Yes. All right. Good evening. Welcome to the March 5th, 2026 Sony Board of Adjustment meeting of the Jersey City of Jersey City. Please join me in salute to the flag.
I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice. Justice for all. >> Okay.
Joseph will read the sunshine announcement. >> Thank you. Um for the open meeting act notice this meeting has been distributed to the Bergen record and LS specialitoito uh as well as posted with the city clerk. I would like to enter
this into evidence as B1. >> Okay. Okay, we have a roll call. >> Yes. Um, >> vice chair um >> here. >> Commissioner D'Angelo
>> here. >> Commissioner Burns >> here. >> Commissioner Koviello, >> and acting chair Arugo >> here. Commissioner. Okay. >> May we swear in staff? I see you guys tonight, the whole truth.
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. I just have a brief announcement. Oh, I'm sorry. Do we have any correspondence and the Germans? >> Yes, sir. Um, first we have uh a correspondence from the applicant for uh
case Z20 uh Z 20226-000015 of administrative officers determination for 615 Jersey Avenue. They have requested to be carried to April 9th uh with reservation of notice. >> Okay. And secondly, lastly, uh the
applicant for case Z2026-00004, an appeal of determination of significance for 32 Sherman place. Uh they uh have requested to be carried on April 9th. >> No, April 9th, 206 board meeting with
notice required. See the chairman, please. That is all. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Just a brief announcement. Please be advised, no new cases will be
heard after 10 p.m. We will try to finish the cases being presented. However, if the applicant cannot be heard due to the lateness of the hour, then the case will be carried over to the next regular schedule meeting with pres with preservation of notice.
Okay. And with that, let's start. Uh, okay. We don't have any old business. Okay. Number nine. Okay. So, caseh, case number Z 206
0020 one-year extension 64 Harmon Street. >> Good evening. >> Good evening, commissioners. Tom Lean from the law firm of Conn Foley on behalf of the applicant. Um, this is an application that was approved by the
board back in January of 2024, I think, uh, excuse me, February of 2024. I think it was actually one of our first meetings back from COVID. Um, you'll see that this case has a Z20 number. It was a very very complicated matter that changed over the years based on uh the
changes in zoning when we went back and rem and redid the master plan. The major complication here was we had five lots that were involved and we were subdividing off of a piece of a building that had HUD control on it. There was section 8 housing in there. We took a
piece of that property to make this new development. Um dealing with HUD takes a very long time. Um, so we um we got our approval. You guys approved the subdivision. Getting that subdivision perfected took us almost a year. We came back to this board. You actually
extended that subdivision approval, but we didn't finally get it recorded until about a year later. So, this now has a developer involved with it. They're going in for one more year this going.
>> Okay. All right. Staff Hi. Yes. Um, Mr. Le, I would just like to confirm whether your the applicant agrees to comply with the conditions of the original approval. >> Yes, sir. >> Given that, staff recommends approval.
>> Okay. Thank you. May I have a motion? >> Madam, Madam Chair, Madame acting chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve case Z2025-000094 as presented to the board this evening. May I have a second? >> Read that again. C 2026 case number
nine. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I apologize. Sorry, Mike. >> Thank you. See what Benny's on the ball. >> Madam acting, Madam Chair, I'd like to wait. >> Motion.
>> Oh, case number nine. You said? >> Yeah. Number nine. >> Number nine. I'd like I'd like to make a motion to approve case Z2026-000020 as presented to the board this evening. >> Okay. Can I have a second? >> Second. >> All right. Um, acting vice chair Allen.
>> Yes. >> Commissioner D'Angelo, >> yes. >> Commissioner Chupliki, >> yes. >> Commissioner Burns, >> yes. Commissioner Koviello >> and acting chair Aruo. >> Yes. >> Motion carries 6.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. And our next case is Z 2025 00082. It's an appeal of administrative officer determination 68 Steman Place. >> We had a community meeting.
I believe they might be um they might be in the room outside. I've just sent somebody to call them in. So, they're they'll be right in. >> Okay. pressure is about to go up. >> She was she was here last time. >> Are we up? >> Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay. Um we we're just on the phone with the lawyer. He's at >> Do we have your name? >> Oh, sorry. Yeah. Deborah Laurel. >> Okay. And the address? >> Nine Stegman Place. >> Okay. Thank you. Go ahead.
>> Go ahead. >> Oh, okay. So, the lawyer is approaching. It's just going to be maybe 10, 15 minutes. I'm not sure. >> All right. I'm your lawyer. >> Yes. Who is that? >> Uh Jeffrey Canit Witz. Okay. >> Okay.
>> So, >> call the next. >> Yeah, we'll call somebody else. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. You can have a seat. >> Somebody has a radio on >> that side. Yeah. Close the door, please. Thank you.
>> All right. And our next our next case is Z 2023 00024 260 2624 Kennedy Boulevard. >> Mr. Wine, you're up.
>> Uh, good evening, Madam Chair. Um, and commissioners. I may have to kick this back as my architect is on the way and should be here in about five minutes. So if he's here and I I have the other case as well and my planner for that is also on the way. So I would say whoever gets
here first let's uh let's do that >> then take the seat and we'll go to the next >> case the next case is also mine and we're waiting on the planner and the architect. So >> Oh my goodness. Okay. >> And you remember when you were in college? >> Pardon me. >> When in college if the professor doesn't
come in five minutes we all leave. >> Vinnie, you remember when you were in college? I don't I don't All right. So, they're not here. We're leaving. >> All right. We'll give them a minute. >> I guess there's nothing for us. Well, maybe we'll do resolutions. You have
>> Yes, we have five today. >> What's that? >> We have five resolutions today. >> Okay. >> All right. I don't have them. You have them? >> Uh, I have them for you. Everybody's late. It's >> okay. I guess some resolutions being
>> Okay. All right, let's uh memorialize some resolutions while we have the time. So, the first case uh the resolution to me be memorialized is case Z204-000052. The applicant was a 364th Street LLC.
That was all the also the address of the application. This was heard on May 8th of 2025 was an application for C variances. Present on May 8th was
Chairwoman Coyle, Commissioners Aoyo, Allen, Baron, Boille, Burns, and Zlicki. That uh application was voted seven in favor, none opposed. All in favor of memorializing that? I >> I
>> the next uh resolution to be memorialized was case Z2025-000052 was 364 Fifth Street LLC. Well, again, that was uh I that was heard on Thursday, October 23rd, 2025.
It was an application for C variances. I think we had to correct a some error in the last application present on the 23rd of October 2025 with Chairwoman Coyle, commissioners Aoyo,
Baron, Zablicki, D'Angelo, and Shaded. That passed, six in favor, none opposed. All in favor of memorializing that I >> I >> I. >> The next application was heard on November 20th, 2025. It was case Z2024-00001.
The It was in the matter of SVMS Jersey City LLC. The address was 48 Central Avenue. It was an application for preliminary and final major site plan approval with C and D variances.
Present on November 20th were Chairwoman Coyle, Vice Chair Aoyo, and Commissioners Patel, Baron, Burns, Allen, and D'Angelo. That pass. Seven in favor, none opposed. All in favor of memorializing that.
>> I. >> And the next one is Z25-000085. That was heard on December 11th, 2025. It was a one-year extension of a prior approval. The applicant was Noran.
That's N O R an LLC. The address was 319 and 321 Old Bergen Road. That was a one-year extension of a prior approval. Present on December 11th was acting chairwoman Aoyo, Commissioner Shadid,
Allen, D'Angelo, Zlicki, and Burns. And that passed uh five in favor and somebody recused themselves but I don't know don't remember who. Anyway, all in favor of memorializing that >> I. >> And the last one is January 8th of this
year case Z2025-000089. The applicant was Moi Rubin 77 Vroom Street. Present on January 8th was Chairwoman Coyle, acting chair Aoyo and Commissioners
Shadid, Allen, Zlicki, Burns, and Koviello. That was an application for an extension of existing approvals that passed. Seven in favor, none opposed. All in favor of memorializing that is I >> I. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, we're back in business
>> for the moment. If anybody is here to be in >> Mr. Dwine, are you ready? >> Not yet. >> Not yet. Okay. >> I missed the We're waiting for another attorney, right? >> You're still waiting for your attorney. >> All right.
>> We're getting closer. >> Well, we'll all go down there. Thank you so much. objecting to the appeal. >> Objectors are hiring. You could just show to the >> Yeah, you did not provide that.
>> It provides that to the We'll distribute it. >> He was was interested in a real sweet home. That's crazy, >> dude. Well, just like all that time.
>> Not even that young. All that time. Okay. >> Whatever we want to do. >> Okay. Okay. >> We're good. >> Okay. >> Thank you so much. >> Not not a problem. Okay. So, why don't
you introduce yourself? >> Good evening, Madam Chairman, members of the board. My name is Jeffrey Canowitz. I'm with the law firm of a Rapaort Attorney at Law and I represent Mr. Joel Laro, >> Mhm. >> Miss Deborah Laurel, and Miss Crystal
Agriopoulos, uh, who are residents, uh, in the immediate vicinity of, uh, six Stegman place tonight. Um, there is an appeal pending to challenge the approve administrative approval as of right of zoning in order to erect the uh, the
building. Um, there are several points of argument that I wish to present to the board. >> Okay. Um these are all based on simple uncontested facts. So um you'll be aware of them. Um first and foremost, this is
a under a lot that is not conforming. The width of this lot by virtue of the uh presentation is 21.9 ft wide. It's in an R1 uh residential neighborhood zone that requires 25 feet in width.
Um, I noticed that the planners memo which reviewed this and noted the underside or the contention that it was an under non-conforming lot. And I'll
use that term a lot, non-conforming. um didn't really address um the issue other than to point to an land development ordinance section 345-60 V6 which allows new construction and additions. I will confess I couldn't
find section V6. I did find section V5 which pertains to nonconforming lots and structures. And if you'll bear with me a moment, I will parse that language and make the argument that
the determination that this is somehow not applicable is incorrect. >> Okay. >> Okay. Now, bear with me a moment. Okay. We don't have
>> nonconforming lots. Let me read the section for you if I may. It's f it's um 345 I believe 60 uh V5A title is non-conforming lots. So we're not talking about a non-conforming use.
We're not talking about a nonforming structure. I'm just simply focusing on the lot. And it reads, "Any existing lot which does not meet the minimum lot size or a structure which violates any yard requirements may have," and here's the
operative language, may have additions to the principal building and or struck and or construct an accessory building without an appeal to the board of adjustment. That's that's the language. I didn't I
didn't write it. I'm reading right out of Jersey City's ordinance. Your governing body wrote those words. So, if we just look and apply those words to what we know to be the case, we don't have
an the proposal is not an addition to a principal building. Why do I say that? Because a principal building there's no principal building on the lot. A building by your definition has to have a roof. There is nothing on that lot. We
can all agree again another fact that we can all agree there is no principal building on the lot. So that piece of this of the language doesn't apply namely no appeal and or construct an
accessory building. What's being proposed is not an accessory building. Accessory as you all know is something which is customarily incidental. You might have a shed that's customarily incidental to a house or some such thing or a carriage house some such thing. So
as a result the exemption the exemption to be able to construct as of right which is what the land approval administrative approval does not apply
and therefore you must the applicant must come to this board to seek variance relief. Now, I have to emphasize I'm not here to argue the merits of a variance. That's not what this is about. This isn't a this is this isn't deter this is
a 7A appeal of a determination of your administrative officer. I'm not here to say whether if the per if the applicant came and and and sought a variance, you would grant it or not. You'd you'd certainly listen to all the evidence. You'd listen to any contrary evidence,
comments, questions. You'd review the evidence. you deliberate and come up with a decision. I'm simply saying that when the extraordinary power vested in an administrative official is exercised to grant
a permit an approval as of right to use property and I don't deny that it there's an substantial property right that the applicant has to develop its property but when that right comes by way of a determination that's shall we
say one ex one side in other words. The applicant comes in, presents his documents, the the administrative officer looks at it, and and says yes or no. It's one-sided. There's no there's there's no ability in the greatest American tradition to cross cross-examine it, test it against
somebody else challenging it. What I'm simply saying is that has to be correct beyond doubt. And not only is that here not correct beyond doubt with regard to the language of where non-conforming lots can have
construction created. Your ordinance only has two provisions. Again, additions to a principal building or construct an accessory building. And I'll be happy to go into the policy, but I I have other arguments to make there. There many good policy reasons why that
is. And I don't believe that your ordinance has any broad overarching provision that says you got an unders you've got an undersized lot, you're good to do anything you want with it as long as you meet the criteria. That's not what's going on here. So Argo, I I
come to the conclusion simply parsing that language, I come to the conclusion that you don't have the right to obtain a administrative permit as of right.
