Hold on. One second. >> One second. One second. Okay. >> Good evening everyone and welcome to the June 4th, 2026 virtual meeting of the Georgia City Zoning Board of Adjustment. This meeting is held in accordance with NJSA 10:4-12,
the Open Public Meetings Act. I would now like to call this meeting to order. Uh Mr. Pendulan, would you please take um roll call? >> Certainly, Chair. Um, we'll start with Commissioner Patel, >> present.
>> Commissioner D'Angelo. >> Commissioner D'Angelo, could you unmute? >> Present. >> Present. Can you hear me? >> Yes, I can hear you. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Allen. >> Okay. >> Um, Vice Chair Aru >> here. >> And Chair Coyle,
>> present. All right, we have five uh we have five commissioners present. We have enough for a quorum. >> Okay, Mr. Panglan, are there any sunshine announcements that you would like to share with us? >> I do. Uh in accordance with the open public meetings act notice of this
meeting has been provided to the city clerk. >> Okay. Uh can we please stand for the flag salute? We don't have a flag to but we could stand for the flag salute anyway. Okay. I aliance to the flag
of America >> to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God indivisible with liberty justice for all. >> Thank you. Okay. Um can we please swear the staff in um Bridget who are in
attendance? >> Yes. Uh staff members, do you swear or affirm the testimony or comments you will give this evening will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Um is there any correspondence or any adjournments that you would like to share with us at this time? >> Um nothing additionally. Everything has uh everything has been included in the agenda. So yeah. >> Okay. Okay. Um, so, um, we have only two
cases tonight. Um, and if anything goes past 10 o'clock, we will not hear those cases. Um, but since there's two, I doubt we'll go that there go past 10:00. Um, if there are any public comments from the uh, people that are listening
to this uh, meeting tonight, uh, there will be time, they will be limited to three minutes in order to uh, share their thoughts. And I'm going to ask Mr. Allan if he will at that time time those individuals who might get up to speak. Okay. All right. So I our first case is
going to be case Z2025-000057 188 Newark Avenue. >> Okay. >> I'm trying to sorry I'm trying to figure out which one of these users is the applicant for this whether they're present or not. Um,
>> applicant, could you hit the raise hand button? Applicant's attorney. >> Yeah, if you're the attorney, if you're attending on behalf of the applicant for 188 New York Avenue, could you please raise your hand so I can unmute you?
Also, Commissioner Shadid, if you're in there uh and I haven't um assigned you as a panelist, could you please raise your hand? Also, So I repeat, um, if you were the applicant for 188 Newark Avenue, the for
variance, could you please raise your hand? Is anyone responding, Joe? >> Um, I have not received the response thus far. Um I I have emailed the applicants team just just double check um if anyone or from their team has is
in the room uh for for the project. I have not heard back um to Are they in a separate room from the other case? >> Uh, no. They they they should have all gotten the same um they should have
gotten all the same um room information. >> Okay. If they don't respond in a few minutes, maybe we should move to >> Yeah, we can move on. >> Yeah, I think I think so. Um, let me see. So, last call. Anyone from 188 Newark
Avenue, if uh this is your application, please raise your hand and I will promote you to a panelist so you can um speak on your application. Okay. Um, >> moving up. >> All right. Going once, going twice. All
right. Sold. All right. We can move on to >> go to case Z2025-000023 112 Harmon Street. Um, so can we see if there's anyone there? Yeah, we have uh Ben Wine who's the applicant. Okay, >> please raise his hand.
>> Okay. Um Vincent, do we need to let Tim know there's five of us or? >> Um Ben knows that, right? You know, there's only five commissioners here, Ben. So, what's your pleasure? >> I do. Um so, first of all, I got to shake the rust off of these zoning board
uh Zoom meetings um because it's been a minute. But, uh, I think, uh, I think if it's okay with the board, um, this has just been, for better or worse, pending for such a long time, I'd love the opportunity to at least get started and, uh, try to clear some of the time off. And if we feel confident, um, going to a
vote with five people, we'll we'll do that. If we don't, then, uh, we would just like to reserve the right to to adjourn, um, to a future meeting if that's okay with the board. >> Okay. >> We've done that before. What do you think? Uh, >> yeah. >> Person, is that okay? Yeah,
>> Kathy. Yeah, good. >> Yeah, that's fine. >> Okay, >> thank you. So, I'll just ask for a couple of minutes at the end of the case, but uh but with that, um first of all, uh good evening, Madam Chair, madam vice chair, commissioners. Always good to see everybody. And like I said, kind of funny to be back in this uh in this
forum, but um I uh I want to introduce the project that I have for you this evening and give you a little bit of history and background because I think it's very relevant and helpful and uh and ultimately proceed with my witnesses to present the case. So the the application in question is for the
property located at 12-14 as well as 16 Arman Street. Those are two separate addresses and that's block 17206 lots 13 and 14 and the applicant is Mnt Partners LLC and we are in the R1 zone. the application before you this evening. We
are seeking preliminary and final major site plan approval along with variance relief in order to demolish the existing site improvements and construct a new 3 to fourstory multif family building consisting of 13 dwelling units including one affordable unit and a
payment in lie for.3. We do have several variances this evening which site us before this board as opposed to the planning board. The variances that we have are for density where five units are permitted and we are proposing 13. We have a height variance of 35 35 ft is
permitted and 43 1/2 ft is proposed for approximately 2/3 of the building. As you'll see when we go through this, we have a three-story portion that's conforming and a four-story portion that requires that variance. We also have a couple of C variances for you including a rear yard setback variance where 19.9
ft are required and 17.5 ft are proposed. So, we're about 2.4 ft short of that requirement. And finally, we are not proposing any parking here where five spaces are required. So, we have I have two witnesses I intend to call this evening for you. Um, I do have a third
uh a third witness, our civil engineer, kind of waiting in the wings in case there's any engineering questions. But, as I said before, I do want to give a little bit of background to this application. So, this is something of a unique site. We are in the R1 zone, but as you may be familiar with the site, we are immediately adjacent to that large
fivestory development that fronts kind of fronts on three streets and uh I believe has an address on Communa Avenue. Right across Garfield Avenue is the Journal Square redevelopment area. And on the other side of Randolph, which is our cross street, is the NC1 zone where fivetory development is actually
the standards. And those zones permit larger development, we're kind of stuck in this pocket. And again, adjacent to a couple of variance applications that have been approved, allowing for much larger development than what we're seeking. We did meet um it's hard to believe it's over two years ago
actually. We met with the Sherwood Claremont Neighborhood Association in May of 24 to discuss our initial proposal, which did initially include a full five-story building with 16 units. The project was actually generally wellreceived given our surroundings, but after we met with city planning and
specifically Mr. D Silva. The request was that we at least tier the western portion of the building to serve more as a transition piece, like I said, between that five-story building on the right and the three-story zone on our left. So, what we did then was turn this into a five-story building with a fourstory
drop down. That resulted, like I said, in a in a five to four orientation. We actually then appeared at the March zoning board meeting fully intent on presenting before you, whereupon we met three members of the public, two of whom are direct neighbors, who told us that they were never approached by the
community group that we had met with. Um, we were obviously concerned with that and they mentioned that they had some concerns with that iteration of the project, including the massing. And so we elected and requested to adjourn from the March meeting in order to meet with them to discuss. And I just want to indicate for the record that candidly
that was not really ideal for my client at that point. and it had been almost 2 years from what that initial outreach. Um but nevertheless, uh he did feel that it would be important and appropriate not just to meet with the neighborhood association, but the actual individual neighbors that made a point of showing
up and and and staking their claim in the project. So we met with um Miss Leverne Washington, Miss Michelle Mayer and Miss Mary Webb later on in March and I would say it was a very productive meeting and we listened to their concerns predominantly from Miss Webb um
as again her property immediately abuts our property and and I think you'll hear from her this evening hopefully positively. She was understanding of what we were trying to do at the time and uh and was a little bit annoyed more at the community group that they never thought to include her in that initial
meeting that we held. And so what we did after that application, and I apologize for taking the board's time, but sounds like I have the whole night, so I might as well. Um, what we did is we were able to reduce, so instead of being a fivetory down to fourstory step down, we
are now a fourstory down to threetory step down. So approximately a third of the building conforms with the height, but we do have that portion that uh that is a height variance, and I'll get to why momentarily. We did also reduce the density down to 13 units. And while we
are technically now underneath the trigger for required affordable housing units, we're under 15. My client nevertheless committed since he did as he did since day one to providing that 10% affordable. So 13 units that's going to be one on-site three-bedroom unit, in
fact, the only three-bedroom unit in our proposal will be affordable. And then uh and then we are going to make an additional payment to the division of affordable housing in the amount of I believe it's $54,000 towards them being able to construct additional affordable housing throughout the city. We also
reduced the rear yard variance. We previously had a zero foot rear yard condition um and we reduced that now down to only a 2.25 ft variance. So we are very very close to the 19.9 required. We also eliminated a coverage
variance and actually went way below what's permitted. So 85% is permitted. We're now down to 67% coverage, which you'll see momentarily how we accomplished that. We've also been able to add two street trees to the frontage. We have reduced the existing coverage from what exists today. And then here's
the kicker, and I think this was the biggest change to the program that that really required a full redesign. We created a wide openen landscaped sideyard that is not required. We're permitted a zero ft sideyard setback towards Miss Webb's property, but what
we really focused on coming out of that meeting was how can we do so much better to her. So, what we did is we actually created a 10 and 1/2 ft sideyard. It's it's practically unheard of in Jersey City. Almost nobody gives that amount of sideyard at all. Most zones require anywhere from 0 to 3 ft and we're
proposing 10 and a half. So now hopefully as you see our design and how we got there now it should make sense to you as to why we are seeking that partial fourth story. What we effectively did um in deference to Miss Web is take three stories that would have sat right on her property line took
it out completely and put it on the right on the top of the right side of the building where we abut that fivestory building. And that was a way to, you know, to split hairs a little bit, but to ensure that we were able to construct the overall floor area that we would otherwise be permitted while
giving great deference to Miss Webb and, you know, her very valid and reasonable concerns that she shared with us. So, what you'll see here tonight is effectively a better version of an otherwise conforming development. In essence, like I said, we took 10 1/2 ft of what would be threetory buildable
space and we moved it to the top on the other side of the building where it impacts nobody. uh adjacent to that five-story building. And in so doing, we hope you'll agree that this development would be much better than the as of right alternative that could appear before the planning board, but candidly
would impact Miss Webb and her other neighbors in a much more impactful way. So that's our opening towards our presentation. And I know it was long-winded, but again, I appreciate the board's time and in bearing with me. And with that, I would respectfully request unless the board has questions of me, I can turn it over to our project
architect. Uh, we'll hold out questions till the end. >> Sure. So, with that, I'll bring up Russell Bodner. And I see him there. >> Russ Vinnie is going to >> Russer, could you raise your right hand to be sworn? >> Do you swear or affirm the testimony
you're about to give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> And state and spell your full name for the record and keep your voice. Yeah. Hi, my name is Russell Bodner. Last name is BOD N. I reside at 52 Longill Road in Long
Valley, New Jersey. And I I'm a licensed my licensed architect in the state of New Jersey. And my license is current. And I have appeared before this board before. >> Yes, we we recognize Mr. Bodner's expertise. He's been before us many times.
