View Holdings and it was an extension of a major site plan approval
with CN D variances 13 Summit Avenue that was heard on July 10th. Present that evening was uh Chair Coyle, Commissioners Aoyo, Allan, Baron,
Shaded, Patel, and D'Angelo. That passed six in favor, one abstains. That was Commissioner D'Angelo. But all in favor of approving that I I I. And then there is a Z 2025-00002.
Um, Hilltop. I just didn't I just read that? You just read Hilltop. I just gave me two of the same. Oh, no. No. I'm sorry. This is the minor subdivision for that. So, it's a case number Z2025-00002.
Uh, same evening, July 10th, same commissioners, same vote, six in favor, one abstension, which is Commissioner D'Angelo. All in favor of approving this minor subdivision? I I Okay. And uh,
where do we go again? Same case, different case number. Z2025-00004, Hilltop View Holdings. This is the final major site plan amendment for that case. Again, same seven commissioners, same date, same vote, six in favor, one
abstension. All in favor of memorializing that I was you wasn't the abstensions was Commissioner D'Angelo. I guess that was her first evening. First night, she was afraid as to what the
consequences of voting on something was. And I understand. So the next case is Z2025-000025 DMA19 LLC. The address was 3411 Kennedy Boulevard. It was an application for an
extension. We heard that July June 5th and there were only five commissioners that evening. Chair Coyle, Commissioners Allen, Shaded, Patel, and Baron. And that extension was voted. Five in favor, none opposed. All in favor of
memorializing that. I I don't if I'll keep the papers fl they seem to be appearing here. So the next one is Z 2022-000029 in the matter of Oda Bar JC LLC.
That was a use variance that was heard on August 7th. Present on August 7th was uh acting chair a royal commissioners Allan, Zablicki, Burns, Baron, Shaded, and D'Angelo. And this
time D'Angelo voted. So it was 74 and none opposed. All in favor of memorializing this is I. And and unless this is like a magic desk and things are keeping up here, but there's only one more here. Yeah, sure. Are you sure?
Unless there's something underneath. And that's Z. Let me see here. Z25-051. Oh, is this the Hold on a second. Yeah, this is the corrective uh memorialization. We heard this when
didn't we hear this as a as a a corrective or we're just putting it in front of the board as a corrective deed, right? We just corrected the Z on it, right? Yes, it's uh correcting the application number. Okay. So that the original application
was heard on December 14th, 2022, memorialized January 12th, 2023. And now this is the corrective u memorialization. So all in favor of memorializing that? I I
that's it. You sure? No, I think so. Okay. So, I make a motion to adjourn the meeting. Can I get a second? Second. All in favor? Quadruple.