Is is is is the landowner stuck? Is it now at a dead end? No. It simply goes back to its office, fills out the appropriate application, I would assume, if it wants to do what it wants to do, and seeks a zoning variance and and comes back and we'll have a variance. We'll have a hearing on notice and
everybody will be heard and you'll hear the sides of the argument. You'll determine whether they're entitled to variance relief for for an under for a a lot that doesn't conform because its width is too narrow. That's one. So, that's that's that's one argument. I
think that's cut and dried and clear. I'd like to think and of course if there's other position by the by the applicant the the permit holder I'd like to take the opportunity to be able to come back and rebut whatever is said I've studied this so that's one the
second point I want to make to you is that um the claim somehow that if there was to be an affordable housing component component to this
would somehow militate and in favor of and support um an additional unit um also fails and doesn't apply. First of all, there's no indication in any of the paperwork that I saw maybe early on there was a request for it, but that the permit itself
demands that one of those units be an affordable housing unit. Um, absent that, I don't know how you demand that a um an applicant do something when when it's got an approval that says it doesn't have to do it. Simple. It's has reliance interest. But my point is it
doesn't apply. And why do I say that? Because again, not my language, but your or your governing body's language in section 345-59.7F says that any minimum lot size must apply if you're if you're seeking a
variance on on um afford for affordable housing. So again, you don't have all the requirements of the lot lot with all the required requirements of splice. You don't have the the appropriate lot
width. So we've closed off, I believe, the argument about non-conforming lot based upon what I believe is a a rather shall I say non scrutinized re careful reading of
the language as reflected in in in the in the in the memo. Now, let's go on to density, and that's a big issue. Okay, we know what the definition of density is according to your again your ordinances. The
definition of density, and I'll read it out for the record, density, the permitted number of dwelling units per gross area of land to be developed. Okay, pretty simple. And >> not surprisingly,
it parallels or almost replicates in word fashion what's in the municipal land use law. And as you all know, we've got const on the state level, you got the constitution, then you have laws, then you have ordinances. The laws have to be constitutional. the ordinances, at
least because the municipal land use law enables towns to pass zoning ordinances, those ordinances must fall within the ambit and with the legal parameters of what the municipal land use law says.
You can't write a municipal ordinance that is contrary to what is required and what is called for under the municipal land use the MLUL as we know it. So the definition of the MLUL says density D4
col NJSA 40 55D-4 definition density means the permitted number of dwelling units per gross acre of land that is utilized in that is the subject of the application for development including non-ontiguous land
if authorized by mun or by a plan development. We're not dealing with non-ontiguous land. That would be if you had a piece down the block that didn't touch this one. We're not dealing of course with the plan development. So what do we have? Density means the permitted number of dwelling units per gross area of land
doesn't mean may mean and you can change the language. It means means means is I think common sense language. What the words mean mean is that this is the definition. So your ordinance is identical to the definition of
density. Okay. Now follow me if you will. The claim made is that you have a provision under your supplementary under your supplementary regulations that says
when you have a fraction in applying a zoning standard, you round up. And in this case, if you do the mathematics, if you take 2656 square feet and you divide by um
the the number of units in in there, you get that you could do 2.56. I believe the number is 2.56 units. And then if you do the math, if you I'm fortunate I have a have an eighth grader, so he got past ratios a couple years ago, but it comes up occasionally
in his in algebra. So we do a lot of ratios. So if you do the mathematics, you you'll see that that that you come out to 2.56 units per per acre and at least according to the memo, at least according to the applicant, you apply that and you round up and voila,
you come from 2.56, you go up to three. Okay, we all know that that's what however what I'm going to suggest to you and I think it's it's a cogent argument because I just read to you what's in the land use law. your ordinances can't
subvert the land the mun the state land use law and I argue and I maintain that that provision when applied to density I'm talking density because density is
defined here when you apply that I think it's section F of the supplementary regulations to density and allow for the rounding you have re created a situation where you are subverting and contravening the state law and you don't
get to do that as a matter of law. You don't get to do that. You you're not allowed to do that by applying your ordinances. So, I don't mean to say this facitiously, but we'd be really happy if the developer wanted to build 2.56 units. If he can show me how you build
pi.56 units, go ahead. Obviously, you can't build.56 units. It's not not known. What are you going to build? H half a bathtub and half half half a kitchen. So the point is that that application
of the zoning, if you'll call it the fraction application, when applied to density, subverts your ordinance and causes it to be contrary to the municipal land use law, state law, and therefore it can't
stand when applied to density because you've essentially altered the definition of density through the application of that provision. Now there's one other thing that's very important
to um understand when we apply that a lot of times we get into all the details and separate I like to go back to the beginning of the ordinance what are your purposes what's the intent how do you construe the ordinance and what your ordinances say and again I started
off by saying these are all undisputed facts nothing that I'm making up if you'll bear with me. Your section of the ordinance section land development ordinance section 345 sub one title the short form is known as
the LDO of Jersey City two the statutory purpose and it goes through all the purposes of what it's done much of it replicating or mimicking the land use law and then we come to section three
345 section Three, interpretation of provisions. So the governing body has told you how do you interpret your provisions in your in your law and I quote where the provisions of this chapter impose greater restrictions than
those imposed by any other law, ordinance or resolution, the provisions of this chapter shall control. where the provisions of any other law, ordinance or regulation impose greater restriction than this chapter, the
provisions of such other law, ordinance, regulation or resolution shall control. Now, we all know that allowing someone to do more units on a on a property by rounding up from 2.56 to three
is not a greater restriction. It's a leniency. We would all agree to that, right? We'd all say, you do the math, you get 2.56 and you bump up to three. So all of a sudden you've gone from two to three. That's a leniency. On the other hand,
where the provisions of any other law, i.e. the municipal land use law, ordinance or regulation. So they're covering law, state or federal law, ordinance, municipal ordinance, regulation. Perhaps there's a state regulation with environmental control and so on so forth or resolution impose
a greater restriction than this chapter. The provisions of such law, ordinance, regulation or resolution shall controlled. So your ordinance has told you how you should interpret this particular
situation and it says if a law in this case the land use law imposes a greater restriction than the way you would otherwise apply your law. So this is a slightly different argument from the one I made a moment ago. Slightly different because
I'm relying on section 3453. If the land use law imposes a greater restriction than how you would apply this law, your ordinance says apply the one with greater restriction. And there's a policy reason for that too.
I'm s surmising, but I've done some land use in my career. Um, and many governing bodies feel that they're regulating land, but if there's something that is something they don't cover or something
they're suggesting to do, but stepping out of bounds and the state law is more restrictive. They want to be more restrictive in terms of controlling and governing the use of land because of how important it is, not only the property owner, and this is something I see in New Jersey all the time. I haven't seen
in other places, but New Jersey municipalities are very, very concerned about neighbors property, about citizens property when ever adjudicating even an applicant's property. Everybody has
property rights. Nobody has nobody's property rights rise above somebody else's property rights. And this is what this ordinance does. So as a result, you have yet another basis on which to say can't apply it to the density here.
We're going to we're going contrary to what our ordinance tells us how to interpret the ordinance and what to apply in terms of a greater restriction. And again, it hinges on the simple premise which I think we can all agree that if you get to build more, it's not
it's not a greater restriction. It's a greater restriction if you get to build less. And that's the point. That's the point here. And I should point out that as you as a board and as your members know, density is a peculiar I shouldn't
say peculiar. Density is a devariance. Okay? Your board gets to do devariances. And so density is not just a bulk requirement of okay uh set back is 12 feet and this guy has 11.78 feet um he's looking for 2
feet about 4 in difference what are we going to do density all densities not not even a D1 where you have to show particular suitability but even D4 D5 the test is is more stringent for D4 D5 under common tree square under other
case law than it is for simple C's So here where the argument is made that the density exceeds it, you've got that that issue. There's another thing going on here and you you're going to be faced with the same thing. And zoning ordinances
matter. I didn't check every lot size up and down stegment place but I can tell you this that if a lot size when you do the calculation comes out to 2.56 or 2.57 or
2.82 or 2.61 61 or 2.51. Everybody up and down the block is going to turn us what's a single family block into three families and essentially eviscerate the zoning of this lot of this block which yet offers yet another perhaps a little more remote reason as
to policy behind what I'm arguing and why I believe it makes sense not only from a simple straight reading of the of the language of the ordinances but from a policy standpoint. And again, I have to emphasize
the developer if reversed on the administrative approval has not deadended. Be candid. I told my client this and I've told my client in many instances, if you prevail on an A on an A appeal, developer will come in with a with with
a variance application. And in fact, I'll tell you a little further. Many times, my experience been varied over the course of many years in different boards. Many times the developer will come in with an interpretation or when faced with this interpretation will turn around and and and cojoin it with with a
date with a with a variance application saying look my first instance I want you to interpret something my way let's say they didn't get it right on the uh on the administrative level but if you don't interpret it my way on the administrative level then hear me out on
a on a variance application okay fine but what we're here for tonight is not the merits of a variance. I I don't know what what those would be. I can I can speculate what they would be and what arguments the developer would make. We're simply here on did the
administrative officer make the correct decision or under the law and under the facts, did the developer heir? And we respectfully believe the developer error. Excuse me. The administrative officer made a mistake.
happens clearly on not demanding that a variance application be asked be filed for the width lot width under size lot width and for interpreting the density provision because it exceeds the density
and and and and just to summarize and they'll they'll sit down if the administrative officer's determination is right then I regret to tell you the density standard doesn't have much application in a lot
of this town. I mean towns this this is town was lot sizes were established many years ago and it'll it'll it'll go through like wildfire and if the idea is that whole blocks are going to change from what
they are to something else and no one I represent a lot of developers I do objector work I do developer work so nobody objects and understands gentrification but when something is going to create the first domino and a domino effect
our systems generally turn to the governing body with reference to the master the planning board to weigh in on changing zones if that's what's going to happen as compared to doing peace meal if you will reasoning by variance applications up of blocks. Uh and that's
my point. I really appreciate your your indulgence for my delays in the traffic. I apologize. Um, I'd like to reserve some time in case the board has any questions of me or if there are arguments made on behalf of the uh the applicant. I'd like the opportunity to to speak to them if I may.
>> Madam Chairman, thank you. >> We wait until the end. >> Okay, >> I think I covered it. Uh good evening commissioners. Uh Tom Lean from Connell Foley here on behalf of the owner of Six Stegman Place. Um, I heard the uh
I heard the case that was put on by the objector and um I would just like to rebut a couple of the items within but I think it might be better if I give just a little bit of the actual background of what is being um attacked this evening.