>> Okay. Thank you very much, council. So Russ, if you can please walk the board through your presentation, talk to them about the existing site conditions and what we're proposing here this evening. >> Right. Um I can bring up the plan. I just need to share them. >> You might need permission from
>> Yeah, I need permission somehow. So uh share. Here you go. Sharing is turned off. Oh, somebody's got to give me >> uh Matt, is that you or Joseph? >> It's Joe. >> Try again.
>> Joe, are you there? Well, Tanya Tanya I think is co-hosting now too. >> Ah, try now. >> Yeah, here it goes. I think share. >> Okay. >> Yeah, >> perfect. >> Perfect.
>> Okay, here you go. I'll just pull up here. Can you guys see everything? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. As you can see here, this is our um our site here. Um it's located on the
Sorry guys, I got this thing on the side here that's going to let me go up and down on stuff. Um it's located uh at basically Harmon um and uh Garfield. It's on it's one up from Garfield and then our other cross
street is uh is Randolph. So, it's a um like Ben said earlier, we went from a 16-unit building down to a 13-unit building. And our 13 units consist of 10 onebedrooms, two twobedrooms, and a uh
one threebedroom. So, if we go down, um as we go down further, let's just take a quick look at the plans. Um we we were talking earlier, Ben spoke to you about the neighboring property that we were concerned with is on the lefth hand side. Um and their their their
properties on um and we decided to give this uh this space uh adjacent to their property which is like 10' 4 in along this entire side is now we set the building in. And
we also have our 17 foot6 rear yard setback. Our setback was originally zero at the first floor and 12 foot at the second floor. So, um, now we are 17 foot six and you
can see here our three bedrooms located in the front. That's our affordable unit. The affordable unit actually has a little, uh, um, grass in uh, yard space on it. And the one bedrooms in the back also have yard space. Uh, on the right
hand side, we uh, move the lobby all the way to the right hand side away from the neighbor up against the adjacent five-story building. And uh we in our lobby we just have our our bike storage and um and some mail mailboxes and a package room. Uh downstairs we also have
our um some of our mechanical areas, sprinkler, electric uh trash room and some uh storage lockers for the uh for the building. We do have seven bike parking spaces. So we we're we're you know we're a little over on our bike
bike bike parking spaces. So we're um we're right there. um by one well basically it's 87 but um if we go upstairs for our second floor plan we're all onebedrooms upstairs we have a 614 a
612 onebedroom a 699 onebedroom and and a 638bedroom and a 644T onebedroom. So uh that's our second floor plan. If we go up to our third floor plan, again, we also have the uh
uh the same exact footprint, same exact four um onebedrooms, but as you can see here, we go to our fourth floor plan. We then brought the building even in further. So, we're basically 21 feet 3 in now from the property set back on our
fourth floor. And we took uh our plan PL our bed our basically we took our structure we would have put on the lower level and brought it up to the fourth floor level to make apartments on the fourth floor level. So instead of having a three-story building as of right up
against the property line we adjusted everything so we can then make this fourstory building. By doing so though I needed this extra staircase because with a three-story building I'm allowed one stair. With a four-story building, I have to I'm required by code to have a a
a second stair. So, on this level, we have two uh two bedrooms and we have a 10 uh 1010 square foot uh basically two-bedroom study in the rear and we have a two-bedroom uh study in in the front of 998 square ft. So, as you can
see here, we have like we said earlier, we have the 10 onebedrooms, we have the two two bed the two two bedrooms, and we have the one um threebedroom, which is our affordable. If we go up to the roof, the roof deck level, we have a roof deck that's 750 square ft
um as you can see here. And we are set back from the front yard uh basically from Harmon Street, 13'5 in. We were also set back an additional probably about seven feet which I should have put this number on here from the neighboring property to the left. So that's uh now
gives us 20 basically 28 feet almost from their property on that roof terrace down to their their property. So, um, we feel like, you know, we're not really like if there's anybody on that roof area like a community thing going on. It's it's an
ample distance away basically almost third, you know, 20 28 feet from their pro their property as is almost a whole rear yard and a standard 100 on a standard R1 at 30 feet. So, we're trying to uh accommodate that as well. And as
you can see even here from the rear, we're 17 feet. another almost 10 feet to the that that's that's so it's 20 this is 27 feet to the rear to from the back property line to the rear the rear deck as well. So if we go down a little
further, this is our elevations, our street elevation. As you can see here, we had that that threetory space here on the left hand side. And then we bump up to a four-story space. The only thing that's still raised a little bit that's set back is the stair tower because I acquired to have that extra stair tower.
If we go down a little bit further, you can see how we're kind of doing our massing. So at the end other end of the block uh past Randolph Avenue towards Grand Street on Harmon that's an No, no, no. So at the other end of the block past what?
>> Past past Randolph, you know, between Randolph and Grand Street is um is called is NC1. NC1's allowed to be five five stories the entire block. So, right now there's an approved five
stories at the end of the block on Grand Street. And I know of another project that's going to be going in here that's going to come in as of right as well. And there will just still be just only the vacant lot that's on left out of the entire bulk on the lefthand side. This has nothing really to do with our project. We're just saying that this is
a five-story building on the left. The existing building on the right of us is a five-story building that was built probably about three years ago. And we are now stepping down to our fourthstory building right next to it and then a three-story building right adjacent to that. And as you can see here with the
grading coming down, basically the top of their twostory plus building is basically the height of our three-story building. So it's pretty much comparable to what they're having. And you can see here now we left left ample room. The only thing we have here is a staircase
that brings us down from you know the stair coming down if I need a means of egress out to that staircase that walks along the side of the property. Um as we come here again you can see the rear of our our elevation has just you know basically there's a uh vinyl fence all
the way around the property at the rear. As you can see this is just um a rear elevation showing just some windows and some doors going out to the the backyard. Again, as we go further down here, um this is the this is the the side the neighbor would be looking at the leftand
side, the west side. As you can see, the west side, we did some put some windows in along that side. There's not a ton of windows in, but we did have nice siding and windows in there and and that little that little terrace on the upper level with some cement board paneling and some
other um decorative items. So this way the side of the building has like a little bit more of an appeal like not just a a flat wall like you can see the other one that's right up against the property line. If we build an as of right building right against the property line I can't put windows on that side. So you're just going to be
stuck with let's say on the on the on this should say right hand side. Sorry I had to put stuff quickly so I forgot to fix that. But the right hand side that ab butts against the other neighbor that's a five-story building is just a blank wall. They can't there's nothing on it. There's a little bit of siding on it where they have a a jut in, but the
rest of it's actually a hatch section that's just literally pressed up against the adjacent building. Um, as we >> One second. One second, please. >> I'm talking too fast for you, I think. >> No, no, Russ, stop. Bridget had to step away.
>> Oh, I have to shut my in the wall air conditioning off. It's too loud. >> Okay. >> In an old apartment here. And yes, you are too fast. both of you. So sorry. >> Sorry. Yeah. Sorry, Bridget. >> Thank you. You're always sorry. Okay.
>> You've known me. Um if we go back, I have a a rendering here. Um that wasn't part of the package, but this kind of gives us a kind of a bulk feel of the of the project. Disregard the you know, this what the rendering kind of the renderer
kind of just threw something in here as a placeholder, but it's not really what's going on. and and Russ what we should do is uh we should have this marked into evidence. I believe A1 is typically the notice package which is online. So I think this would be A2. Am I correct Mr. Dilva?
>> Um I believe yeah this would be A2. Um and if each file is separate, each one should be marked in separately. Um and Mr. Wine, if you could please um as soon as reasonably possible, please upload those photos to the portal for the record as well.
>> Certainly. Yes, we can >> describe A2 for the record then because it's >> all right. Harmon, the file known as Harmon render_1 is A2 for the record >> is A2. Correct. And as you can see here,
you can see basically our building and how how we have the step down, how we have a little bit of a cornice area, how we have like the siding on the side of the building as well as how you can see like on the side. I was trying to show a little bit of the side and the front where you can see some windows and everything that's against the property.
See this like line here? This is basically our line of our property line against the you know basically against the you know where that would be and then they have their property against them. So we we're giving a nice ample
space between us and the adjacent um neighbors that that we're very concerned about. And Russ, just to confirm, >> Russ, just to confirm, I'm sorry, but uh the the white buildings that you see surrounding, those are just placeholders. Those are those are not accurate to scale.
>> No, that's not accurate. I think the renderer just I told the renderer I needed something, but she didn't understand. I just wanted the rendering by itself, but she literally sent it to me five minutes before this meeting. >> So, I was like, "Okay." So, um yeah,
this is a different render, a little bit of upload at the last minute. Um, as you can see here, that's that's one. And then we have another one we could count as um if you were like a kind of a face on view of the of the building, which would we could consider as A3 then. And
this is Harmon render 2, which shows us the face on version. And it kind of shows you where an adjacent R building is to theirs. It's not actually to perfect scale of where what that would be because their their building ends around here. So, um,
but it it shows like what we're kind of this what we're trying to do here and how we're trying to make this uh this appearance be from going from four down to three and then and then leaving that open space and >> so Russ even though, sorry to cut you
off, but even though you know the surrounding white buildings are are not to scale, I just want to confirm so that the board and the public understands the rendering that you're showing is to scale of what our propos proposal would look like. >> Correct. Or the rendering itself is a scale. The building next to us would be
much larger. It's actually if we went, let's say we went back to that original set of plans. You could see on my sheet ZN ZN5 how our building is in located within
the the the the conct of the street. as you can see the two family next to us on how they're two basically two and a half stories but since with the grading they're almost about three stories tall and how we go from three stories to the four stories and and basically we're
trying to you know go in away we went away from the original fivetory building that had parking which is kind of one of our variances we're going to need now because our lot's more than 50 ft wide but we went away from the parking to get, you know, because they didn't
want a very tall building to get the um to get the the the the the four-story building in with the uh with the uh to drop down to make it three. >> Okay. And Russ, just talking about some of the site conditions, I want to
confirm for the record again, as I indicated in my opening, we are well under on the coverage. I think the board now sees why uh we were able to do that with that large sideyard setback. But I just want to confirm we are nevertheless proposing storm water management on this site. Is that correct? >> Correct. We are proposing the storm
orange management. >> Okay. So that will make it again even though it it it is well under coverage, it would make it a better condition than would otherwise exist. Is that right? >> Correct. >> And then in terms of the uh the streetscape, if you can just go to the site plan sheet. I just want to confirm
the street trees, the sidewalk repair, things of that nature. If you can just talk about that for a little bit. >> Yeah, we'll go back down. >> Can I interrupt one second? I just wanted to let you guys know that Commissioner Shaded is on. I just promoted him. >> Okay.
>> All right. As you can see here, this is our this is our proposed site plan. You do have the true the two trees now we're adding to the to the site. We also do have some landscaping around the corner. So, if we go to like a landscaping plan a little bit further down, you can see we have some landscaping in the rear of the property as well, uh, landscaping in
the front of the property and some landscaping on the side here as well. So, we're we added a lot more landscaping than we originally had on the original design feature as well as, you know, having our two two street trees that that were required to have since we're we are a 50 foot lot. We do
have the two two street trees as well that we >> and Russ staying on the landscape plan. So all that area on the side um that's just right right now it's just proposed as green grass. Is that right? >> Yes. We have a little sidewalk that goes back to the staircase, but the rest of this is all green grass and this is also
all green grass all the way around. And we just have a little walk out to our yard in the rear. And then the rest is landscaping along the rear. and some landscaping items up here in the front as well as well as in the front of the building because our three bedrooms right there and the bedrooms were on the
front of the building and we're pretty low to the to the ground there. I wanted to make sure we had some landscaping and to kind of break up when you're walking down the street that you're not just right against, you know, right up against the sidewalk to to the bedrooms. >> Okay. And Russ, one other thing I didn't
even have a chance to ask you ahead of time, so I'm doing what no lawyer should do and asking his witness a question that he doesn't know the answer to, but I'm pretty sure I know the answer. I did speak with Miss Webb earlier today, the neighbor. Actually, this is a good uh a good shot because she is tax lot three.
So, that's to the left. And I did offer and I spoke to our client and he's perfectly fine with it. I just want to make sure it's okay with you um from a from a site plan perspective if she does decide she wants to run that that evergreen landscaping. you see on the back row along the side as well. Um, and
she I I don't believe she's uh made a decision yet, but if so, that's something we could do. Is that right? >> Yes, that's we have plenty of room there to run a whole set of landscaping along along that edge. >> Okay. So, either it would be some combination it will be some combination
of grass, lawn, shrubbery, and trees um to be to be worked upon with the neighbors. Is that fair to say? >> Yeah, we can easily do that that we can accommodate anything they need in terms of landscaping. There's a fence there right now that we're proposing, but we can add the landscaping in as well.
>> Okay, perfect. Um, all right. Uh, Madam Chair, I think that's all I have for Mr. Bodner at this time. >> Okay. Do you have any other witnesses that you're going to bring forth or is that >> I I do. Um, unless you had questions of Mr. Bodner first. >> We'll save our questions till the end.
>> Sure. So, with that, um, like I said, I do have a site civil engineer. I don't intend to call him up. There's not much by way of engineering beyond the storm water that Russ testified to, but he is here in case uh in case the board has questions afterwards. Um, so with that, I would call up our professional
planner, Charles Height. >> Hi, good evening. >> Hi, Charles. Would you raise your right hand to be sworn? >> Yes. >> Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth? >> I do. Thank you. >> Okay. And Charles, just for the record, um I you could go through your whole qualification list, but uh suffice to say, your license is in good standing here this evening. >> Good. Good standing. And and I have the
distinct pleasure of working on a variety of land use applications throughout the city of Jersey City um for the better part of the past 10 years. >> Yeah, we we've seen Mr. Height many times and we accept his expertise. Thank
you. Thank you. So, Charles, you heard the uh the testimony that uh Mr. Bodner presented regarding the overall existing conditions and proposed development. Um you obviously heard as well as to the variances. I would just ask if you can please walk the board through your presentation with respect to addressing
the DNC variances that we have. >> Yeah, and I'd be happy to. Um good evening board members. It's nice to see you all virtually. I know uh through the summer there's uh the change in in venue here. Um we had the opportunity to
engage with this uh application team and uh truly try and envision a project that balanced uh what the development and the property could generate uh in terms or or accommodate and then how these
properties sit within one another on the subject block um and just understand the overall neighborhood. So, um there's a few different layers of information. I think the board should probably uh benefit and I'll touch on these through
my testimony. Um but the zoning ordinance and master plan have been updated and we're trying to reconcile uh what we believe is an overall better planning alternative, better architectural alternative with what the
intent of various components of the master plan and zoning ordinance are. And from a policy standpoint, I think it's important to know that uh many of these applications that come before this board uh usually are dealing with the
inclusionary zoning ordinance, which its intent is to incorporate affordable housing through types of added or variance applications. uh a sister ordinance that was later
adopted by the city is referred to as the affordable housing overlay ordinance and both are designed to incentivize uh or require affordable housing within a development. The distinction is the
affordable housing overlay is essentially an ordinance that waves any density requirement and allows you to increase the number of units within the zoning envelope but you provide for that affordable
housing. So um if Mr. Wine didn't mention before and and he can provide the details but we are adhering to affordable housing within this project. we are generating where the requirement is 1.3 uh we're generating one inclusionary unit with a buyin uh for
the.3 so we're meeting that intent of the affordable housing I think it's important that the reason why we're before this board and not the planning board under the AHO is because what we refer to in planning is we have a
transition of floor area transition of building mass and we think then this transition or reloc location is a better planning alternative giving the very specific and on-site conditions and adjacent property conditions. So, I just
hopefully the board can um have that in the back of their mind. They're both two sister affordable housing ordinances and um we're incorporating affordable housing in this project. Um I do have two exhibits. Uh Miss Ron, I don't know
if these were submitted or if I should mark them. I can >> we should have them marked. >> Okay, I can see if I can share my screen and >> and I apologize. I'm not squinting at everyone, but the sun is hitting right now, so don't take it personally.
>> All right. So, uh this is the first exhibit. It's a sheet of four uh pages. What should I mark it? >> I think we're up to A4 is what I have noted. So this will be A4 and uh we can call it a for sheet. Um what do you want
to call it Charles? >> Uh this is just a zoning exhibit. That's what we titled it. >> Okay. A zoning exhibit. >> Uh and then we our second exhibit is the uh zoning uh visual impact comparison.
Um but we'll I'll mark that. Um board can probably recognize this intersection. Is that A5? >> A >> you're up to A4 or should then should this be A4 or A5? >> That should be A4. Um I think you just confused uh Bridget the you haven't
presented A5 yet. You just alluded to the fact you will present A5. Is that >> correct? >> Okay. >> Okay. So this is A4. Uh the board should probably be familiar with this uh intersection. This is uh eloquently
referred to as the junction. Um it's identified in the master plan in a small area vision um where we look closely at some of the dynamics of this neighborhood where just to the west of Morris Canal um a little across Garfield
Avenue further south is Bry Lane Park um off this screen to the uh west is Arlington Park and essentially it's it's referred to as the junction because of three main intersection the intersection of three main roads we have communal Paul running east west, Grand running
east west, and then Garfield Avenue running north south. So the subject property highlighted in red here is located just a block off of that intersection or confluence of of those three major roadways.
And ultimately it's a unique area uh in the in the city. Um, one thing as I zoom in here, um, you can see the rooftop of the five-story apartment building that we were referencing earlier and the other rooftops.
This property is the only interior lot on the block. And what that means, it's the only lot that has frontage on Harmon and two sideyards. uh the adjacent properties along uh one
is a corner lot and the other have frontage on Randolph. What that means is while it's our sideyard to our west it's the adjacent property's rear yard. So we're we're meeting a sideyard with a rear yard
which it's just a unique scenario does happen in the city. Uh obviously this block isn't your standard 200x 400 ft block. um uh of parcels, but it's a unique condition uh that I think is is probably the the start of the
conversation from a planning standpoint about how best to deal with a scenario like this. So, I should mention to the board that the property is uh 4 4,689 square feet. Um we have approximately 59
uh feet of frontage on Harmon and uh ultimately the the site had uh has two structures on it. One was uh underwent um uh a small fire um and is is no longer habitable. But that's a one-story
structure and then there's an adjacent twostory structure. But we do have photos if the board uh wants to to review them. Uh from a zoning standpoint, as we mentioned, there's a mix of zoning within this neighborhood. Uh you do have the R1 zone or the north
end of the R1 zone. Um we have the NC district just across uh on Harmon Street. Uh and there's obviously the Morris Canal redevelopment plan where there's uh more intense uh multif family development along Garfield
Avenue. Um and you can see the Berry Lane reference the street but just south of that is Berry Lane Park. One of the other aspects and this is a slightly larger view of the overall neighborhood I think uh was important when we wanted to present the existing
conditions is the sense of uh a diverse neighborhood. This is a very robust neighborhood in my opinion. While uh it is referred to as the junction uh it's one of the locations in the city that actually has a great deal of access to public open space. Uh you're one two
blocks north of Berry Lane Park uh which is a tremendous uh asset in the overall community. You have Lafayette Park which is a small um walking path uh area and then Arlington Park which is just uh west of the subject property. Uh open
space is always an a a key characteristic of a healthy diverse community. It's where you want to local uh localize added uh residential units in a neighborhood like this. And um it in this neighborhood has it.
Uh in in addition, what we did on this aerial is highlight the transit in the neighborhood. So when we speak of transit, it's really all alternate modes of uh transportation uh including um bus, light rail and uh and bicycle
paths. Um just to cover that uh we have a number of planned and shared use bike paths shown in green. Um this is a bike path along Grand Street that is protected and then becomes shared. Uh there are other shared routes through
this neighborhood uh on some of the side streets and one bike path to call out in particular is the Morris Canal Greenway. Um the Morris Canal Greenway is a large uh network of bicycle paths that range
from the uh Hudson River coastline in Jersey City all the way west through Essex and uh further points west in the state. Uh the the Jersey City and uh the state have recognized this route as a
return from what you could be considered uh rails to trails where it was a former canal and is now being repurposed for that linear bike network. Uh so it is another larger regional bike network. it
comes uh north through Berry Lane Park and then actually in this neighborhood of Lafayette Park, it starts to turn east and then we'll continue east towards uh the downtown area uh of the
city. So, um this is a uh planned improvement to the overall transportation alternatives in the area and again it just speaks to the richness and the diversity uh of of the neighborhood from another key planning
component. Uh lastly, I should add u along commun uh are a number of commercial neighborhood businesses. Um, so that's always a component to, in my opinion, a mix of of commercial uses. It helps
foster a very vibrant, walkable uh destination oriented uh type of neighborhood. And along those two frontages, you have eeries, small neighborhood services uh and other retail options.