Um I don't believe you actually even heard what was proposed on this site. Um it is we are in the uh R1 zone, the R11 neighborhood housing zone. Uh my applicant received uh permits uh going
through the zoning office uh back in October to construct a three family home on the site. They demolished the existing building. He has permits from the zoning office. They were under the threshold for a site plan approval. They requested no variances. Therefore, it was approved through ad the
administrative process and he received building permits thereafter. Okay, just so you have a context of what is actually being proposed this evening. Um, I just want to address the number one issue that was brought up that this is a nonconforming lot. Uh, simply put,
that's not true by the text of our own ordinance 34541 R1 Neighborhood Housing District. Section E. All existing lots are considered conforming.
My client didn't create this lot. It wasn't created by subdivision. It's a conforming lot. Therefore, the nonconformity of the width is inapplicable. We protect non-conforming uh lots. We protect non-conforming uses.
We can we protect lot non-conforming we grandfather them in within our MLU well. And that's to protect conditions that have been there for a long time. So the fact of the matter is is that they're they're claiming this is a non-conforming lot and they ask you to look to another section that deals with
non-conforming lots. It's a conforming lot despite the fact that the width is less than it would be. Okay. So that's section one. Number two, we don't read the ordinance
just in bits by bits that we like. We read it as a whole. And that's the whole point of the supplemental section of our ordinance. When there are things gaps that are not covered in each zone, you look to the supplemental zone. And the important thing to think about when you're reading the uh the D variances
and when you look at the one for density, it says what is permitted and what's permitted in this zone is based off of a 42 units per acre calculation. Yes, we get to 2.56, but then you have
to jump to the supplemental code to see what that means, right? So you round up from there and you get to three units. That's what's permitted. And I'll go to some of the other points that were brought up saying that yes, if
you go along this block, people might do three family homes throughout. I've been doing uh land use here for 10 years. We changed our ordinance back in 2023. Okay? We did a master plan renewal. We looked at all the zones in
the city. The R1 zone used to be called the R1 one and two family housing zone. We changed it to the R1 neighborhood housing zone. And the permitted uses in the R1 used to be one and two family
homes. Now we don't have a standard for one and two family homes. We have an acreage requirement. Okay. We went up to 42 units an acre. We recognize there are certain lots, bigger lots in our R1 neighborhood that could
handle more density. This is greater than a 2500 square foot lot. It's 2625. Therefore, we've got cap. We've got increased density. To go on further to show that we meant that, we allowed for accessory units in the R1 unit. You
could build an additional unit in the rear of your house if you wanted. Theoretically, if you're above 2500, if you get to that three family and you build an accessory, now you got four units on your property. So, the idea that it wasn't the intention of the
governing body to look at the R1 and change the density standard there, it's just not true. The type of building that my client proposed, received approval for is permitted in this zone, it meets all the density standards, and it should
be approved. Thank you. Do we have any comments from the public? >> What about parking? >> I'm sorry. >> If you want to speak, you have to come to the podium, please. Sure.
>> Yes. >> John Ble, BL 64 Davis A, Hackinack, New Jersey. Um, how many parking spaces is this unit going to have or four units? What is it,
a three unit or four? I understand there's four floors, four meters. Sounds like a four unit to me. >> Is that true? >> Is it four units or three? >> Oh, okay. Anyway, so how many parking
spaces per unit on the property? >> We don't know that. We're just >> What do you mean you don't know it? Sure you do. >> of of this gentleman's appeal on an approval. None of that is before the board. We We don't know anything about the parking.
There's nothing there. >> Yeah, we don't have any con architectural plans. We don't We don't really know. >> I've seen the architectural plans. Zero parking spaces. >> I don't know who you're trying to pull the wool over, but I'm not stupid. >> Okay.
>> Uh, so for clarification, we're not reviewing the application itself. reviewing staff's decision to approve the zoning uh review application for six segment place go along with that?
>> No, not in this case. So, we're not reviewing the application. We're reviewing if there's any errors in terms of staff's review of the application. So, also there's no require like the the the parking requirement does not apply for >> street parking right now. It's packed.
As a matter of fact, people from the other segment parkway park on segment place. >> There is no applicable development standard that requires parking for this application >> for this for the >> people who move into this place are going to have cars. Now, what are we
going to do? >> Again, that that is not what's in front of us today. We're not reviewing that. Also, this the the the zoning uh the land development ordinance already addresses that standard. It doesn't it does not require it for this application.
>> I used to live in Montlair and I wanted to bump my house up and they say you can't go above 35 ft. What's the limit for Jersey City? >> 35. >> It is 35. >> It's the same. >> And what's the plan say?
>> It it is within that standard. issue >> as well as >> but again this that that is not up for contention today. We are looking at whether the land development ordinance and the standards within it were applied correctly to this project,
not the individual standards themselves and whether you know people would be encumbered by the lack of parking requirements. That that is that is not what is that is not what is in front of us today. Let's say it was an apartment building. Wouldn't you require a certain amount of
parking spaces? >> Again, the same the same answer. That that is not what we're discussing here today. And again, the the the standards for the R1 already address your question. >> What I remember, it's one parking space per unit.
>> I don't think so. >> That that is not standard. I didn't bring my paperwork with me, but that's what you guys put me through 20 years ago. >> Okay.
Is that it? You're Would you >> Well, yeah, but >> what >> just doesn't seem fair. >> It's a lot of things are not fair, but very Do we have any more comments from the
audience? >> Yes. >> All right. >> One one one point of order procedure. I'll turn to the chair and counsel. I asserted that the facts are not disputed and I said there's nothing on the site. I didn't give you a picture. Do you want
me to just mark as an exhibit a current photograph to to to establish that >> there's no building there's there's no building on the site that it's been demolished or or or we will we accept that I have >> accept I do anyway >> I mean just for
>> you want to mark a picture that's fine >> just just in terms I everything I I started off by saying these are undisputed facts and and I realized I said that it's demolished and it is demolished but I have a I have a photograph that I can just you Yeah, I was showing everyone. >> We've seen it.
>> Okay. If if you'll >> Yeah. >> If if no issue in accepting that as as as evidential that then I don't have to mark it. >> Uh let let me speak to what Mr. M. >> Lean >> Lean. Thank you. Um and it's nice being in front of a board and hearing
sophisticated argument even on the other side whatever whatever my professional disagreements are. So thank you. Um, let's look at the R1 neighborhood housing district 34541
that Mr. Lean spoke to. Purpose, you know, let's not cherrypick. Let's let's let's let's look at what else is in that ordinance aside from the provision that says number two all lots are considered conforming.
Uh the purpose of this district is to accommodate existing housing, encourage compatible infill, preserve the streetscape, and preserve on street parking where lot
frontage is narrow. Well, um existing housing is not there anymore. It just got knocked down, which would um run counter to the other provision I'm going to get to in a second about adding on to a principal
building. When I read to you that that provision that it applies only when you add on to a principal building or when you have an accessory building. So that at my interpretation now dovetales with the purpose in this zone which is to accommodate existing housing
by having an addition on the back by creating an accessory use. Why? Because we all know that in gentrifying times in cityscapes where lots are pre-established, sizes are established, roads are set up, not a lot of room, you have to be creative in what you do. And
your ordinance is telling you how to be creative. Don't knock down and rebuild. Okay. I mean, suburbs have those same issues also. You know, people trying to knock down and build Mc McMansions on little lots instead of working with it
and so forth. The R1 zone impacts every ward. Therefore, it's important that this zone acknowledge and celebrate the culture, physical assets of existing communities and create highquality diverse housing types in all neighborhoods. So the
purpose of this zone is that and how do we interpret and and there's a provision in the law called impar materia. It's a fancy Latin word at least I understood it to mean you try to reconcile different different sections of an ordinance. So you don't read an ordinance one way and therefore make
make another piece have no meaning. You try to reconcile them. So yes all existing lots are considered conforming. That's what the plain law says when it talks about bulk standards. Why? Because if you want, it works perfectly well
with why. If you want to put on an addition or an accessory building onto a principal building, you don't have to go to the zoning board because no one's going to say to you, "Wait a second, you need a variance. You're undersized and you're going to
add to that property. Not only might you go over, you're going to stay within lot coverage standard, but you're an undersized lot. You're you're you're too small. you're you're so the the ordinance meshed that together and said yes all existing lots are conforming
so that if I added on to the back of a building I don't have to go to the zoning board if I did something with an accessory building I don't have to do go to the zoning board because I'm not create I'm not exacerbating a non-conforming condition because
that's what your governing body said. So I I point that out to say that that argument that Mr. Lean is making um proves a wee bit too much and doesn't explain away the other section of the supplementary provision. And I also
point out that there was no rebuttal to the interplay of the MLUL definition of density and your ordinance of density and the general provision I read earlier about how you're supposed to interpret laws that are more restrictive versus
laws that are less restrictive. As I said, we'd ask you to reverse the approval. This is not the the death nail for the developer. It can come come right back in. And I'm sure if the decision is one to reverse, the developer will come in with an
application and seek appropriate uh variance relief for whatever it needs to do in order to pursue a three three-unit house and then you'll have a hearing and you'll hear you hear both sides. Um I'm happy to answer if the board has any other thoughts or questions on something like this.
>> Give us a minute. >> Sure. Sure. >> Okay. Does the board have any questions? Did you want to speak? >> Yes. >> Oh, you didn't say so before, but that's okay. I mean, if you want to say something, go ahead. >> Okay.
>> Wait, are you the public? >> Isn't that your attorney? >> I'm the neighbor across the street. >> Yeah, I But I can I can examine her. I can present her as a witness. There's no there's no >> Yeah, it's just a small >> Just swear swear in. That's fine. >> Uh Deborah Laurel,
>> any testimony you get tonight is gonna be the truth, the whole truth. >> Yes. Yes. So, >> spell your name. >> Uh, D E B O R A H L A U R E L. >> Miss Laura, let me just walk you through so that >> Where do you live?
>> Uh, on Stegman Place. >> What's your speak? >> Jersey City. >> You got to speak in the microphone. >> Oh, yes. Jersey City Stegman Place on the >> and and and just so every so everybody >> Hi. Uh, just to the board uh just to clarify, she would be considered a member of the public and not part of the
applicants party. object to this. This is not part of his case in principle. She's a member of the public. She should be limited to three minutes and should not be >> Okay, that's correct. >> You know what? It's fine. >> Go ahead. >> Okay, I can. Three minutes is fine. >> Okay. Um, as a Jersey City resident who
is very concerned about the neighborhood, when I started we started working with Jeffrey and really diving into the details, um, it became evident that just reading the text, if someone, you know, who's a layman sees the text
and say it says clearly 42 units per acre are permitted and they believe it, they understand what that means. But then when you have this supplemental, it skews everything. And I started to look
at the table that the zoning uh you know uh office published about what you can do with your uh property, residential property. And when I started calculating, when you start using this
fractional approach, you end up with oops, >> you end up with >> uh please speak into the microphone, please. >> Yeah, you end up with 51.25 units per acre. In one example on their
brochure, uh, you end up with 43.75 units per acre. I mean, it's just you can't, you know, for a layman, for a resident, it doesn't make sense. You can't easily understand what's going on
and we would like transparency in this process. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Anyone else has a comment? >> Okay. Oh, when somebody comes. >> Mhm.
>> I do. >> Yes. >> Jennifer. >> J E N I F E R. Last name L A U-Hi L A S. 20 Stegman Place, Jersey City, New Jersey 07305.