In orange are the bus routes. So I think that really identifies that this area is a is the confluence of three major roadways. Bus routes are obviously located on collector streets and along
Garfield Avenue. You have multiple bus stops within a one minute walk. Uh same as Commun and the same with Garfield Avenue. And these bus routes are three different bus routes that take you to different points throughout the city and
beyond um into Hoboken, uh Newark and then further south into Bayon. As we look at some of the existing conditions of the property, um I did want to share some of the photos. So this is the newer structure at the corner of Harmon and Communal, the
five-story building. Uh in the middle here is the existing one and twotory structures. I I think it's important to note that this photo shows a very good example of what is the the rear facades
of our the westerly neighbor uh on uh from the subject property and it's approximately a 14 foot setback in terms of a rear yard. So these lots are quote unquote under size as it relates to zoning. Uh there's a walk out, there's
more or less just um patio space in the back of these properties. Uh but essentially this the existing conditions of this single single story structure is on a lot line uh which would allow for a lot line condition to exist moving up
and that's part of the analysis we did that I'll get into in a minute. some of the other photos of the surrounding properties. Uh you can see from the corner the fivetory structure in the rear at
475 commun the grade change over the frontage of of Harmon and you can see the two uh twotory structures along. And our goal here with the project, as was mentioned before, is to try and
continue this transition that steps down to the two-story homes on through a very appropriate design on this subject property. With respect to density, um we are 4,600
square ft. Uh, the R2, the R1, sorry, I'm trying to stop share screen. Give me a moment. The R1 uh district does permit residential uses. Um, so we're no, we're not
requesting a a D1 use variance, but it does limit the density of residential units to 42 units per acre. What's being requested uh with this application is 13 units. Um so it's in excess of the
permitted 42 units per acre. Um the adjacent property uh at 40 400 475 Communa Avenue is approximately um60
units per acre. uh that project was approved uh and and it's not necessarily the same type of development. Uh that project was an automobile car wash. Uh so we were transitioning a a non-permitted use into a permitted
use. Uh but we clearly have a less dense development than that subject property at the corner. Um there are other developments in the area that were referenced earlier. uh 747 Grand is a 36 unit multif family that's just the block
to the west as well as 509 commun uh which is equally 36 units. So uh in in this setting uh not to compare the unit count uh we're only 13 units but to compare the reality that there are multifamily developments within this
immediate neighborhood within a one to two block uh uh proximity. Um, I want to just reference the uh affordable housing component. So, we do have one of the 13 units, which is a three-bedroom unit as an affordable
unit. Um, we did coordinate with the city to ensure that it meets all the affordable requirements. uh if this project stayed within the zoning envelope uh it would not require the D5 density
variance and that's part of the city's new affordable housing overlay. So I think it's important to note the two main things with respect to density are that we are in consistent actually less dense some than some of the other multif family in the area and we are meeting
the intent by incorporating affordable housing in what we believe is a better zoning envelope for the site. Um, the next exhibit that I think is helpful is what we prepared uh this past week to
try and help show the board this transition of floor area. So, I'll mark this as A5. >> Yes. And Charles, can we just call it the visual impact comparison? >> Yes. Okay.
And we submitted these but I'll I'll submit the marked copy as well after the evening. Um and what we did was in in a very technical manner uh to scale with the existing uh
surrounding developments. Um we took the overall elevation of the facade as designed by Mr. Bodnar. um the threetory section in front and the fourstory section to the east. And we modeled that
in a 3D uh environment. And this shows the massing. You can kind of see some of the texture of the facade treatment on the proposed structure. And it shows the massing as it relates to the adjacent fivestory structure and the
adjacent two and threetory structures on Randolph and Communal. But more importantly, I think just starting from where we all started from is the existing conditions. You can see the onetory and twotory structures here that actually sit on the property line
and have the greatest impact to the Randolph properties. uh three stories is permitted in the R1 and what we did was uh try to understand what a permitted zoning envelope would look like. Uh so
this does have a rear yard um of 19 ft does have two zero lot line uh zero sideyard setbacks. Um and ultimately this floor area is what would be permitted by way of or this overall
massing by way of R1 because of the size of the property the existing and adjacent zero lot line uh conditions. So part of the process here is to understand that this threestory
structure along our sideyard is actually marrying against a rear yard for our adjacent uh neighbors or the adjacent properties to the west. Is there a way that we can make that setback better
without losing or sacrificing some of the entitled zoning that would be able to generate on the site? And what we did was ultimately say, can we set back our sideyard where 0 ft's permitted today
approximately 10 1/2 ft, 10.4 ft to be exact. And then can we transition some of that zoning envelope, the z the floor area to a fourth story on the east side of the property, further away from the
rear yards of the adjacent properties to the west. And this uh exhibit kind of walks you through that process from a massing standpoint. Uh again, you can see the roof lines of the five-story building, stepping down to the fourstory, then stepping down to the
permitted threetory height, and then pre providing that greater 10- foot separation between the building and the lot line. um which in my opinion is an improvement beyond uh existing conditions and is an improvement over
what's what's permitted by way of a zoning envelope. Um so hopefully that was helpful for the board. Uh you can see here from a elevation standpoint taking a minute to load uh the five
stories going to four and going to three. And Charles, just before you you move off this exhibit, I think it's good. Um, just a quick question in that and you see them both there. Very well. Um, in that threestory as of right um, configuration that would be before the
the planning board and this is what you were alluding to before regarding the affordable housing overlay. So that would be the 13 units in that arrangement would be permitted. Um the only reason they're not permitted here is because we're seeking that height
variance which is effectively being sought in order to take that bulk and put it towards you know further away from the residents. Is that fair to say? >> That that's exactly correct. Um, that's that's the intent of the affordable housing overlay is to allow for more
density and not require a density a D6 density variance. Um, if you are within your zoning envelope uh the minute you do have any sort of uh added stories, that's where you come to the zoning
board of adjustment. Um but 13 units without a density variance in this scenario would be permitted. >> Okay. Thank you. Sorry, you can keep going. >> Okay. And and this gets a good segue to the relief we uh are seeking. Uh again,
we're we're seeking relief for a partial fourth story on the east side of the property. The overall building height to the roof line is 43.5 ft. uh where 35 ft for three stories is permitted in the R1 and ultimately uh that building height
only occurs at approximately 20 ft um from the side lot line and it's a partial fourstory. Uh so I did present the information on the intent of relocating the permitted zoning floor
area to the fourstory earlier. I do believe that this is a better design alternative and in terms of consistency with the development in the surrounding area. There are fivetory structures uh immediately adjacent to the east is a
five-story structure. We are tearing down from that structure to create a very nice and clear transition to what is west of this subject property which is two-story buildings. Um but ultimately those are part of the
elements that I believe meet the justifications for the the density variant the the building height variance being sought as well. Um so handinhand with the overall building height in feet we are requesting the partial fourstory variance where three stories are
permitted. uh and for the same reasons creating that transition and relocating the the floor area. Um there are two other variances that I did want to touch on briefly. Uh one um is
well is respect to the the rear yard setback. Uh part of the evolution of this project did at one point try and accommodate a full level of parking on the ground floor uh where we thought the benefit of providing the parking would
uh would outweigh the detriment of having uh a full enclosed parking level. So that did have a zero rear yard setback. In the process of understanding some of the concerns about air and light within the interior of the subject
property, remove that full parking level. Uh we reduced the overall number of stories from five to the partial four. Uh and ultimately we provided uh a very uh healthy rear yard. Uh the rear
yard that's being proposed is 17.5 ft. So 17 1/2 ft. Uh however based on the calculations for rear yard in the R1 19 uh approximately 19 feet are require is required. Um I can tell you that this
subject property provides the longest and greatest amount of rear yard in terms of an overall aerial view. Uh the condominium uh building to the north along um Commun has their driveway that
occupies their rear yard. The apartment structure to the uh east at 475 commun has a full uh building coverage and has their amenity level or outdoor space on
the roof. And uh for this subject property, we do have the traditional rear yard of 17 ft that spans the width of the the interior of the lot. Uh and we are also providing a little bit of amenity space uh on the roof as well.
So, um, while we are encroaching in the rear yard 2 feet, I think the overall design, uh, allows the floor layouts from an architectural standpoint to still work and we still are providing that separation, uh, and increased light and air to the adjacent properties.
Um, the last variance, uh, and again a bulk variance is with respect to parking. Um, this is somewhat of a a calculation based on bedrooms. Uh, so that's been a transition for the city to
revise the the parking requirements. Ultimately, the parking requirements have been reduced in the city from a policy standpoint. If this was an AHO, an affordable housing overlay application, uh, parking is not
required. Uh so given that we are electing to make it a uh a zoning board application and transition that mass on on the west side of the property to a fourth story. We are required to request relief for
parking. Uh as I mentioned earlier, we did envision a scenario where we comply with parking albeit at a five-story structure. Um this proposed application removes that parking level. uh and
ultimately will uh lean on all the infrastructure and the transit that's available within this neighborhood. So uh I'll reference before the bus routes that run along Grand Street, Commun
Garfield. Um the bicycle infrastructure in the area is uh under uh some some bike bike bike routes are installed already and the Morris Canal Greenway is undergoing implementation for segments
throughout the city today. So in the long vision of this neighborhood there will be a lot of uh transitrich and bike rich alternatives. So we believe that that fits uh within the vision of this project and uh will advance the uh the
reduction of automobile dependency for the future tenants. Um I do believe that the application meets special reasons. Uh this board's heard me testify to uh similar applications.
Um, I believe that we're transitioning an underutilized pro pro property in the city with a one and twotory structure into what is a very very tailored uh multifamily residential development that's appropriate for the site. Uh, I
believe that we've worked with the depart the division of city planning. We've met on numerous occasions and in numerous instances throughout the life of the application to try and envision what we think is a balanced application and ultimately this board um will make a
decision that will guide the development. Um so again this is meeting purpose A through that process. Uh I also believe that we're meeting purpose E to establish appropriate population densities. I spoke about the mix of uses
along the main streets in the area, the availability of robust open space in the neighborhood and access to mass transit and uh bicycle routes throughout this neighborhood. I think this is a great
location to harness the size of the property, the transition between a five-story multif family structure and twotory um two-story residential units uh on this property, and I think it's it's meeting purpose E for an
appropriate population. Uh lastly, I I can't overstate this enough. Uh the transition factor and being able to envision a development through Mr. Bardner's design is a desirable visual technique and it's
creative. It's tailored to this setting. Uh and I believe that it first fosters um desirable visual environments over the existing conditions. Um, for those reasons, I think it's it's clear um that we're we do have special
reasons that would apply to this application uh in in the uh in the positive criteria. Um, a couple things I just wanted to touch on in the negative criteria, and I know I've I've been extensive and thorough, so I I do appreciate everyone's time. Um, with respect to the
zoning ordinance and zoning plan, um, I believe we've iterated in the positive, but we're meeting the intent of not only the inclusionary zoning ordinance, uh, but also the affordable housing ordinance. And while the affordable housing ordinance doesn't apply in this
instance, I think we're doing one better here by transitioning the floor area to a partial fourth story and still providing the affordable unit. uh with respect to uh other impacts uh the the massing studies the shadow
studies that we've done all show a diminished impact from light and open space and air on the adjoining properties and in my opinion what's being proposed is an enhancement over what's permitted.