Um, hi commissioners. Um, I'm Jennifer. I've been in Jersey City almost 40 years. Um when my husband and I before we got married, we were looking for a home and um we looked out many places and and this block is a culde-sac. I don't know if you're aware, it's a
culde-sac. And uh what brought us to it was it was just like a a beautiful treelined culde-sac. Small, you know, cozy, comfy, and you know, looks like a place you want to bring up your children. So I've been there nearly 17 years now. and you know
before getting married, getting married, having my three children and and um seeing like a place like that, you know, this person saying um the owner's representative is saying it's like they're being attacked, but I feel like it's the opposite that we're our
neighborhood's getting attacked because um I feel like it's like you're breaking down the way it looks and not just the way it looks, but just the feel when you when you go into this culde-sac and um he did mention that there is two family, three family homes in the Stungman Parkway area, but that's the wider
boulevard street. We're talking about this culde-sac, this small little culde-sac. You're going to build a everyone's one family. You're going to have three families. It's three families more than what everybody has. So, it's taking up not only what people are concerned about parking, but it's just uh the whole um culde-sac, the whole the
whole the whole uh look of it, the whole vision of how it is is going to be affected. So, I understand, you know, it's about um making money and about um all the numbers you guys were talking about. I'm not familiar with just if it was a two family home might be
acceptable, but three family is very uncommon around our our blocks. A parkway, yes, there is a few, but three family on our block or even the blocks next to us, there's no no none of our culde-sacs have a three family. And I
would just like to ask for your um consideration for this appeal and to look into that because we do have young children and families that look for a home, their forever home. >> And that's it. Yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. >> Okay. >> Anyone else? No.
>> Anyone else? We're good. >> Okay. >> Close the public. >> All right. So, we're closing the public portion. Um >> staff. No, the board does the >> Does the board have any comments?
Does >> the staff or anybody saying anything else? Staff have to say something >> because maybe I don't have to ask if it's said. >> No. Okay. Okay. >> Otherwise, I'll just ask it if it's not addressed. >> Sure. Um Yeah, sure. Thank you. So, I am the staff member who reviewed the zoning
review application that was submitted for six segment place. I reviewed it in against the land development ordinance and the applicable standards of the R1 and the supplemental standards in section 345-60.
Um and then reading and and then taking in the arguments from the appellant and the uh and the owner's representation. It so essentially in looking at the review it it appears that the zoning
staff member who reviewed it followed all applicable development standards in regards to the property. So I mean taking in let's take it argument by argument the density they're saying that the um that the
rounding off for so essentially 42 42 units per acre you take that you extrapolate that in a lot that's uh 2600 about 2600 square ft in size you get about 2.56 acres. This would be very
common in lots all over the city when you extrapolate them under density standards. Very few of them would come out with an even number. So standard in the supplemental that requires staff to um that it states that when a nu
numerical calculation of zoning standards for a particular lot results in a fractional number, such number shall be rounded down to the next whole number for fractions less than five and rounded up for fraction five or above. it exists in the code, it must be applied. And in this case, the zoning
analysts who review this project applied it correctly. Um, and in regards to the non-conforming width of the lot of 21 ft, um, that they Mr. Lean was correct in pointing out
that all existing lots are conforming and it it allows for the development of that lot. um as long as that development does not exacerbate the non-conformity of that standard in which case it did not. The lot size remained
the same. All the bulk standards of the of the proposed housing uh of the proposed multif family residential uh structure were followed correctly and and staff's review that
the staff followed correct procedures in reviewing of this the review the review and approval of this application. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So
I just want to ask you a question. It it addresses it was said up there before. Um so it seems to me that the changes in the zoning in 2023 basically
make this everything conforming on the site as a result of those changes in the master plan in 2023. Correct. Yes. that would recreate. I will say I did not work for the city prior to that before that time. So I don't know what the code looked like before then, but as it is now
>> in the review of this project and it seems like obviously we're operating we're we're doing our making our decisions and everything else based upon the most recently passed master plan which was 2023. >> Correct. And yeah, we can only apply what is current.
>> Yeah. And we've and been listen obviously we've seen these kind of decisions and these things done throughout the city. I mean especially when you have an opportunity we did it I know the city has done it on corners and increased density where they had opportunities to get an extra unit in.
Obviously housing is a very critical element in Jersey City. Um the even though we have no plan, it's kind of hard to really think about without seeing something. But but obviously that's not at this point. What's the decisions being made now is
it's basically staff in your case making the decisions to follow this plan along and the construction and and whatever they submit being within the confounds of everything that's permitted under zoning, etc. as opposed to coming to the board. >> Yeah, that that is correct. And I'd al
I'd also like to add that like you know the the argument was made previously that this neighborhood is a certain aesthetic that would like to be kept but zoning regulations are applied by zone. So if you're in so if you're in the R1 zone that standard is applied to you. It doesn't matter which block you live in
how small the houses are. It it's the main determination of what you can build is the allowable density and your lot size. And that that is the consideration that was taken here. >> So there's really no variance. So, um
I'm assuming that the staff and and would strictly adhere to plans that are submitted um conforming strictly or greatly with the surrounding neighborhood and so forth. It
>> it's based on the zoning itself and the standards for that zoning. Even the aesthetics I'm I'm hoping >> well there there are design standards within the code itself and those in my review were followed as well. There is a certain level of compatibility that's expected. Um and a lot of times that
goes back and forth with develop uh of applicants and developers on how to best comply with those design standards. But again in my review it appears it appears that those standards were complied with. So, in the end,
>> I guess, like I said, I wish we had something to look at, but but it's it it it sounds like it's like at worst at worst, it's such a close >> argument like a nailbiter like 43.5 versus 42. And like we would see
something if they submitted to the board, >> it would be 43 like minuscule compared to anything else. And under the normal circumstances, as long as everything was in compliance and so forth, we would probably I'm assuming cuz we haven't seen anything,
>> that would be something that you guys were also promote if that was the case. But obviously, you're saying at this point that it is all within um it all does conform to what's necessary, >> right? And we have a standard telling us to round up like to round off
specifically. It would be to to ignore that standard would be to apply it incorrectly. >> Okay. >> So I have >> Okay. Go ahead. >> When was the initial application applied for?
>> So I can give you uh I can give the commissioners like a bit of a timeline that I put in my um uh staff memo dated u January 23rd, 2026. So timeline reads July July 10, 2025, a
demo a demo application uh case number CNST-25-3187 for the internal demolition of a for two-way dwell uh twotory dwelling was submitted. Demo permit was issued July 16, 2025. On August 27, 2025, an updated tech card was submitted stating interior
demolition and removal of top two stories of the building leaving one first story and foundation. Uh no action was taken by construction code. Then on August 16, 2025, construction permit application case number CNST-25-3711 for a proposed three uh proposed new
three dwelling uh three family dwelling was submitted. A hold is placed in August 20th, 2025 requiring zoning approval. Permanent updated October 24, 2025 after zoning approved, permit issued on October 28, 2025. Uh but on
August 2nd, uh a zoning review application was submitted. The application included a letter of intent dated uh July 31st, 2025 stating demolition of existing 2.5tory structure except seller space and proposed new construction of threetory three family
dwelling with use of affordable housing overlay. The original plan submitted showed removal of entire structure above foundation. A hold was added by historic preservation staff saying stating building demolished without permits building/building
demolition not reviewed by HBC prior to demolition ZRA was denied August 30th 2025. August 22nd, 2025, a construction code case citation was issued um case number C code 258-1967
uh stating construction had exceeded scope of working permit. Applicant had provided instructions resubmit application as new construction with a compliance due date of September 15, 2025. Then the applicant complies uh by
submitting a building permit B-25-1887 for the demolition of a two-story house. Uh part of the as part of the review, historic preservation staff completed its 45 review 45day review by November 11th, 2025. And the building division approved shortly after on November 20th,
2025. Although there was no building, the historic preservation report deemed that the previous building as not possessing historical significance significance or integrity that prevents its demolition, nor is it listed in the historic preservation master plan. And
then September 29, 2025, the zoning review application, the one being appealed today, ZRA-2025-01314, was submitted for our new three family house. Like previously like the previously mentioned ZRA, the submitted letter of intent states that the propo
project proposes the demolition of an existing 2.5 story uh structure except seller space and proposed new construction of threetory three family dwelling uh which used to affordable housing overlay. Uh despite the letter of intent statement, the application does not utilize the affordable housing
overlay, but stays within the maximum allowable density of 42 units per acre. As I explained before with the rounding up and the usage of that standard, the ZRA was ultimately approved on October 22nd, 2025. And then on October 27, 2025, the zoning
officer sent out to approve plans to the neighbors of the subject property. An appeal was then submitted on November 3rd, 2025. Okay. >> So, so they started out with keeping the first floor and then adding on to the
existing structure. >> Yeah. There the sell Yeah. The initial application was that and then um ultimately the sell like the seller was the only one that's left as you can see in the pictures that were provided. Yes. >> Okay. Okay. >> Anyone else?
>> No. Um I'm sorry. We closed the public comment is closed, sir. >> Yeah. Right now it's just the commissioners. Thank you so much. All right. I have a question. So, how many if I'm I I'd just like to know how many units were there before you said 2.5. >> It it was a two and a half story but
only one unit. >> One family and it's two and a half. Correct. >> So then we're talking about three. >> Now it's three. Yes. >> Okay. Okay. So, >> so if there's no more comments, is
anybody want to make a motion? >> Yeah. Can we have a motion? >> So, if we're going to >> No, go ahead, man. >> Two ways to look at this, right? >> If you're going to deny the appeal, you're affirming what
the zoning officer did in the ZRA. If you uh affirm the appeal, then you're reversing them. >> Correct. Got it. So it would be it would be yes for a deny and no for.
>> Yeah. So it's either a deny or affirm. >> So we're using deny or >> deny. >> Okay. >> Deny or affirm the appeal. Make it simpler for yourself. >> Okay. >> So >> all right. >> Uh you you have to make the motion. >> Make sure to make a motion. >> Uh active. Madam chair, I'd like to make
a motion. So we doing deny. Is this what you want? >> I I'd like to make a motion to deny case Z2025- Z00 82 as presented to the board this evening.
>> Second. >> Can I have a second? >> I'll second on the motion. >> Okay. >> All right. Acting Vice Chair Allen. >> Um, so I like to say, you know, as a lifelong Jersey City resident, I get
what everybody the public is saying. I I totally get it. Unfortunately, with the ordinance change and the MLUL, >> I have to vote deny. >> Thank you. Um, Commissioner D'Angelo,
>> deny. >> Commissioner Trapi, >> deny. >> Commissioner Burns, >> deny. >> Commissioner Koviello, >> deny. and acting charuho. >> Yeah, I feel the same. I I understand
what you're saying and I know sometimes when we want to keep our neighborhoods the same way. Unfortunately, people buy houses and they, you know, they invest in their property and invest their money and sometimes they want to do something
more with their property. So, I would have to say it's denied. >> All right. Appeal denied. 6. >> Next case. >> Okay. >> All right. We're going to take a five minute break. >> I feel so bad.
It is what it is. >> Yeah. >> Absolutely. And like I said, it's like people buy property. They're investing their money. They want to make the most out of it. You know what I mean? >> I got you. Someone asked to sanitize. >> I got you. Fair. I always wonder I always find we've had so many cases
where we had this case last time with this the whole neighborhood >> because they had to use this property this piece of land to plant trees and vegetables and then they wanted the guy to build.
>> And we looked at them and they said, "Oh, but this is the greenery. You should have got property." my dog. >> Put all your money together and and buy that piece of and then you would have your garden. >> He's kind of like a mix of like
>> he's like a kind of friendship. >> He's got a long thick thick coat. >> Wasn't that just to >> No. No. >> For them to move forward. >> Oh my god. >> It was more of um approving what he said. And he said
that the law said you can build. >> Yeah. So like I mean they have another chance to if like >> because they have to appeal already. >> Yeah. Don't they now the next step for for him is to come back with like the
architect. >> That's when my niece show us like the building that's going. >> I have the string feeling they already did that. >> I I don't know. I have no idea. We don't I don't get rid of that sentimental. >> That's why they were citing another the other thing. >> I don't know if they're going to come back.
>> You should see my I got I got that every >> It's hard. And you feel bad for these people because it's my neighborhood. >> Yeah. No, I feel like But >> what are you going to do? >> You can't. You can't. >> Let me tell you something. In my house
where I Tom is me Why do you grew up on Garfield? I still >> until the trees grow in. >> No, the cemetery's there. The cemetery. They're never building
the attorney. Nice to see you. >> Oh, you're here for 12. in my backyard. >> I'm on your helmet. My backyard is back. I've lived there 40 years
at my next How did he get involved with it? >> Okay, I'll find out. >> Okay, this is uh Oh, wait. >> Oh, you send him my regards. >> Oh, yeah. Can I just say thank you? You guys
know >> he had nothing to do. There were probably David from She >> because community there. >> Who were the people you met? Where did they get that? >> I don't remember. >> That's what I'm trying to tell you. You
didn't meet with the vehicle. I'm tell two family. How many >> you didn't have a community that's that man enough to live in my community
that no that's not fair I've been in that house she had two years I' been that's doing great street. >> I gota wonder why they why they said reach out to Chris and assemble. >> I'm Gary. I was your driver.
>> I was your driver. >> You were Oh, you were the tell me how to get you did a great job. I have a condo down attorney to do what >> for the owner, not for
>> an um >> call a receive >> that's too soft. >> I'll write it down. Okay. Where >> is he located? >> She
>> Woodbridge. >> Her name is Chris Stein. I think it's Christine Lee Liquire at Greenbound Row.
Okay. >> That's where I think she's still there. Okay. >> Okay. >> That's in Woodbridge. >> All right. >> I can recommend tell you >> you can tell her I you saw me and you were looking for somebody. >> Do you have a card?
>> I didn't bring >> Okay. Put your put your name >> on there. They can't talk about the board members can't talk about the case. >> Okay, fine. Thank you. Good luck. >> What a pleasure.
>> Give you emoji. >> We're going to finish the meeting. >> We're going to finish the meeting. >> Step back. Okay, can we start getting to our seats, please? We have to We have to hear the next case, Miss
What What is this? No, we're going to finish this. >> They're not doing this in my court. Okay, come on. We have a next case, Mr. going. >> Yes, we do. >> Um, >> this is an office. >> Okay.
>> Um, >> uh, >> tell can you tell Jeff Jeffrey to come on in? Let's go. >> Can we finish this? >> Are you talked to Monica lately? >> No, I haven't seen her.
>> She fell down in the snow. >> Get out. Really? >> Yeah. She cracked a couple ribs and everything about two weeks, three weeks ago. >> Where's Jeffrey? >> He's inside having a pow-wow. >> Yeah, >> I'll reset. We'll be alone.
>> What? Okay, so we're up to our next case. Okay. So, our next case is um Z2023 0024 and that's 22 2624 Kennedy Boulevard.
Mr. Wine, you're up. >> Yes. Good evening, Madame Chair. Um commissioners, for the record, Benjamin Weine of Prime Tubel and Melli on behalf of the applicant uh here this evening, Jersey City Three Deals LLC. The property in question is located at, as
you said, 2624 JFK Boulevard, which for the record is block 14906, lot 20. And we are located in the RH2 zoning district and the West Bergen East Lincoln Park Historic District. I'd like to start by doing something a little bit unorthodox or not what I've typically
done before. And I'd like to read directly from a section of your ordinance to to kind of start my opening. And specifically, that's section 345-40.1, which is your RH2 residential housing district, subsection G1, the design
standards. And I want everybody to listen to this because it's really going to frame the entirety of the presentation you're going to hear tonight. >> Okay, that sounds serious. Go ahead. >> Take the wind out of my sales. >> Building proportions shall be compatible with the predominant proportional
relationship along a street. Building entries, windows, and other openings shall be compatible in location, size, and pattern to other structures on the block to the greatest extent possible. Characteristics of surrounding development such as roof style and pitch, material, window and door
detailing, and the presence of porches shall be consistent with other structures on the block. It's a nice ordinance. Now, what I could do is show you the picture right now, having read that, and close my case. But I won't do that. What I'll do instead is ask you to think about that as we go
through our presentation. This application proceeded to the Historic Preservation Commission over a series of meetings um that concluded just about a year ago. And uh there were various iterations as a result of community meetings and ultimately um the HPC
unanimous approval by their by their entire board for a certificate of appropriateness. We're here this evening proposing a four family residence at the subject property that'll be in four stories. And as you just heard me read and as you'll hear throughout the presentation tonight, this project was
effectively developed from the outside in. Usually a developer comes to a property and says, "Here's what I need to do to make this work for my bottom line." starts with the number of units, then starts to work on on how you fit them out, what their sizes are, how you design the outside of the building to
cut costs wherever possible. This was the polar opposite. This project being in a historic district, we went from the outside in and said, what is the appropriate building to put on this property and then how are we going to fill the interior? And I think that's an important nuance here this evening.
Ultimately, we started this journey with the same four stories, actually about a foot and a half taller. So, we've dropped it by about a foot and a half throughout those meetings. And we also started at a sixunit proposal, originally actually even seven before we presented to the community and dropped it down to four. And the reasons are the
comments predominantly from the community before we even went to the historic preservation commission where they wanted us to reduce density from what they had seen as six units, which we did. We reduced that to four. They also wanted us to really really hone in on the architectural significance of
this historic district which I believe we did and I hope you'll agree as did the HPC. And finally, while we can't formally commit to this, they did ask us to uh to try and sell these as condominium units rather than make them
rentals. And as I said and we told them at the time and we said at the HBC, that's not something we could commit to then, that's not something we could commit to now because you don't know what the market will dictate. But what we can do to encourage the eventual developer and builder of this site is
create these units that are marketable and fit and finished in ways that are more conducive to condominium units and to home ownership. And you'll hear from our architects specifically. We eliminated we had a common laundry room originally in the original proposal. We changed that. So every one of these four
units has its own washerdryer um indiv independent amenities again to help encourage that. We also as I said we reduced the unit count from six to four. That wasn't just a density reduction. That actually allowed us to combine the two middle floors in which were two
units each into one unit each. again promoting larger units which are more attractive to families and people who are looking to buy into a community. So again, while that is not something that's within the purview of a zoning board, our goal with making those changes was to create a building that's
desirable both from an aesthetic perspective and also from a future resident perspective to to again promote home ownership if that's ultimately what what is chosen for this property. We do have a couple of variances that we're seeking this evening and the reason we're before this board is for the 2D
variances. One is the D5 for density where based on the lot size here, two units are permitted and we are proposing four units. Before we even get to that and ordinarily our planner would testify to that first. She's going to testify to that second because more importantly, as
I said from the beginning, building from the outside in, we have the height variance, the D6 height variance. And as I read that standard, and I won't read it in its entirety again, but just to highlight to the greatest extent possible, characteristics of surrounding development such as roof style and
pitch, material, window and door detailing, and the presence of porches shall be consistent with other structures, and building proportions shall be compatible with the predominant proportional relationship along a street. We did this. We designed it exactly the
height on purpose. This was not an attempt to create four stories for the sake of four stories. This was an attempt to align this building, but in height, in mass, in style, with the rest of the historic block front along Kennedy Boulevard. And finally, we have
a couple of C variances for the front and rear yard setback. And I want to highlight the fact that we are compliant with the coverage. We're over compliant with the sideyard setbacks. Proportionality. You heard me say it before. You'll hear many of us say it again throughout this presentation. The goal here was to figure out what is the
right footprint and given the unique shape of the lot as you can already see on the screen and as will be explained in more detail. How do we get to that to compliance with that 75%? We could build a 10-ft deep building on one side because we only have 30 ft. And to comply with the front and rear yard
setback, it would be a 10-ft deep building. But that doesn't really serve any purpose. It would be a weird shape that we'd have to come up with. So instead, we focused on how to make this fit in with the curvature and style of the block front and fit within the overall permitted footprint of 75%
coverage, which we did. So with that, I intend to call two witnesses this evening. I have uh actually our first witness is kind of a duo, which I'll get to, but I have our project architect uh who is Martin Moreno on this side over here, and I'm going to have Jeff Lewis, the licensed architect, sworn in. Martin
can testify and then we'll have Jeff confirm that his testimony meets all architectural standards. And then my second witness is Carolyn Worstell, our project planner, who will walk through the relief and the overall project's compatibility as I had just alluded to. So, Madam Chair, unless you have any questions of me, I'm happy to proceed
with my first witness. >> Thank you. >> Yes, I do. Jeffrey Lewis, L E Wis. And for the record, my license is still active and in good standing in New Jersey. >> Would you like
>> Okay. So, Jeff, I just want to ask you because Martin will be testifying. Um, will you agree at the conclusions conclusion of Martin's testimony to confirm or or deny that his testimony is accurate and meets all applicable architectural standards? >> Yes. >> All right. Thank you, Martin. Come on
up. You can take the podium. Thank you. Do I have to swear in? >> Yes. >> The truth. The whole truth. The truth. >> I do. >> Martin Moreno. Last name is M O R E N O. >> Mhm. >> And Martin, if you can please uh explain
to the board your your relationship to this project um and ultimately confirm for the record that you are you have been involved since the inception and are going to be testifying here this evening in your capacity as a project designer. >> That's correct. So, I'm the project manager of this project. I've been
overseeing this from the very beginning, which goes all the all the way back to 2022. As Mr. Wine said, we've had a series of community meetings, historic um HPC meetings to get this product to where it is now. And in that whole time span, I've been overseeing the uh the
project. >> Okay. Thank you. So, unless there's any objection from the board, I would like to submit Mr. Moreno and have him be qualified to speak in his capacity >> as a project manager. Yes. >> Thank you. So, Martin, what I'm going to ask you also to do, given that I know
you also have some renderings and I think even a short video if I recall correctly, um I think it's just easiest uh for the board if we mark things into evidence as we go. So, if you can confirm this is the site plan package and uh and unless uh Mr. Laagia has
objection, we can call it A1. >> Yes, this is the latest package that was approved by HPC. >> Okay. >> Unanimous approved, I should say. Why not? But >> thank you. So Martin, please go ahead and walk the board through the project. >> Okay. So just to um actually for starters, thank you all so much for your
time this evening. Uh to reiterate, my name is Martin Moreno. I'm the project manager um overseeing this project, speaking on behalf of Tila Port Architect PC for our project here at 2624 John F. Kennedy Boulevard. Um to start at the very beginning of the project, I'm going to go over the cover
page and re-emphasize what Mr. Weine said in his opening statement. According to the design standards of the um RH2 housing zone district, we allowed those design standards to really essentially breathe life into this project. We, as
he stated before, excuse me, as he stated before, we essentially designed from the outside in. We allowed the neighboring buildings, some of the adjacent properties to really determine the overall massing and envelope of this building. And as a result, once we concluded that massing, we then applied
that to see what units would work best for that massing that was a result of the neighboring buildings. So to start off on our cover page, we have a general rendering, an exterior rendering of our project. I will get more into detail of the the overall design, the materials,
the brick, the siding, the decisions that went behind it. As I said, um we had many iterations of this project that went back and forth with HPC until we ultimately decided and landed on this um on this overall look and design. So, as
stated before, it is a threestory building over a basement consisting of four units. Each unit was designed to serve more as a marketable unit for condos for families to essentially come and buy them for long-term stay rather
than rentals or anything of that nature. Uh the first floor unit that's on the basement is an ADA compliant unit. So that is something that we propose on this project. And then the units above are your just your standard um standard two and threebedroom units. So, moving
on. Um, on our cover page, we have a rendering. On the bottom lefthand corner, we do have a aerial view of the site as well as the site photo from the street. Um, this is a very irregular lot that I'm going to get more into detail. But something that I want to sort of
emphasize before I move on to the next page and move on to our zoning analysis is that part of our neighbors, part of their yards, part of fe part of the features of their yards, whether it's a stone wall, fence, things like that
bleed into the public right away. So move with with that information in mind, I want to move on to our next page, which is our zoning analysis. Oh, excuse me. So on the top leftand corner the existing site plan as you see here the
you don't can't see my cursor. Oh you can't see my cursor. Okay this boundary line here that you see this slanted boundary line is actually the boundary line of our property. However, the sidewalk um the however the existing fence that you saw in the site photo
which you see here, this existing fence is placed beyond our property boundary line. Um as well as a lot of the features and aspects of our neighbors. So the neighbors have stone walls and landscaping that go beyond their
property line into the right of way. So that's something that we decided to incorporate into our site plan. Um, by doing so, we were able to increase more landscaping. We were able to add more greenery, more grass to our site and overall improve the coverage conditions
of this project. Um, as Mr. Wine said before, this is a very irregular lot. As you can see, we have one side that's about 32.7 ft deep and the other one is 57. The with those parameters, which is why we
are going for a um which is why we are requesting both a front and rear yard setback. But regardless of the variance that we are requesting for the front, while we do have something that's non-compliant in a 08 setback, the sort of choke hole that we have here, we are
providing other setbacks that are larger, compliant, and more importantly more than our neighbors. So our direct adjacent adjacent neighbor measured perpendicularly to the property line has a front yard setback of 7.3.