Uh lastly, with respect to the master plan, as I mentioned, uh the junction is is a neighborhood that's nestled between Bergen, Lafayette, and Morris Canal, uh it's a the junction because it's crossroads of three main intersection.
uh there's a lot of the access that's provided to this immediate neighborhood, but ultimately the master plan did look at this area with a with a small area vision. And I'll recite uh from that that small area vision, reestablish the
junction as a destination hub for surrounding communities through equal revitalization of vacant, abandoned or and underutilized properties. So, in planning to reinvision this neighborhood
with a revitalization effort is to allow for an increase in density in an appropriate manner and create a critical mass of population that will support all the other uh elements of of the existing
neighborhood. Uh for those reasons, uh I do believe that we're not impairing the master plan or zoning ordinance, but we're actually uh implementing it through a very tailored proposal to the board. Um I know I'm usually shorter and
I do thank everyone for their time. Um but that concludes my direct testimony. Uh I just felt it was helpful to walk the board through some of the components we were looking at. >> Thank you. And Charles, just a couple of follow-up questions. Well, really just one, I think. Um,
the the way you've laid it out, right, and the way that that Mr. Bodner presented, and you use the word tailored, I don't think there's a more appropriate word than tailored, right? The the as of right alternative that would have the same unit count. It would just and it would be shorter, but it
would be a larger mass adjacent to the lower density uses towards our west or to our left. Is it fair to say that this application is basically a modified version of that conforming application in a manner that allows us to take more
impactful mass and move it out of the impact zone? >> Yes. Yeah. We're we're mitigating the impact of the zoning that the the floor area that's permitted in the zoning
envelope. So when planners use the term sometimes a better planning alternative, uh I know I've lived with this project now for two years as has your team and and the rest of the project team. Would this to you in your opinion as a planner, would this meet that definition
of a better planning alternative than what is otherwise permitted for this property? >> Yes, it's it's been redesigned. We've tried to uh understand and address the uh unique nature of these lots on the block and come up with a development uh
plan that we believe addresses those concerns. >> Okay. So then really lastly, but um were the board not to act favorably upon our application and we were to proceed the logical next step being to proceed to the planning board with the as of right
alternative. Would it be your opinion as a planner that that would actually result in more impact to the neighborhood in a way that this application is seeking to avoid? >> It it it's the difference between a a zero sideyard setback
uh and three stories at the lot line. And this application has 10 ft of setback and it immediately touches the permitted threetory portion of this building and then approximately 10 ft more beyond that is where the fourth
story occurs. >> So with all of that said, would it be your opinion that the benefits of this application would substantially outweigh any detriments? I >> I think we meet the bulk standard. I think we also meet the density and
building height standard where it's consistent. It creates a transition um and it's it's uh the setbacks being proposed can be accommodated on the site. >> Thank you. U Madam Chair, I have nothing
further for Mr. Height at this point and that would conclude my uh presentation in chief. I would just respectfully request the right to address any comments from the board from the public and take a few minute break at the conclusion. >> Okay. Um thank you. At this time um we
will ask if there are any comments from the public again to the public that your comments will be limited to three minutes and I have asked Mr. Allen to uh please be the timekeeper at this time. Um so Mr. Pendulone. Is there anyone out
there um in or anyone on this meeting to comment on tonight's presentation? >> Uh yes, we have one uh Michelle Meyer. I'm going to allow her to talk right now. >> Michelle, are you there? >> Yes, I'm here.
>> Great. Uh your three minutes starts now. >> Okay. Um I know >> Oh, wait. We have to swear Michelle in. >> Okay. >> Oh, sorry. I need to see you, Michelle. >> Um, how do I make you see me?
>> Or Vinnie can swear you in. >> I'm sorry. Say that again, >> Michelle. We need to This the court reporter needs to see you because we need to know that you are who you are. So, can you can you uh put a video on? >> I'm looking to see if my computer will
let me. It just has an audio setting on the bottom left. Is there something that someone needs to do on your side? >> Uh, no. There should be a video icon to your uh bottom left of your window. Um, do you have a webcam connected? >> Um, I'm using a laptop that has a
built-in camera. Um, and on Zoom meetings, normally there is a video icon, but I do not have one right now. >> Oh, no. Um, >> well, let's put it this way, Michelle. Do you swear or affirm that you are who you say you are and that the testimony you're about to give the court or this
this hearing will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. And if you could state spell your full name and provide your address for the record. >> Yes. Um it's Michelle with two L's and the last name is actually Meer like
Oscar Meer Weiner. M A R not mayor. >> Um and I'm at 363 Randolph. Um, I'm across the street from this proposed development. Um, so I know I know Irene um or um Mary Webb would like to speak as well. I don't know if she knows um how to raise
her hand, but hopefully she figures that out. Um but so I I understand that the as of right versus the proposed um right the proposed is an attempt to be more ideal than what would be built as of right. I'm a little bit confused because
I feel like conflicting things have been said about the permissible number of units. Um, at three stories R1 zoning, I it sounded like you guys for R1 zoning still needed a variance for having 13 units. Um, but maybe adding the
affordable housing unit removes that requirement. So, I'm a little confused as to that point. Um, so any clarification would be very helpful. Um, but so the existing conditions currently, yes, there is a one-story building that is
built to the line at at these people's backyards, but the rear yard is currently just under 28 ft, which is significantly more than 19.9 and it is significantly more than 17.4. Um, so I I I'm not unappreciative of the
fact that changes have been made to provide more light and air, but it will still be not as good as what they have today. And that I think is the material point from their side. Um, you know, I I get that there's a a housing shortage. We just got 160 units
pllopped at the end of the block. So we, you know, if we if the block needed more units, it most certainly got them. Or not 160, I'm sorry, about 44 45 because it's 160 per acre. Um, so I I I'm trying to understand that money needs to be made,
that the city needs more units, that affordable housing is desired. Um, but it is less desirable than what exists today for the people who live across the street. >> One minute remaining. Oh, and if you think people are going to
bike at the junction, I've been biking here since 2009. That's crazy. Um, it is uh Commun is a scary scary road, as is grand, as is Garfield for a bicyclist. I bike with my daughter who
is um 22 months old every day and I have to walk us to um to kind of the safer area past all all of the junction with with the bicycle with the bike trailer before him let her bike.
>> But that that's it. Thank you. >> Thank you letting me speak. >> Thank you. Uh Jose, is there anyone else in um >> um I believe I saw Mary raise her hand. Do you want to raise your hand again, Mary? Um once you do, I'll
allow you to talk cuz at the moment I'm not seeing any other raised hands. >> Okay. >> For the record, I did see Mary before. Um >> uh let's uh let's see.
>> Um so for any any member of the public who's trying to express an interest in speaking, >> there's a raise. Yeah, Mary, you're on. >> Yes. Uh, my name is Mary Webb. I don't know if I need to be sworn in.
>> Yes, Mary. Do Do you have a video, Mary? >> Uh, I'm not sure how to bring it in. Let me see. >> Uh, do you have a video icon on the bottom left uh side of your window? >> Okay. Uh, I don't see the video icon. Unmuted.
>> I see there's a mute button and then it should be right next to the mute button right to the right of it. Let me >> try again. If it's not there then you can um you could you could also say that and you could also >> Yeah. Uh I I just feel uh that weary
>> Mary let's start this way. What is your full name? >> Mary Webb. >> And what is your address? >> 255 Pacific Avenue and I have the property at 364 Randolph. >> So Mary uh since we can't see you, do you swear or affirm you are Mary Webb
and the testimony you're about to give us is the truth and nothing else? Yes, it is. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Could you spell your last name? >> W BB. >> Thank you. >> And first name Mary M A R Y. >> Okay. Mary is
>> I feel a little bit uh lost here because when I received the certified letter and responded and came to the meeting uh I left feeling with that uh the variance had been granted uh for uh a larger building than a three-story building and
I was baffled by the fact that uh two one family homes were being replaced with uh 13 or 14 units but I was told because of what was built on Garfield. That was okay. But the bottom line for
me is, as Michelle stated, this is a residential neighborhood, and I'm not deni denying anyone a chance to develop, but uh the fact that I was led to believe that this was not an R1. And when I looked it
up today, it says that the property at 1214 and 16 Harmon Street is all one, which means that you can only build three stories. Am I incorrect? >> Can someone answer your question? >> Um, Miss Webb, I'm hap I'm My name is
Matt Dilva. I'm the planner who reviewed this case. Um, I'm happy to clarify that the So, the reason Mr. Wine and the applicant is here today is to ask for permission to build four stories instead of three stories. The default zoning
allows for three stories, but Mr. wine is asking for what we call a variance, which is, you know, a an exception from the rules to build a four-story building instead here. Um, and his um, professionals were here to make the case
to the board why that would be appropriate. And it's ultimately the board's discretion whether or not to grant those variances. So, this hearing today is about whether or not >> um, Mr. Wine's client should can be allowed to build four stories here or not.
>> Okay. So, I as I said until this afternoon, I didn't know that was a part of it. Uh I was led to believe that it was already agreed upon, but uh the density is in uh incredulous and the fact that it's even a a question in this
area is beyond me. Uh I I I'm so appreciative of the time that Mr. uh Ben has taken to understand uh how I felt about having the backyard taken away literally is good, but the fact that it
was not made clear that a variance was also needed to even build uh leaves me feeling some kind of way. And at the end of the day, uh, you're taking a a community, a residential community, and making it into a a very, uh,
multi-populated area. And it sounds good. Uh, that long discussion that I heard, and I agree with Michelle, I walked walked that area all the time, and I wouldn't bite there. I wouldn't bite there. And the buses, that's
another thing when you have to wait an hour for a bus. uh it's not the best service but it it's some service but uh this whole process has left the people a regular everyday
people like myself out of it and the fact that uh and I did not even receive information to come to this meeting tonight I got it by word of mouth uh and uh I'm immediately next to that property and I did show up for the eaten when it
was pulled from the agenda and transferred over to June. But I can't see the the fact that we need uh a property of that size. The fact that he wants to accommodate the sunshine, that's fine, but it's it's just not it's just not needed.
I I'm not knocking anyone from developing, but it's over. It's just too much with that huge building on the corner to put that uh right there in that backyard and have to go in the backyard and move it back a little bit, shift it a little bit, but it's just too
overwhelming. >> Commissioner, I'll let you know how much time she has left. >> I'm through. >> I'm sorry. 20 seconds. I was I stopped it when um >> That's fine. I I think my point has been well taken. >> Right.
and and I thank you for putting that 20 whatever the time on when um Matt was answering. Okay. >> Yeah. >> And that would be five seconds left. >> Yeah. >> I think the residents should be heard before
>> and that's that's Tom. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um Mr. Pangleion, is there anybody else out there in the public? >> Uh okay. Um I don't see any hands right now, but one last call. Anyone who'd like to comment on this matter?
>> Going once. Going twice. Uh, no more commenters. Madam Chair, >> and I'll close out the uh public portion of this meeting and I will ask the commissioners, do they have comments or questions for um anyone who presented
this evening so far? >> And Madam Chair, I I'm sorry to interrupt. Would you like us to address the There were a couple of things I wrote down. Did you want us to address those or hear comments from the the board? >> Let's have comments from the commissioners. They might address some of what you may have written down.
>> Sure. >> Okay. Does anyone want I have a couple of questions. Anybody else have some questions would like to start? >> Okay. >> I do. I'll let you go first. >> Okay. So, um you you know I heard what you had to say about the parking. uh you
went from 11 parking spaces to no parking spaces and you talked about how all of this will impact uh positively on the neighborhood and the yard and the this and the that. But I guess I'd like to ask what is the impact of no parking spaces uh for any of the residents. Um
and um I heard the comments about the bicycle lane. I'm very familiar with that neighborhood about the bikes and the buses. So, what impact will it have on the neighborhood without any parking spaces available for the people who move in? >> Charles, I'll let you address that.
>> Yeah. Um, so I I understand that um a young child should be chaperoned and traveling along some of these roads. >> I'm just asking what is the impact no parking spaces? Have you did any stud done any study about that? What that will have on the neighborhood?
Okay. So, so the the vision for this is to incorporate bicycle parking within the building and we'll have sufficient bicycle parking in storage areas and in the lobby uh and then additional bikes can be stored uh in the units. Um there
is uh on street parking uh within the greater neighborhood but very likely um the uh future tenants will be low automobile ownership tenants. Uh they won't have uh each unit likely would not
have two cars per unit. They be probably less than one car per unit. Um so we didn't do any specific study. um we didn't uh sometimes we will try to review census data but for this size of of development uh we hadn't done that.
Um if that answers your question there is available on street parking uh and again there's uh other alternative modes of transportation in the neighborhood. >> So it's only on speculation that most people in that building will neither have a car or many people will not have
a car or only be limited to have one car. Okay. Um, Chair Coyle, I I just want to intervene for a second and make sure um that all the um the board is equipped with all the correct facts on hand. Um, so chapter 187 of our code,
our inclusionary zoning ordinance states that all projects um subject to an affordable set aside due to the inclusionary zoning ordinance are not subject to parking requirements. >> I heard that. >> Um, so yeah, just to clarify, so there's no parking variance,
>> right? I was just asking what the impact would be. That's all. >> And we we previously proposed 11 spaces uh but only five are required by the new uh parking requirement standard. So the idea of five dedicated off- streetet
spaces where we can accommodate what the proposed building mass is with no curb cut. Uh we felt the better design alternative would be to remove the parking component for the project uh create more of a separation. Uh
obviously any drive aisle and parking spaces on a ground level would require greater footprint. So that that was part of the trade-off. >> Okay. Mr. Allen, Commissioner Allen, do you have a question? >> Yes, I have two. Uh the first question
is for you, Mr. one. I I just want to make sure I heard you clear. Did you say in the beginning that the community liked the second this this current design better than the first design? >> So, >> sure. >> That's all. >> Yeah. So, so what happened was two years
ago we were directed by city planning to reach out to the uh Sherwood Claremont Neighborhood Association and that's uh Chris Perez's neighborhood association. That was back when this was a full five-story proposal. We met with that association. Um it became clear later on
that none of them necessarily live right around here as evidenced by the fact that the two people you did hear from today were not actually included in that in that conversation. And all the people that were included in that conversation, there were about 25 of them on the call, um not one of them is here tonight. And
that was something that was an oversight, you know, through through city planning directing us to meet with them. But when we did, we we went full gung-ho and filed that application because they said, "Oh, great. This looks like uh yep, we see it continues the five stories on the corner. Um you have parking. This looks fine." And we
we filed with the board. So that's what everybody saw and that's what we filed. You fast forward to 2 years later to March of this year when we came to the board with that application fully prepared to present. And that's when we met uh Miss Meyer, uh Miss Washington,
and Miss Webb at that meeting. and they said, "You held a neighborhood meeting." And we said, "Yes, almost two years ago." And they said, "We never knew about it." In fact, um, I believe, and I don't want to put words in Miss Meyer's mouth, but I believe she told me she actually tried to reach out to Mr. Perez after the fact and say, "Why didn't you include us?" and never got a response to
to that effect. So once we met with them and realized that the issues that there were issues with the massing at a fivetory full lot coverage development, that's when we pivoted to this. So, what I think so, so to say they liked it better, it's a fully different project.
What you saw then was five stories, no setbacks, no uh full coverage, um full floor of parking. What you see now is a fully redesigned project um that was tailored directly towards those houses on Randolph that were never included in that meeting. So, I don't know if that
answers your question. I know your question was do they like it better? It's it's a it's a different project that's much more responsive to the actual impact and concerns of the immediate neighbors. >> Oh, okay. So, it sound like it was the wrong community group that liked the project.
>> So, it turns out they are the they are the community group that is in this area technically. I I don't think city planning got it wrong. I think that they should have just reached out. Like when I've worked with community groups in the past, that part of that includes banging on the neighbors doors and saying, "Hey, we're holding a community meeting." And
it sounds like that was never done by this community group. I I don't know why. >> Okay. And and the second question, I don't know who would answer this. The tree in the front and there's it looks like a tree in the back in the aerial uh view. What will happen to those two trees?
>> Russ, do you want to take that one? >> Um yeah, we can I could probably keep them depending on what the location is. >> Hold on. Sorry, Commissioner. I'm looking I'm trying to see which trees you're talking about.
>> There there is a tree on the on the front like the street tree right now, Commissioner. >> Yes. And then in one of the aerial views uh you it's like a tree in the back. I don't know if it's in on the uh Harmon uh property or that property, but it
it's a tree. >> Well, I can speak to the one in the front. I don't believe that's a I'm not sure if that's a compliant street tree presently. We're replacing that one with two new street trees that meet the forestry standards >> as to the back. I Russ, do you have any
idea on that one? >> I don't right now. It's not on the survey, but if it's without outside the the the the property outside our building envelope, we can easily keep it. It's just not it's not shown on my site plan on my survey. like the
original survey >> has some stuff missing and debris on the original survey, which means it could be back in that corner. And if it's back in that corner, yeah, we could easily keep that tree because now it's outside our
building envelope for sure. You know, before we were 100% lock coverage. Now we're not even anywhere near that. >> 17 six inches in the back. >> Um, do we have an overview? Let me take a quick >> Yeah, I'm looking commissioner on Google. I see the tree you're talking
about. If I can't tell if it's on our property or not. If it's not, obviously, we're not touching it. If it is, um, it sounds like we can we can save it. There's no reason to take it down. >> Okay. >> Yeah, >> the commissioners have a question.
Okay. I have another question. do. Um, can we bring up one of the um shots that we had of the entire of the neighborhood and take a look at what the existing buildings look like um on the block? >> Charles, do you want to bring that up?
>> Yes. Uh, give me give me a moment. Um, I believe that was the zoning exhibit. Just give me one second. I'm asking um because even though um the design might be visually
pleasing to everyone, any of the training I participated in, they've always talked about um giving some granting a variance um if the building was replicating or coming close to what the other buildings in the neighborhood
look like um and this building um doesn't even the colors that have been selected etc the size of the windows etc um although visually pleasing in design um I have always been trained to say that it we have to work as hard as we
can to have that building fit in better into a neighborhood resembling color structure etc so I'm just looking to see what the other buildings look like of a surrounding neighborhood >> so Russ that may be better for you to answer from the aesthetic perspective. I think it's a very good question.
>> Yeah. >> So, how did you come and I know we glossed over it a little bit, but how did you come up with the the building design architecture? >> I kind of took some modern feel and as well as a little bit of like um it's still a lot of red brick we're using on the building in the front. Um
so, we're using red brick using some siding as well on the upper section. see the other buildings and surrounding because I'm I'm not sure I saw that in the other buildings. >> Yeah, there's some red. >> If you want to bring Yeah, if you want to bring up your exhibit, I think that
showed it. >> Um I'm sorry, my I think that the Let me turn my uh video off. My computer's just taking a minute to load. Okay, I'm sharing now. I think this was some of the uh images that we had. Um this is at the corner.
Gray brick metal paneling. Um, >> well, there's houses on Harmon Street with the white brick color buildings and gray and lighter shades. Um, >> it can go to a different color. >> Yeah,
>> you have the the um So, it might be helpful to uh view it this way. So, we just looked at the uh gray brick which is here to the east. >> I see that one, but I'm I'm looking for the other the homes in that neighborhood that have not been altered yet or
touched or anything like that. >> So, the the this is a angle of the driveway here. So, you have the uh three-story uh town houses, condos, that's red brick, that's these along commun.
And I think we have um a shot of these lighter brick. They have gray, white, and red >> in the area in terms of the brick color. >> Okay. So, in no way is this building replicating what is currently in that
neighborhood. Okay. I just want >> Yeah. >> Go ahead, Charles. I I uh I don't I I think Russ can bring up an image, but um we're this isn't in a historic district. So, um I do know consistency with
facades is important. And what I would say is that I I think part of this design is trying to transition between what is a modern structure that was approved and is its own architecture
into what is somewhat similar but different and still incorporating brick. Um so I think it's it's there's not a requirement to match um any one specific type of architecture. uh given that
we're not in a in a historic district or it's not a historic preservation type of project. I guess though the question I would ask Russ because I think the chairs the chair does whether chair coil whether you're referencing it specifically or not the R1 does have design standards right and I think part
of that does you know talk about some of the things you've alluded to um obviously this was our our shot at that but I guess Russ the question I would have for you coming from the chair is is there any way like right beside us is all light brick is there any way you can change the motif to mirror that light brick if that's the board's design
>> yeah we can easily change it to a lighter brick. Right now is a red brick. We can go to a lighter shade of like more of a beige brick. Um, we can also change, you know, right now the bays themselves were like more of a a cladding in and like a more of a metal
cladding. We can go to more of a kind of a a um a cement board panels cladding with like a different colors. Um, in terms of on the cement board cladding, we can we can dress it up a little bit more historic looking as well as, you
know, to make it, you know, uh, a little bit more of a classic feel. >> Okay, >> that's not And we already have siding on the top layers. Um, as you can you can see, you know, um, I I guess I can't share the screen again,
but I have this other rendering here in front of me. >> Yeah, Russ, you can bring it up >> here. Let me share this. Here's the original rendering on the front sheet. >> And this does not, for the record, Bridget, this does not need to be an exhibit. This was just part of
>> this was already on the original rendering. But as you see here, like um I'll try to make this smaller, guys. Sorry. Here, let me just make this uh um smaller. You could probably see it better. As you can see here, we are doing the red brick um and some siding like a beige siding up here and some and
some light like bronze looking colored um beige. We can change that to you know other materials and other colors. >> In terms of that we had some light siding on the side like a beige side like um more like a khaki siding on the on the left on the sides.
>> What we can do is we can change this brick color to later a beigeer color. Uh we'd also change this metal panels like instead of that we can do it more of a cement board panel. Make it look a little bit more historic with more trim on the on the cement board pan on these
cement board panels and all the panels in between and and change out the colors to uh like like a browns if you like and and and a brown because right now there's like on the cornice of the other building just adjacent to us has like more of a brown cornice. So, we can go
with more beige and browns so we can match that color up here on the top and um the building itself. I'll contextualize it a lot better. >> Do any other commissioners have any questions?
>> I just have a comment. Um I the other somehow the other there was a photo that you showed us that seems like the metal portion of that was like darker. This seems to be a little better. The color it looks a little more lighter. Um, >> correct. This is the original rendering.
The other one >> was darker. Right. >> Yes. Was darker because >> not the finished ren like I asked her to change something today for me just to show the building itself without anything else around it. >> Yeah. Yeah. The the the darker port one
I I I really didn't like, but this one looks a little more amenable. Um, but like you said, if you can change it and make it a little more in tune with the rest of the uh the houses in the in the block, that would be that would be a lot better. >> Thank you.