While like I said, we do create this sort of choke point here of 08 feet, we do have other ones um of I believe 4.9 and 12.6. So we are creating other moments in this site plan that have much
larger um front yard setbacks. The rear as mentioned is also something that we are requesting um for a rear yard setback variance. We are providing we are proposing six feet here. We want to include something again that while we
are requesting variance, we did sort of as mentioned before let the neighboring buildings let the streets sort of determine the site plan. So while we are giving and taking um different in different areas for both the front yard setback and the rear yard setback, we
are adding and taking to make sure that we comply with lock coverage. So while we do have a six-foot rear yard setback, we are fully compliant from both a building coverage and a lock coverage standpoint. And in result, we are actually providing much larger sideard setbacks than is required. We are
required 3.1 uh on one side and 2 feet on the other. We are providing 3.2 and 4.7 just for some reasons that go into from a more um code requirement standpoint like ADA access. Um, but as I
said, we could essentially made a wider building, but we chose not to in order to stay in compliance with the coverage standards. Um, so I'm going to move on to our floor plans. Actually, I'm sorry. I apologize. Before
I move on to the floor plans, I just want to quickly provide um show a schematic diagram of the actual block site plan itself. showing the irregular block site plan, showing the all the um the slant of how it goes across all of
our neighbors and how we are conforming to all the adjacent uh properties and the irregularities of the site. Moving on to the floor plans, this is the first floor, which is the uh quote unquote basement. This is the ADA unit. Uh you have your traditional standard
access from the front and should an ADA um tenant acquire the space, they can access it from the ADA ramp on the side. It is a two-bedroom, one bath unit with in uh within unit washer dryer and all the mechanicals and those systems are
inside the unit themselves. As Mr. Wine said before we had originally provided a sort of common area for laundry and for some mechanical spaces but after countless discussions with both community HPC and as an attempt to make
these units more sort of marketable towards housing condos houses long-term stays like Mr. Wine said we applied a lot of we gave them some amenities such as in-unit washer dryers, in-unit mechanicals, in-unit um everything is essentially within the unit to just make
it a little bit more marketable as a long-term home. Um also on the first floor we have our bike parking which is required per zoning, our sprinkler room and some of the meters are located there as well. Um, I will get into this a little bit more once I get to the
elevations, but the refuge room is being handled underneath the porch uh through a side yard, through a side access, as you see here. So, any person handling waste or refues from their unit can either go down the secondary stairs
located towards the back of the building and go, this would be essentially your route of travel for waste disposal, or they can do it from the front. either way. But that is how we are dealing with the waste for this property. The first floor and the second floor are
both um similar copies uh in terms of the layout and the orientation. Both of them are threebedroom units and two bathrooms and again have their own in inunit washer dryer mechanical and all those other things to accommodate a more marketable condo type of unit. Uh
originally um one of the earlier designs called for two units on this floor, but as we said once we had some conversations with the community and with HPC, we decided to essentially merge those two units into one to make them much larger and more marketable as
um as type of condos, long-term homes. Again, second floor and uh second floor and the first floor are very similar. The only difference is kind of like the little bay window that we have uh that we have over here. And then going on to the fourth floor,
the unit on the top story. This is essentially located underneath the roof. Uh we achieved this layout through the use of dormers through the and accommodating the actual living habitable area underneath the high points of the roofs. So in some of the
areas where we didn't have the height necessary to create uh an appropriate living space, we proposed dormers which you saw in the rendering and which I will get to in um in the next slide. So this is just the roof plan again the
roof of the dormers right there. And moving on to the elevation. Okay, so here are the elevation. Oh, I'm sorry. No, I don't think it was a question. Go ahead. >> No, I the No, there you go. Uh, so here
are the elevations of the building. Um, as Mr. Wine said before, we are requesting a height variance. The reason for that again is to be more compatible with our neighboring properties. A lot of the features, a lot of the design accents and aesthetics that you see here were derived from multiple discussions
with both HPC and the community board. To highlight some of those, we have the pitched sloped roof here which is very noticeable in all of the neighboring buildings as well as a sort of triarch window um design which is very visible
in both of the adjacent buildings and in the third one. However, the third one doesn't really have a window up top, but it does have that same accent and feel. We are proposing uh bay windows these sort of bumpouts in the front facade to accommodate again and reflect what is
next door to us. And some other features that we are applying to this is the type of material. So we are applying we are proposing this sort of um we call it fish scale siding as you see here on the roof which is something that you can that can be found on the corner neighbor
building. We are proposing some shingle siding which is found in both of our neighbor properties and your traditional horizontal siding. Aside from that, we are proposing a masonry brick accent which is found at the base of every single building and some of the columns
and things that you see towards the bottom again were derived from conversations with HPC. To give you an example of that, the neighbor at the corner, as you can see, has a sort of like large CMU lentil and CMU blocks
here. That is something that we applied to our project again, which is something that was recommended to us by an HPC board member, which we felt worked well here. The ultimate all um around green siding is something that we landed on uh
towards the later iterations of the designs. Um but something that was recommended to us was to do bold trimming of different colors. So originally we had you know we decided to break up the green by adding some paneling uh so white some white paneling
to some of the bumpouts as you see in the neighboring buildings. However, that's not something that the HPC was really a fan of. So, they recommended maybe doing like large thick white trimmings as you see for example in the window here, the these windows here, all
of these windows, which is how we essentially landed on this green siding contrasted with this bold white trimming all around the overall design. So, moving on to the rear or moving on to the other sheets. Um again that's
very applicable throughout the entire building. You can see the dormers here um that are popping out. Again these were proposed for two reasons. For function was one which created a much more habitable living area for the top unit and as an aesthetic to match the
neighboring buildings that also have dormers. Moving on to the next page which is the materials. Um as some of you may know HPC is very strict with materials. So you can see all the dates here of all the times we changed this. There was
lots of communication, lots of conversation back and forth and everything that you see here was essentially decided upon and approved by HPC and applied to our project. Um, next page. Uh again reiterating the
notion of the design standards and allowing the compatibility of the neighboring buildings and allowing that to determine the size look of the building. We really took that into account. We really let that drive the design of this project and it's very
evident here. Uh we did streetscape we did a streetscape study showing a land showing elevations of all the neighboring properties to from a design standpoint sort of drawn and matched the best we possibly could. However, the heights are fairly accurate. Those heights were derived from a block survey
that was done by a licensed surveyor which I will show in the next slide. But just wanted to again reemphasize the streetscape study and how it fits into the overall building. Moving on to the next slide. This is the uh block survey that I was talking
about. So this is was all done by a licensed surveyor to show more accurate information. It shows the roof ridge of each building and it also shows the grading of the site. We took that information and we applied that to our streetscape study to provide and show a
much uh a much more accurate streetscape study of how this building is going to interact in this row of homes. We also have a um a photo of the site and a proposed streetscape study showing our building in context with the adjacent
buildings. And lastly, um I have a little movie for you guys. This is a first for me. I have to admit, we will mark this as A2. I saw it today. It's pretty great. >> Um >> and Martin, just before starting, can
you just explain what this exhibit is? Yes. So, an argument, I wouldn't say argument, a notion or a statement that the community made many times was how this house is acting as the first thing that you see once you enter these row of homes. So, if you're coming down JFK
going towards Fairview Avenue, you have this vacant lot there and that's essentially going to be the first thing you see in quote unquote this entrance of row houses. So, the animation is meant or it's intended to essentially
show anyone moving down towards Fairbe Avenue how that you're greeted by that house and how it also works in context to its neighboring adjacent buildings. And I'll play now. So again, you're entering this area, get
greeted with the house first, and you it really helps showcase the dormers, the design, the sloped roofs, really how it works in context with the adjacent buildings, the use of the traditional double hung windows, the brick, the covered porch, everything
really helps translate and showcase all of the uh all of the matching aesthetic designs. >> Thank you. So again this is moving towards fair view and this is essentially the angle if you
were Fair View is right there right next to the house on the right again if you were from a perspective standpoint on Fair View looking in the other direction. So it helps you really it helps you really visualize how the building is going to work in context both going towards Fair View and away
from Fair View. And with that, that pretty much concludes my presentation. >> Thank you. And Martin, the only thing I was going to ask you, again, I read it right at the beginning. I'm not going to read it again now, but very very simply put, do you feel, and I know the HPC felt this way, but do you feel that in
the RH2 zone, which is a newer zone, that we meet the intent and purpose of the design guidelines by proposing the building that we are within the context of the surrounding properties? >> I do. I um and I hope I was able to make that very clear in our presentation.
There is actually one thing, Ben, I'm glad you brought that up that I forgot to highlight that I want to just quickly get back to. something that that I said at the top of my presentation was how we took and gave to the building footprint in order to
comply with coverage. Um, as a result, one of the things that we were able to do from that was create these larger sideyard setbacks as as previously stated. Um and as a result we were able to create more space actually more space than is found in any of the other homes
between um our property and the direct adjacent property. So we have 9 ft here whereas um 5.2 and 7.7 is found uh in between the existing structures. So again this really just kind of helps
give not it's it it does it's not too crowded. It kind of helps give a little bit more of air and then space and to more circulation in between the existing buildings. >> Thank you. And Martin, my last question, this is a great slide to be on. Um given obviously you talked about the pinch
point where we are at that point8 front yard setback. Given that our lot when you look in context with the others were kind of a wider, shorter lot. As you go down the block, they become narrower and longer. Um, do you feel that adding the depth that you did by varying the two
sides of our building and creating all that landscaping in the middle helps to um, I guess reduce the overall impression that might be considered, you know, wider or more massive than the others? >> I do. I do. Okay. >> And I hope that was made clear to you as well.
>> Thank you. That's it for this witness. So, I'll just ask Jeff to please come up. I honestly don't know how you're going to respond to this, so I'm taking a risk. But Jeff, can you please confirm for the record that everything Martin testified to meets all relevant architectural standards and codes and
you have reviewed this plan and take no issue that it is compliant with all relevant codes? >> Uh, it does and yes. Yeah, you did great. >> Thank you. So, I do have one more. Oh, go ahead. >> Thank you guys. Thank you. >> I do have one more witness to present this evening. Our professional planner,
Carolyn Worstelle. >> I'm not gonna put my computer on, but I will have it just in case. >> The truth, the whole truth. >> I do. >> Carolyn Worstell, w L. >> And Caroline, your license here this
evening is in good standing. >> It is. >> Thank you. So Caroline, you have heard the foundational testimony um that has been presented and I would ask you to please speak to the uh the intent of the zone plan um the variance relief that we're seeking and ultimately the context
of the project within within the surrounding area. >> Sure, I'd be glad to have pleasure to see everyone this evening. Um so again um I like Martin have been involved with this since the inception. Um, and again, when we talk about we really designed this from the outside in, that was, I
think, one of the first conversations I remember having about this project was this is a unique site. You're in a historic district. The scale of the building and how it looks and how it sits on the site is going to be the most important aspect of this entire project. Um, and I think that through all the
work that we have done that it really is probably one of the nicest looking projects I've worked on in a really long time. Um, so again, this is sort of an unusual uh application. I don't work in the RH2 district very often. It's not a very big
district in this city and it is a newer one. Um, so just to to give you guys a little more context, RH2 is a residential housing district, typical lots. Um, I would say that this is not really a typical lot. Um, it is an, you know, unusual shape. It's got unusual
dimensions. Um but we we you know it is that's the the district and the purpose of the zone is to preserve the pattern quality and architectural individual individuality of the existing structures and to discourage subdivision and demolition.
Um obviously this site there's nothing on it. Um but what we're trying to recreate here would be a building that we would think is appropriate in the context the historical context of this block. Um this project is also in that West Berg and East Lincoln Park historic
district overlay. Um and that that historic zone district has a set of guidelines uh which focus on freestanding woodframed houses which are prevalent in the district rather than on the row house which is common in
downtown district. So, this historic district is really different than a lot of the other historic districts throughout Jersey City where you're seeing more of the row homes where side by side. This is really focusing on these distinct individualistic
um uh structures. So, I again I think what we have tried to do here is create that building that is uh appropriate in context but still individual. Uh we're here for a couple of variances this evening. Um, and again, I I think we're we're starting off, as Ben said,
with the height because that's really was one of the starting points for this project. Um, the RH2 district, like other R1 districts, it has a maximum permitted height of 35 ft and three stories. But when the goal of the zone
and the goal of the historic district is to create a building that meets the context of the block, sometimes we have to step beyond the zoning. Um, and so here when we look at a D6 height variance, the standards for granting it under the case law is that the proposed
project will promote a harmonious consistent visual environment while not offending the purposes of the height restriction, which is namely light and air. Um, so again, we're proposing here a building of four stories um and just under 45 feet. It was 44 and change. We
we did reduce that slightly um as a result of conversations with historic where the height of three stories and 35 ft is permitted. Um again that that RH2 zone has those those standards that require that we're compatible with the predominant
proportional relationship on the block, right? And we we did that analysis. The the block is taller than 35 ft, right? It is at 40 44 feet. Um, and there's another requirement that requires that the finished floor height
of the building entry on the primary front facade match the finished floor height of the building entry for the adjacent lawn. That means that we have to have a raised entry. We have to create this building where we get three stories over a basement because that's
the predominant relationship you see on this block. You're having three stories over basements. on the block, you know, there are walls there, but when you really look at those, you do realize that there are basement stories for each of these properties. Um, so
because we're trying to meet those sort of historic standards, it really requires that we provide some additional height. And so that's why we're here tonight is to create that to allow that four stories and 45 ft which again I really think it meets that uh intent and
of uh the case law which is providing that harmonious consistent visual environment and I think that it's really evidenced here very lovely uh by this uh this image and by what we were presented with this evening. Um
the other aspect of that is whether or not you know does this um uh offend the purposes of the height restriction which is light and air. Um again I I don't think that it does. We worked really hard to make sure that we were providing
appropriate setbacks. Um again we're providing that greater than required sideyard setbacks. you were getting more light and air between the buildings and you would typically find in an R district, the R1 districts or the R uh H2 district. Um again, the front and
rear were designed to really address the challenges of this shallow lot. Uh we are trying to provide an appropriate rear yard and and I get into that a little bit later. Um and then again with our front, we're trying to match that pattern of the block which is you see the building step back because
this portion of Kennedy, it's not flat. it's not meeting flat. So, we get this this step back effect along the block front edge. And so, that's what we tried to recreate with our our front yard setback. So, I think that we really are meeting that intent, which is to provide
that light and air. Um, and then again, that upper floor, that upper roof, you know, it's not your typical straight up and down, you know, 45 ft. It's pitched, right? You know, we've integrated that additional story within that pitched roof. So again, you're not getting the
same impact that you would expect and you oftentimes see from a typical 45 ft you find elsewhere in Jersey City where you've got a flat, you know, a straight up it's pitch. So again, I think we're really meeting that intent u to provide that light and air um through this
design. Um we are also requesting a density variance this this evening. Um we are requesting four units at a density of 80 units per acre. Um again under case law the standard for granting uh the D5
density variance uh with respect to the positive criteria is that the site can accommodate the associated impacts of the increased density. Um so we're in this RH2 district. Um, and
to provide a little bit of context, um, this RH2 district is one is only on this block front on Kennedy Boulevard. The rest of Kennedy Boulevard south of Journal Square is primarily zoned R3.
Uh, there's also some university districts and whatnot, but it's only for this one portion, this one block frontage that you have this RH1 zone on Kennedy Boulevard. Um, so really when we again were looking at this zone, we were looking at this lot, we were looking at
what is an appropriate development given its location on Kennedy Boulevard, what is the type of development that you're going to um see on Kennedy Boulevard. So that's why when we we again built to find the form of the building, but when
we looked at the density, we looked at what is an appropriate density given its location. Um there is um I if this like I said the majority of Kennedy Boulevard is zoned R3 in this area. Um R3 zone permits four
dwelling units regardless of lot size. So if this had been an R3 zone, this would have been a conforming density. Um we did look to see how this fit within the density of the block itself. Um this is on block uh 14906
um which has a variety of multif family uses um ranging from three dwelling units to 54 to a 54 unit building. Um density is between ranges between 12 units per acre and 153 units per acre with an average of 59. So the existing
uh density of the block, the average density of the block exceeds 42 units per acre, which is what's in the RH2 zone. Um so again, I think that this is consistent with the density that's found on the block. Um it's consistent with the density that we find along Kennedy
Boulevard. Again, our three district is a higher density district. Um there are multiple um multifamilies along the the corridor. Um 2615 Kennedy uh is a three-story 30unit condo uh with density
of 125 units per acre. Uh 2595 Kennedy Boulevard, which is the Birchwood um at Fairmont Hotel, uh is a five-story 59 unit senior housing development with approximately 147 units per acre. and 2600 Kennedy Boulevard, which is the HG,
is a 10-story 115 unit condo with a density of 147 units per acre. So, as you can see at 80, we're really kind of consistent with the level of density that you find along the Kennedy uh Boulevard corridor. Um, so again, I
think overall this this project, the site can really accommodate um the associated impacts with that increased density. Uh and again partly because we've allowed and we've been able to find um a building form a
building envelope which uh you know is trying to meet those um bulk standards. Um and then we've within that area that's where we fit in the unit. So again I really think that this is an appropriate um density. It can be accommodated and it does meet the the
standards. >> Um We also have two bulk standards um that we're variances we're requesting and that is for the minimum front yard and minimum rear yard setbacks. Um,
starting at the front yard, um, again, we are, uh, requesting, uh, a variance where we have the the smallest at the smallest point, we're at 08, so a little less than a foot front yard setback at that northern corner and increased to 12.6 feet at the southern
corner. Uh, we have that sort of staggered facade, so it it does change over over the uh, the width of the building. Um, and again, I believe that this is an appropriate uh uh setbacks because it
really is consistent with the staggered setbacks that you see along this block frontage. Um, and uh, it's mitigated the the fact that we are so close is really mitigated by the fact that when you're walking down the street, you're going to
have the feeling that it has a much uh, a much larger front yard because we're going to be landscaping that portion of the right of way that um, you know, is has been consistently along this block frontage is is used as part of the front yard for most of these buildings. So
again, when you're walking down the street, you're going to perceive that there's a much greater setback because we're that's where the the sort of landscape wall, I won't say it's the street wall, the building wall, but the landscape wall along the block frontage is actually out into the public right of way. So again, I think this is going to
be very consistent. Um, with the rear yard, we are uh a minimum of 10 ft required where we're providing 6.2. Um again I I'm looking at this this is to a certain extent this is a little bit of a hardship for us. Um this is a
really shallow lot. You know typically you're 25 by 100. Our lot ranges depth ranges from 32.8 to 57.5. So it's a really shallow lot. Um, and so again, what we did was we tried to balance our
front and our rear yards so that we were providing enough space for light and air, but also working to get a usable building footprint um that made sense on this lot and still met the the coverage. Um so I really think overall um
with these variances what we have what we get is a better uh pl a better planning alternative because we than a conforming structure uh you know if we if we were to just apply the the standards because it
allows our building facade to be stepped back and to create those more appropriate um uh the more appropriate shape of the facade um and to allow a more uh usable building footprint. So I think overall um it's just a better
design with those variances. Um I think the project advances the purposes of the municipal land use law. Um it promotes the general welfare. Um you know the use is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and with the
Kennedy Boulevard um corridor. Um, so it's consistent with purpose A, uh, as an appropriate use. Uh, it's consistent with purpose E for an appropriate population density. Um, again, it's this this is a higher density corridor on Kennedy, and I think this is an appropriate density. Um and then I think
it's a promotes a a desirable visual environment uh consisted of purpose I um again this project went through so many iterations you know and it did finally it it got that approval from the historic uh preservation commission. Um and so I think that again it really
allows and creates a really strong uh building that is going to make a really good entrance to this set of four uh properties. Um, I don't think that the uh granting the requested variances result in a substantial detriment to the public good
or general welfare. Um, this is a vacant lot and we're going to be developing with a uh multif family residential use that'll provide new residential options in the residential district including a new ADA unit. Um, it's going to provide new sidewalks, new street trees. Uh,
we're having two street trees where there are none now. New landscaping in the right of way. Again, more landscaping where there isn't none now. where there's none now. Uh consisting with the existing development on the block, the front yard landscaping, and all of this will just really improve
this block of uh Kennedy Boulevard. Um you know, it's was approved by HPC. Um it will add to the historic design of the block. Um and I don't see that this will result in a substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of zone planner zoning ordinance. Um, again,
advances the master plan's goals to continue to enhance uh residential neighborhoods, promote infill development of diverse housing types. Uh it's consistent with the purpose of the RH2 district um to uh preserve the pattern quality and architectural
individuality um of uh you know the the housing um and uh it's consistent with the historic uh dis the historic district and the Jersey City LDO uh for their design guidelines for historic um development. Um we're
not replicating the exist the building that was historically there. Um but we are divi uh designing one that um is compatible with the surrounding historic structures with building height, width, mass and proportion um
with that you know staggered front yard setbacks the build consistent building height and then the various design components uh that uh Martin discussed. So I think overall this project uh the variances can be granted that both the positive and the negative criteria have been met. Um and that's my testimony
unless anyone has questions. >> Thank you Carolyn. Just just really a couple of uh final ones to follow up and I know that was that was extremely extremely detailed. So thank you. Uh just you spoke about the uh overall site improvements, the street trees, the context, filling in that void landscaping, which I think right now is
a depressed curb and a parking lot area to be more consistent with the block front. Um you spoke about the context of the neighborhood. Um the mix of units I think we you know Martin testified that we've got uh one two-bedroom unit which is the ADA unit. We've got two threebedroom more family oriented units
and then we have a onebedroom which you know serves a different population. When you put all that together, um, do you feel that this project meets that context and provides ultimately really just a really nice product for the neighborhood? >> I do. You know, I I again, I think there
were multiple conversations with the community. There was a lot of discussion about what does this community looking for in need. There were conversations about condos and whatnot. And um, you know, I think this project tries to create a good mix. We have a variety of
unit types. Um I think they're all really well sized and I think it's a beautiful product that um should be you know a very desirable um uh product for this neighborhood. >> Thank you. And then my only other question is regarding the design
standards that you know I um that I spoke about right at the beginning and that have been alluded to throughout and this concept of designing from the outside in. Do you feel that this project as proposed meets those design standards as obviously ratified by the Historic Preservation Commission? >> Uh yeah, of course. I mean, again, it's
the proportionality. It's the the bulk. Again, I think this building, as you can even just you see in all of the the views and the renderings of it. Uh there was a lot of work that went into to address um you know what is the building style the the pediments the window
sizing um you know uh how do we create stepbacks so that it doesn't look like one big long building you know with with the step back it breaks up the massing of the building so again I think that there was a lot of work that went into to make sure that it's really proportional to the neighborhood you
know it has that raised entryway it has the the porch it has all of the elements that you're looking for uh uh to create that uh consistent uh design for the block frontage. >> Thank you. Uh Madam Chair, I have nothing further for this witness.