>> There are no other comments from the commissioners. I'd like to hear from the staff at this time. >> Uh certainly. Uh thank you, Chair Coyle. Um so um staff prepared
um there was an original report um dated March 3rd, 2026, but then there was a reissue um on June 3rd, 2026 reflecting the redesigns that um Mr. Wine's client made in response to
that community feedback um and clarifying um you know the changes in details. Um that being said the the general sort of analysis of the report stays intact. Um
this is sort of you know a transition area. Um as Mr. height said there you have a fivestory structure on one side of the site and twotory town homes on the
other. Um and um this project is um trying to bridge that gap in mass and um it is arguably um particularly suitable to be that sort of bridge in that transition um as was mentioned. So this is an
inclusionary zoning ordinance project. the applicant is um you know asking for more density than be than would be allowed as well as more height than would be allowed um which triggers that 10% affordable housing
requirement. Um they are below the 15 units that would normally be the trigger for such a request but the applicant has agreed to voluntarily comply anyway. Um um I think has been mentioned that the extra you know sort of the the
development potential for this site. You sort of have a choice here between as Mr. Wine described um what the zoning with the affordable housing overlay would encourage which would be a three-story structure but with higher lot coverage and and fewer sideyards.
Um so sort of like a squatter wider box versus this taller slimmer structure with more space between itself and the town homes that uh Mr. Wine is proposing. So um just in terms of sort of practical outcomes um you know that's worthwhile for the
board to keep in mind here. Um it is staff opinion that Mr. Height's testimony adequately um you know met um the findings that New Lanus law expects um for justification for both D5
density variances and D6 d height variances. Um the C variances would be subsumed under these D variances here. Um and so just to remind the board those spe um the special reasons for density variance is that the purposes of the zoning are advanced and that the density
is particularly suited to the property. Um and that the special reasons for a D6 height variance is that the purpose of a height restriction is to limit intensity. So um that you generally have you know are
addressing concerns about light, air, open space and proponing a desirable visual environment. Um, with that being said, um, you know, I think Chair Coil's comments are in good,
um, the potential for maybe redesigns of the facade to, um, better embody the spirit of the R1 design standards might be appropriate here. Um, and it's, you know, it might be good advice, and I guess this is staff advice, that maybe that the applicant, in addition to
complying with the conditions, should the board approve this application and the conditions in that memo, that um, perhaps before the board takes a vote, the applicant would maybe like to revisit the facade design potentially. >> Okay.
Do the are there any other comments since after Matt's comments from or questions that the commissioners might have or would like to make? >> Okay. Before I take a vote, um Mr. Wine, you said that you want to have um a few minutes to speak.
>> Uh yes, if I could just take a minute and give my client a quick call, that would be greatly appreciated. >> I would like a break. >> Okay, let's take a It's uh Let's take a break and come back at 8 o'clock. It's about a That's about a 5 10 12 minute
break. Is that enough for you, Bridgetette? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So 8:00 Okay, are we all back? Everyone is back. Okay. Um, let's resume. Um, and I believe we left off with Mr. wine trying
to call his clients and I was asking if there was any additional uh comments uh from the commissioners um or any questions >> so I can speak to the first not the not the second if you have additional comments that's on you um but I did I
did speak to my clients um we would respectfully request the right to uh to adjourn um obviously we we do only have I think five eligible members to vote but in addition I think between uh chair between you and and vice chair. There was obviously a number of comments about
the aesthetic uh look and feel and I think that that's something I spoke to my client. I spoke to the architect. Something we can definitely make a better shot at addressing ahead of uh the next meeting and we'd like the opportunity to do so. >> Okay. So, you're asking us not to hold a vote tonight on this.
>> That is correct. And obviously in the in in with that in mind, if there were any, you know, kind of final thoughts if we're going to go back and make those changes, I'd be I'd be happy to hear them from the board as well. >> Okay. Um, obviously does the board have any other comments? It doesn't seem to
be. Okay. So, um, we're not voting. So, Vincent, Miss Mr. Leaglia, we just, uh, move on to our next case. We just, uh, >> um, just for clarification, >> why don't we why don't we get give a a date certain. So, we have the notice. We
don't have to renotice. What is the next date? >> The next date is July 9th. >> July 9th. >> Okay. So, so the audience knows that this case is going to be continued on July 9th. There's no notice other than
this right now. So, we'll see everybody back on July 9th for this case. >> Okay. >> Thank you everybody. >> Yes. >> Have a good night. >> You good night. Yes. >> Okay. So, I have been told um that um
the um the uh 188 New York Avenue that we do have uh representation that we can hear that case right at this moment. Uh is this true? >> She is. Yes, I've uh promoted their
attorney. Um I believe their uh scan um professional. Um Veron uh Veronica, is there anyone else I should be uh promoting with your >> Yes, there should be uh Curt Stender is our signage and Paul Reachi is our
professional planner. >> Great. I'm doing that right now. >> Thank you, Joseph. >> Okay. Uh Kurt, I've promoted you. Is there a prompt uh asking you to accept the promotion? Let me see.
Okay, Kurt. There we go. I believe there you go. That should be your team. >> Okay. >> Um so we can proceed if you'd like to begin, Veronica. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair, commissioners, council, uh, Veronica from the law firm
Connell Foley. On behalf of the applicant this evening, uh, Mr. Nicholas Gualteros, uh, I just want to start by quickly saying I understand our application was called earlier. I want to sincerely apologize. Uh, I advised our team to log on later than I should have. Um, so I just want to extend my
sincerest gratitude to the board for accommodating us despite that error and our planner, Joseph, for giving me the heads up. Um, I won't delay things further than I already have, so I will keep my introductory comments very brief. Um, we do have a very straightforward application for you this evening. Um, we did provide notice for
our application. Um, the proof was filed on the Tyler portal ahead of tonight's meeting. >> Um, this is a notice case because we're requesting a C variance for some proposed signage uh for the property located at 188 Newark Avenue. So, the um
the applicant has his own tattoo studio. He's going to be operating it on the upper floors of the existing building on the property there. So, our application tonight is to request approval for two identification signs for his business. Uh the first sign is going to be located on the ground floor. It'll be above the
entrance to the upper floors and it'll read tattoo. Uh the second is going to be a fix to the building itself and it's going to display the applicant's uh business name and logo which is High-Rise Inc. This ladder sign is the one for which we are going to be requesting the variance this evening.
>> Okay. Um, the property is located right at the end of the Newark Avenue pedestrian plaza and we're within the bounds of the NC1 zone. There is an existing uh restaurant on the ground floor of the property, Saigon Cafe, that's going to remain. It's not related to our application this evening, but it
will still u be at the property. Uh, like I mentioned, I do have two witnesses for you this evening. Mr. Curt Stender of uh Stender Brothers Sign Co., he's our sign designer and fabricator. And then Mr. Paul Reachi of Reachi Planning is our professional planner. Um
so with that I will call Mr. Stender as my first witness and I will share my screen to show Mr. Stender's um rendering plans which are not a uh new exhibit. They are part of our
application file. >> Mr. Pia is are we marking anyone? Are we marking any notices or no? I would assume we should be marking this as A2 with the uh notices being A1. >> A1.
These renderings are already on the Tyler portal. They were part of our application, so I thought maybe we didn't need to um mark them as an exhibit. >> I was talking about the notices. >> Okay. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Well, the notices are are already on the portal. So, that's A1.
And this you want to make A2, Bridget? even though it's on the portal as well. >> If they're on the portal, then we don't. Right. >> Okay. They're on the portal. >> So, yeah. >> So, yeah, I breezed right past the notice marking. I apologize for that. >> Okay. >> Um, >> so notices will be a one
>> and if this is on it, is already on portal. Okay. >> So, my first witness is Mr. Curt Stender. I do see him visible. Uh, Kurt, if you could unmute and um you'll be sworn in as our witness. And if you could also tell the board a little bit
about your background in sign design and fabrication after you're sworn in. >> Yeah, no problem. >> Okay. Would you raise your right hand to be sworn? >> Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
>> Yes. >> Thank you. Keep your voice up and please state spell your full name. >> Kurt Stender. K U R T S E N D E R. Yeah, that's not going to work. Okay. >> Sorry, Kurt. You're getting some
feedback from your mic. I'm not sure. >> I'm not sure how to fix that. Doing it while I was listening to >> We I know. I can't understand what you're saying. It's too much reverberation and echoing. Is that better?
>> It's still there. >> There's a bit of a reverb still. >> I have no idea how to correct that. >> I could alternatively start with my professional planner. Um maybe that
while he's trying to correct his uh Okay, Kurt, I Kurt, I will turn to uh Mr. Reachi first. Um maybe if you're able to fiddle with your microphone settings and see. >> Right. You might you might have to lower your mic volume or your um audio output.
>> Uh that that does sound bad. Could you say again? >> Yeah. Is that is that working? >> No, >> I'm still Yeah, I'm still hearing some Okay. Should we move on to Mr. Richie so that we can >> I will start there. Um,
okay. I will keep that open though. Okay. So, uh, Mr. Richi, I I know you have appeared before this board before. >> One minute. Uh, raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do.
>> Thank you. And if you could state and spell your full name. >> Uh Paul Ricky R I CCI. >> Thank you. >> And Mr. Ricky has appeared before this board and we recognize his expertise. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Um if I may, um I I'll just jump into it. I I do have an exhibit, so maybe um maybe we can show this exhibit real quickly and then maybe we can I'll switch to to my exhibit. Let me see if I can get my exhibit up here.
Can everyone see the exhibit? >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. Since I'm kind of starting out here, we know we are at located at 188 Newark Avenue. >> Uh this this area of Newark Avenue is a pedestrianon street. Um
um so what this exhibit is is intended to show it's it shows the subject property in picture one. The pictures were taken by me and it shows um just pictures of of signs in the surrounding area just so the board can get a feel for the size of signs uh the context in
which um the proposed application uh is taking place. Uh picture number one is the picture of the subject property. You can see the the Saigon Cafe sign. Uh that sign's approximately 22 square ft. Just to the left of the subject
property, there's the Garden Green sign. That's more of a a bubble style awning. Um that sign is approximately 32 square ft. And and just so the board's aware, these aren't exact uh measurements. What I do is I I measure an article um such
as the door frame. I set the picture to scale and then I approximate the image. So, they're very close, but it's not uh exact. And then >> is there a question or >> Yeah. No. >> Okay. And then across the street, I show Norah's hair design. That sign's about
21 square feet. Taco Drive about 25.8 square feet. And then the signing starts to get larger across the street. Uh which is in your uh redevelopment area. That's the Newark downtown area. um Newark Avenue downtown redevelopment
plan area. Um the the Gypsy Grill sign here is about 42 square feet. And then the the Shenway Asian um uh restaurant sign, that's about 73 square feet. So uh significantly larger than the
permissible uh 20 square foot sign uh on the ground floor. Again, the variance that we're requesting is the applicant is seeking an 18.5 square foot sign on the upper portion of the floor um where 10 square feet is permissible.