>> And madam chair, that would conclude my witnesses. I would respectfully request the right to respond to any comments, questions, and sum up at the conclusion. >> Do we have anybody in the audience that would like to address the the podium? No. Okay.
>> Can we have a comment by staff? >> I do too. Um earlier Mr. Wine asked me if I was going to prepare a staff report, but if you saw the four pages that um my historic preservation staff wrote on top of the thousand applications that they
review, we clearly don't pay them enough. It's incredibly detailed and I think it's very clear from the testimony that most of these variances are due to the fact that they are meeting the the historic preservationist requests and standards and it obviously mixes very
well with the with the the block. Obviously staff recommends approval. HBC recommended approval. The only thing that I would uh ask is that the eight conditions that were part of the certificate of appropriateness H230023 are carried over into this application
which is something we usually consistently do for any um uh applications that are recommended by the Historic Preservation Commission. >> Um did I agree to those conditions then? >> I'm going to assume I did and we'll agree to them again now.
>> Okay. So, um, did you have anything else to say, Mr. One? >> I I was just going to thank the board for their time, and I I don't want to belabor the point, but I but I think, you know, the screen really sells it. This is this is such a cool It really is just a cool project. That's that's really our >> We were We were going to probably say
yes in the beginning >> and I I respectfully request >> a great project. I love it >> that you grant the application. >> Okay. So, can we have a motion? labor mad act. Madam chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve KZ203-
0024 as presented to the board this evening. >> Can I have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. May I have a roll call? >> Acting vice chair Allen. >> So this this was my first time in my six years on the board where I saw a photo
and was just like yes from the beginning. like this is actually a great project. My only question is are you going to go back to 1950 and get a contractor to build this? So, so I'm a yes. >> Thank you. Uh, Commissioner D'Angelo,
>> yes. >> Commissioner Chiplicki, >> yes. >> Commissioner Burns, >> yes. >> Commissioner Koviello, >> yes. >> And acting Chair Aruo, >> definitely yes. It's a great great design. I love it. >> Motion carries. >> Very nice job.
>> Thank you everybody. Can I take five minutes to discuss with my next client? >> What? Do you have another one? >> I do. And it's I think your last application and uh you got three early on. >> You got three. >> Okay. >> Three minutes like the public gets
>> going. We're going. >> Are you going to go to restaurant? Go ahead. >> Okay. We have a last one. >> But this might be it might be No. Go. All right, we're taking a couple of
minutes, but you were funny. >> You You made me laugh. >> I couldn't look at you. I'm like, >> so here's here's my drawing. >> Here's what I think. If it's 79,
>> right? I think you have to like each spot is going to be 18 to 20 feet. That's what we say, right? So, I think you can get five, but maybe four if you're talking about. >> Okay. >> So, maybe five here, maybe four here. Then you're turning in. >> Okay.
>> I bet you what you you should do is one lane wash and one lane oiling. >> He can't do auto repair and oil and car wash. So, >> so he was saying I don't I asked him about oil, but he was saying originally
he said okay >> like I get nervous that get people who know how to deal with that. I'd be like what were you doing last night? >> Gotcha. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay.
>> No, whatever. So, >> if he wants to do that, then show me the list. >> Okay. >> But, go ahead. Fire hire somebody and keep moving. >> I think personally if he can either do one, but he's got to have like 18. >> I'm being noisy. Look at me. I'm I'm
like >> you guys are going to hear it and then >> Oh, I'm going to hear it. Okay. >> It's on I think in the glasses. >> What is it? This is the one that >> No, no, >> no. This is something totally different. >> There's no There's no way that that makes any sense to you. >> I don't know. We're having a power
>> what I just threw. >> It makes sense to me. It may not make sense to him, but it makes perfect. >> I just think you probably can't get the five turn. Yeah. >> And then you'll have one most likely maybe even three for the hand.
>> So you said eight. >> So are people most likely you're going to have to have people come in. They're going to come back around. >> He's not doing oil, but he wants to retire. >> Yeah. kind of that lady in the front kept me going
when when the uh when I was talking Oh my god. >> No, no, no. She was making I I looked at her. I'm like I had to like I couldn't I had to turn them out because I have to tell this work I was dying. >> Can we can we tell >> we can we can I
>> No. No. Can we say we don't have to tell it? >> So what happened? Yes. They have to get the money. >> No, not even that. Can I just have your email? >> Oh, yes, please. >> Not even that, >> but you have to allow them to establish the record.
>> Okay. Because S A R A U J O >> you can get approved. >> Yes. >> Please know who it is. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Yeah. They'll probably come to a meeting at some point whether with me or my mom or
>> Oh, okay. Okay. I don't know. Do you think >> you know what I'm saying? >> I used to sell them too >> with my granddaughter. Absolutely. >> She'll be like, "Can you go pick up these boxes? Can somebody else
sit in my kitchen until >> No, I love I I was just today I was just thinking I said nobody's selling Girl Scout cookies anymore. I Yeah. No, I I have my whole my grandchildren. Everybody will eat them. So maybe if I you send me the thing, I might buy a lot
more. You can put it in a box and just UPS me. >> Okay. Yeah, because I think I only see her >> maybe in another two weeks. I think you we come back to the to a meeting. Okay.
>> Okay. Let's call the meeting so >> I lost my copy of the notice. meeting. >> All right. Can we call the meeting back to order, please? >> Uh, April. >> Okay. She wasn't sure. >> Don't make me laugh, though.
>> Mr. Let me uh just say one thing. >> Sure. >> In the last Don't know if we notic put something on the record about the notices. >> Okay. >> But >> they were submitted and >> they were submitted. They were approved.
>> They speak for themselves. >> We did not. And I thought they were on the portal, but I don't see. >> Okay. >> I have a copy with me if you if you want me to hand it to you as well. >> Do you have a notice from the last meeting >> from 2624 26
>> the last application that was just approved. >> Okay. So, are we ready? >> If we don't have it, he'll he'll give >> I can I can I can verify via Did you upload it on Tyler as well? >> I believe it was. I'll defer to my parallegal on that. I know she's on top of that. I do have a copy with me though
as well. I can physically hand it to you if you >> That would be great. Yes. >> All right. I'll do it right after 2025 >> 023. >> Yes. >> The address is 12 >> Harmon Street. Just so the record is clear, you have notices for that case as
well. We've looked at them. We've reviewed them. >> We'll mark them as A1. >> And so now you have something to tell us about this application. >> Yes. So good evening again, uh, Madame Chair and Commissioners. Benjamin Wine of Primeville and Melli on behalf of the
applicant Mnt Partners LLC. Uh, we were fully prepared and ready to proceed at this evening's meeting with this application. We've done community outreach. we've met with the community association or so we thought which I'll get to in a moment um related to uh to this application and we had buyin and
and I even corresponded multiple times by email to confirm there were no further issues and I was told that you know we have no further comments. Uh as I stand here tonight, um there are three uh individuals in the uh in the public. Um one of whom I think lives immediately
next door who said, you know, I didn't know about any of these community meetings and despite our outreach, obviously we reach out to city planning. City planning tells us who to reach out to as a contact. We did that and this obviously fell through the cracks. Um, I prefer to come to a meeting having done, like you saw with the last application,
a significant amount of outreach. And I can't promise that what we come back with is going to be different than what's proposed here tonight. I also can't promise that we're going to necessarily agree to whatever is discussed at those meetings. But what I can promise is we're going to make our effort and attempt to meet with the
three individuals at least um who did not have that opportunity. And uh and to do that, I would respectfully request that the application be adjourned and carried to the next regular meeting with preservation of notice. >> That's correct. April 9th. >> I mean, I think it gives me adequate
time. They all have my business card now. So, I anticipate by the time I get home tonight, I'll probably have an email in my inbox and we we will try to set something up. Um we will uh you know I will make sure that it'll somebody from every aspect of our project team will be available on April 9th if for
whatever reason we feel it's appropriate to adjurnn further we'll obviously advise the board accordingly. >> Okay. Great. Okay. >> So with that said we'll res >> I would just like to uh make a statement. >> You have to swear yourself. >> This is my sister. This is my neighbor.
>> Okay. The way we found out about this meeting at night, the lawyer sent them certified letters just last week, Thursday. My sister, I live in her house for 40 years. My neighbor live across the street from me. My neighbor next door, he's sick. His wife sent me in her place to
Roosevelt. Mr. Roosevelt, they knew nothing. >> Okay. >> Homeowners, our backs are to this property. Didn't know nothing till we got certified letters. >> Yeah. and and who they met met with none
of my neighbors know. On the other side of me, I got a 80ome year old lady lives upstairs, 85 years old Miss Reed. This is her back to her kitchen. They they don't know nothing about this meeting. >> Okay. >> And so we appreciate
>> that's all we were so upset about being in in these houses 50 years or better. >> Yeah. and then get a letter one week before a meeting if this mail wasn't certified here. My sister and us wouldn't know nothing about it.
>> Okay, >> that's all we saying. And I'm registered with redevelopment city. I'm a develop myself. >> I did the web building. I did the uh >> Trey Martin building, other stuff in the community. I work with developers. >> Okay.
>> And uh the way this went Thank you. quite a community leader. We know, Mr. Wine, you're going to make sure that these ladies are informed of everything. >> Absolutely. >> And and also the neighborhood. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Yes. Absolutely. >> We appreciate that. Okay.
>> Take care everybody. >> So, with that, um that's it. Okay. Motion to adjurnn. >> We're good. >> Motion to adjourn. Can I have a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion adjourn. >> That's what you call luck. The party's
over.