I note that from a planning perspective, site signage is important for business identification, customer recognition, and commercial success, particularly along a pedestrianon area. Um although the property fronts on
a pedestri when I was out there in the field, I recognized that from the the Newark Avenue, Jersey Avenue intersection from which the sign uh is visible when you're at a stop location about 115 ft away. It does provide an
attractive element, you know, for a business owner for that sign to be visible uh from the act the actual autooriented area uh just nearby. Um, for this reason alone, I believe it's it's it's it's reasonable to allow allow
for a modest increase in that 10 square foot upper story uh limit. Uh, I believe that will improve identification of the site and wayfinding uh towards the site for people looking for that business. Uh, I also reviewed uh the staff
comments. Um, the applicant revised uh this signage uh to be consistent with staff comments. It remains non illuminated and is organized within the facade composition as recommended by staff so as to enhance visibility
without creating glare, excessive bulk or visual clutter. Uh it was also my finding that the proposed signage is consistent with the surrounding downtown signage context where I shown that signs range from approximately 21 to 73 square
ft. So, when you include the Saigon Cafe sign on the ground floor of approximately 22 square ft and the 18.5 ft high-rise ink sign, that's approximately 40.5 square ft, which in its totality is consistent with the
signage that you find uh in the area. I found as a planner also that it's helpful that this signage is tasteful and exudes a positive visual environment in this pedestrianoriented area. I did look at your master plan. I'll be brief.
Um, we advanced several uh objectives of the master plan. Strengthening the Newark Avenue Carter as an active commercial destination. Carter activation. Promoting wayfinding and visibility without creating clutter. And maintaining a desirable visual
environment and good civic design. That's visual quality compatibility with urban design principles. For these reasons, we advanced several purposes in this millennial law um by promoting business identification and wayfinding
in a busy downtown pedestrian setting while maintaining a desirable visual environment through modest non-illuminated facade integrated signage consistent with purpose A, H, and I of the municipal land use law. Promotion of a general welfare,
promotion of a free flow of traffic and promotion of a desirable visual environment. In terms of the negative criteria, I believe that the relief can be granted without a substantial detriment to the public good because the signs remains modest and over all scale
is not illuminated and integrated into facade with the upper story sign located within the upper floor architectural band. The increase above the 10 square foot upper story standard is justified by the property's visibility from Newark Avenue, Jersey Avenue intersection. And
again, the site signage remains generally consistent with surrounding signage patterns. Accordingly, the proposal will not result in a substantial judgment to the character of the area and does not substantially impact the intent and purpose of the
zone plan or sign regulations. In in summary, for all these reasons, the proposal satisfies the negative criteria and may be approved without substantial detriment to the public good, the neighborhood character in the purpose, intent of the zone plan, and and sign
regulations. So, that that is my limited direct testimony for this evening. >> Okay. Uh did you have a um did I see that you put up an image of the building with the sign on it? >> Um I I I did. Would you like me to bring
that back up? >> Yeah, I just want to see that before we go move on. >> My exhibit with the four pictures or the exhibit that >> the rendering >> signage professional >> sign on it. >> The sign rendering. >> Okay. The applicant, our attorney will have to bring that back up. >> Yes, I will pull that up right now.
Thank you. Okay. >> So, these are the two proposed signs for the building. >> Okay. So, Okay. All right. Do you have a We'll hold our questions until um your next um
person presents if he got the uh sound correct. >> Sure. I did also try to instruct him to call in from his cell phone while keeping his video on. So maybe he could provide testimony that way. >> I see. Um I see I see a phone number. I
think it might be you. >> Okay. Thank you, Joseph. Okay, Kurt, you could try your phone. Uh, you have to unmute. >> Uh, it's still muted. If you're on a phone, you press uh star six to unmute.
>> Can you hear it through the computer? >> The Yeah, we could hear you, but it uh the computer has like a still has that audio reverb. Is there any way the host of the meeting can unmute him by like the settings on his
>> uh No, I can only um allow him to I can only allow him to speak the like the phone for the phone number entry or the phone number attendant to speak or like disallow him to speak. There's no uh there's no controlling about mute. Um
if he wants to mute, he could press star six. Kurt >> is that working? >> Yeah, I can hear you. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. And thank you all very much for your your patience there and with our technical difficulties. Um so, Mr.
stander. Now that we have you with us, um I guess you do need to be um sworn in still now that we can hear you. >> Okay. >> Am I correct? >> Yes. >> Is Bridget?
>> I thought I swore him in, but maybe I didn't. Hold on. >> Yeah, I swore him in already. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, Mr. Stender, just for the benefit of the board, could you give a little bit of background on your experience as a sign designer and a fabricator and what qualifies you to
provide testimony on this application tonight? >> Uh, well, I've been doing signs for 20 years, and I have a lot of respect for the architecture in Jersey City. I've worked on a couple of buildings uh down
there and when I designed this, it was to fit the building more so than the, you know, to fit inside that 10 square foot uh space. It was it looks ancomically small when you make it that that size.
So, I just designed it around the building as opposed to the rules. >> Understood. So, okay. So, you have you've designed signs. They've been put up in Jersey City before. Um, so you have significant sign design and
fabrication and installation experience. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. Could you just walk the board through the two separate signs and um the materials that you're going to use for each of them? >> So, the upper sign will be a dimensional
sign made out of high density urethane, which is super lightweight. Um, it's about an inch and a half thick, I think, is what we decided to go with on this one. And it'll have half inch standoffs. They're um
threaded rod that's anchored directly to the building. And when I apply it to the building, I take the time to go into the mortar joints as opposed to going into the brick itself because that does take uh the life away from the brick by
drilling directly into it. So, I take the time for that. Uh, it's siliconed in and it's up there. Uh, it'll be there long after we are if we don't take it down. >> And how about the ground floor tattoo
sign? >> That's going to be painted directly on I believe that's a security door uh rollup door and that's just painted directly on to the uh face of that. Okay. Um, that is pretty much I believe,
Kurt, unless you have anything else that you'd like to add for the board about the signs and their design and their installation. >> Um, no, I just uh I look forward to working on it. It's a I think it's a solid design for that that building. It's a really nice building. So, I I
hope I get to do it. >> And as you may be able to see earlier at the top as well, we do have the um total square footage of each of the signs. So, the high-rise inc logo sign is going to be 18.5 square ft and then the tattoo um
entrance sign will be 4.25 square ft. Um so that testimony of Mr. Stender along with Mr. Reichi uh is our presentation this evening on this application. >> Okay. Um so that ends uh your any do you
have anyone else to testify tonight or that's it that you're >> That is all. Thank you. >> Okay. Then uh is there any are there any individuals um out there, Mr. Pendulone, that might be wanting to uh comment? Do you see anyone out there? >> Uh I do not see any raised hands, but I
will ask for one last call. If anyone wants to comment on this matter, please raise your hand. I'll call you to speak. Okay. Going once, going twice. Okay. There's there's no one. Uh >> okay. Then I will close out the p public portion of uh this meeting. Uh
commissioners, do you have any comments or questions that you would like to ask or state? >> No. >> Okay. Um can we hear from the staff? >> Certainly. Um so staff has been working
with the applicant on um on this variance and there's it's gone through multiple rounds of review and there have been various iterations of the sign. Um, we've worked hard to get the sign down to a scale that's appropriate for the building uh relative to the size of uh
in the area of the other signs on the building. Uh what we believe uh is in front of you today is the result of that and it appears to um kind of blend blend well with the rest of the signs in the building. that's appropriate in scale and design and um we do believe that uh
granting this variance for um which is to clarify as uh an increase in sign area. So the allowable sign area for um signs second, third or fourth or fifth floor is 10 square ft. This one is about
18 and um as you can see it's still appropriate in scale relative to the size of the building and other signs. So um we don't see a detriment to public health and safety or um the zoning uh
plan or ordinance. Uh so given that I would just like to clarify with the applicant whether um they have been gotten a chance to uh review the staff memo dated May 22nd, 2026. >> Yes. and whether and if they would agree
to the uh to the uh conditions listed on the staff memo. >> Yes, we are in receipt and we do agree to those conditions. Thank you. >> All right. Given that um staff recommends approval. >> Okay. Uh again, I ask the um commissioners, you have any comments or
questions? >> Okay. Um then I am asking for a motion to vote on KZ2025-000057 with conditions. Can I get a motion? >> Ma, excuse me, Madam Chair. I'd like to make a motion to approve case
2025-000057 as presented to the board this evening. >> Can I get a second? >> Second. >> Okay, let's take a vote. >> Yes. Uh, Commissioner Allen, >> yes.
>> Commissioner Patel, >> yes. >> Commissioner D'Angelo, >> yes. >> Commissioner Sadid, >> is is Commissioner Shahid on? >> Uh, yeah, he's on mute. Uh, Commissioner Shid, uh,
you're you're muted right now. Yes. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um, Vice Chair Aru, >> yes. >> And Chair Coyle, >> yes. >> Motion carries 6. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you all very much for your time this evening. I appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Okay. At this time, I know that we have three resolutions that we need to memorialize. Uh, so um, Mr. Le Paglia, do you want to take care of that?
>> Yes. Can we take down this picture? At least the picture is on my screen. >> Sure. We could uh stop the partic. Okay, here we go. >> Okay, great. So, the first uh resolution to memorialize um >> this application was heard on April 9th.
>> Stender is still on. Do we need to keep >> I can uh I can uh I can unjoin them from the panelist. >> Sorry, Vinnie. It's okay. So, the first uh uh case was Z2026-00004. The that was an appeal from a denial of
a prior approval for a demolition permit. Uh the appellant was uh Joseph Barado. The um the location was 32 Sherman Place. And there was a motion to deny that
appeal. That uh motion passed. Uh present that evening were chair Coyle, commissioners Allan, Shadid, Patel, Burns, Coello, and D'Angelo. And that passed. Uh six in favor, one opposed.
The one opposed was Commissioner Patel. So all in favor of memorializing that >> I >> I >> and the second and third uh cases were heard on May 7th. Present on May 7th with chairperson
Coyle, Vice Chair Aoyo, Commissioners Burns, Shaded, Zablicki, Caviello, and D'Angelo. First case is Z2025-000074. That was an approval of an amendment to a previously approved preliminary and
final major site plan approval with variances and conditions and an interim use. The address was 1072-1075 Westside Avenue. Uh that passed uh seven
in favor, none opposed. All in favor of memorializing that? I >> I >> And the next case and last case is Z26-000015. That was also on May 7th. The same seven commissioners as before.
This case was an appeal of an administrative officer's determination. The appellent was David Chznet. That's C Z H U T. and the address is 615 Jersey Avenue. So that was also the known as
the hive if we remember that. >> In any event, there was a motion to deny that appeal and that motion was approved. Six in favor, none opposed and one abstained and the abstension was uh vice chair Aoyo. But other than that,
the other six commissioners voted to deny this appeal. All in favor of memorializing that? I >> So, um, with that said, there's nothing else as far as resolutions. >> Okay.
>> Then, if there's nothing else, then I make a motion to adjourn the meeting. Can I get a second motion? >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I. >> Meeting adjourned. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Bye. Bye. Have a great
weekend, everybody. Bye. >> Bye. >> Bye everyone. Thank you.