There's no doors don't have pulinary. Well, guess what? My guy and he's gone. >> No, there's a hard drive in there. I think uh >> I might just speak up sometimes. >> Who you call
social media. They both Oh my god. Good evening everyone and welcome to the April 9th, 2026 meeting of the Jersey City Zoning Board of Adjustment. This meeting is held in accordance with NJSA 10 col4-12,
the Open Public Meetings Act. I would like to call this meeting to order. Um, our stenographer, our recorder called in with an emergency, so this meeting will be recorded tonight. will be taped. Okay, Mr. Pangel Nan, are there any
sunshine announcements to share? >> Yes, Chair Coyle. Um, in accordance with the open public meetings act, notice of this meeting has been posted with the city clerk. That is all. >> Okay. Uh, can you please take roll call? >> Certainly.
Acting vice chair Allen >> here. Commissioner D'Angelo. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Shadib. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Allen. >> Oh, sorry. Commissioner Burns here. Comm >> Commissioner Patel. >> Yes.
>> And Chair Coyle, >> present. >> We have six present. We have a quorum. >> Great. Thank you. Uh, can everyone please stand for the flag salute? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. We need to uh swear in any staff members that are here. >> Yes. Do you want to leave that? >> Yeah.
>> Do you solemnly swear Well, it's to tell the truth, but anyway, do you solemnly swear to your What? You have test when you testify. You tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> Thank you.
>> You're going to have to everybody else. >> Uh is there any correspondence that you need to share with us? >> Uh I just wanted to reiterate um since the posting of the uh first version of the agenda, there have been two items that have requested to be carried to May 7th. uh specifically
um Z2026-000015 an appeal of administrative officers determination for 615 Jersey Avenue. They've requested to be carried to the May 7th zoning board meeting with preservation of notice. And the second
uh is Z20250023 uh a preliminary and final major site plan with CND variances for 12 Harmon Street. Uh they've also requested to be carried to the May 7th zoning board meeting with preservation of notice and that is all >> and the adjournments. >> Yeah, those are it. Um
>> those are the adjournments. Okay. What about case Z2025-0094? >> Oh, sorry. That that that has long been uh assigned to that date and that wasn't from any new correspondences. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay.
All right. At this time we are going to start with our first case which is um case Z2 026-000021. Um before we begin I would just like to let everyone know that um there will be
no cases starting after 10:00. If something starts ends at 9:45 we'll certainly will not start a next case because it would just take us too long to the night. and anyone from the public that will be coming up to the podium to make comments. You'll be limited to three minutes and I'm I'm asking um my
person Mr. Ahmed Shahid to be the timekeeper. Okay. So, at this time, let's case Z2026-0021, a one-year extension. Um okay, Mr. Higgins? No.
>> Okay. He has to be sworn. >> Uh yeah, please make sure to turn. >> Is it better now? >> Yes. All right, there we go. Uh Thomas Hardig on behalf of the applicant 297th Association LLC. Uh today we'll be seeking a one-year extension of the approvals uh granted on April 22nd,
2021. Uh this board previously approved uh two extensions uh one on July 13, 2023 and one on August 8th, 2024. Uh the approvals have expired as of May 27th, 2025, and we're seeking a one-year extension to bring them uh up until May
27th, 2026. >> Okay. Um is there a reason why they all expired or was they just let them expire? >> So, uh it is my knowledge that the applicant has just recently uh shred up all their permits and they're ready to submit them now. So, they just want to
have the approvals uh all said and done and now they can actually submit the permits. Okay. Uh, is there anyone in in from the public who is going to comment on this? Okay. No one. Um, do our board do you do our commissioners have any
comments? Okay. If not, Mr. Manion, can you please take roll call? >> Uh, uh, before I take >> I'm sorry, I have to say staff comments. >> Uh, I would just like to confirm with the applicant that they are uh, willing to abide by the conditions of the original approval.
>> Yes. Then with that said, staff recommends approval. >> Okay. So at this time, I'm asking for a motion to vote on Z2026-22 0021. >> Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve case Z20026-0021
as presented to the board this evening. >> Can I get a second? >> Second. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um, acting vice chair Allen. >> Yes. >> Commissioner D'Angelo. Yes. >> Commissioner Shadid. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Burns. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Patel. >> Yes. >> And Sher Coyle.
>> Yes. >> Motion passes 6. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Our next case that we're going to hear is Z2025-000055 um which is 366 Fth Street. >> Uh good evening Stephen Joseph for the applicant. Uh this is a notice case. If
we could enter the notices as exhibit A1. >> Yes. >> Great. Thank you so much. Um all right. 366 Fth Street. Um uh this is located one lot in from the corner of Brunswick Brunswick Street and Fifth Street uh on
Fifth Street in the RC3 zone. Um the property is an existing three-story single family home on an undersized lot. Um for context, the conforming lot in this zone is 18 by 100. We only have 12 1.5x 50 here. Very undersized lot. The
applicant's proposing a rear and fourth floor addition. This will result in a renovated and expanded single family home. It's just going to be a one family home. And in order to accomplish this, the applicant is requesting a C variance for a rear yard setback where 15 ft are required and 8.6 7 ft are proposed.
Again, for context, the uh adjacent property uh adjacent two properties actually, if you're looking at it to the right, have been approved with structures with a a zero zero foot rear yard setback. Um there's also several non-conforming conditions. Uh we have uh Jeff Lewis here, our architect. Um we
have a planner that's stuck in traffic, which should be here in about 10 minutes. Um not I'm not sure we even need planning testimony this evening, but we're going to get started with Jeff and we'll see if the board has any questions. >> Okay. Mr. Lewis. Yes. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give before this board is the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> So, Mr. Lewis, you're an architect. Your license is current. >> Yes, it is. >> And we've accepted you as an expert. >> Mr. >> I just want to remind Yeah. I just want to remind the board uh that we should
try to all be very vigilant about our mics tonight. >> Yeah. Please pick the mic so it can be heard by the uh recorder. >> Right. >> Thank you. Good. Okay. >> Um, and Jeeoff, I'm sorry, Ju just uh before we move forward, um, you did not prepare these plans, but you were
retained by the firm that prepared these plans, and you've reviewed the plans prior to this evening, and you're testifying, um, on these plans. >> Correct. I've reviewed the plans with the whole team, plus I met with the architect as well. >> Okay. So, 366 Fifth Street, uh, Stephen
covered a lot of the basics. It is a 625 ft lot, which is extremely small. Uh on our cover sheet, we do have some photos of the front and the rear if you wanted to get an idea for what it looks like. Uh these four are of the front and then these two, one of them being the larger
one, is the rear. Um behind us is the Brunswick Garden and then directly behind that is the Sixth Street embankment. So there are no homes behind this property. Um we are um an existing as was mentioned
two-story uh single family house. Um and we are proposing an additional renovation to turn it into a threetory. Again staying a one family house. We do have a rendering showing basically the front of the building. >> Uh sorry it's a a fourstory or >> I'm sorry four story. The basement is
considered a story. I apologize. >> Um and then of the rear as well. I'm going to jump right into the site plan, which actually there's only one minor change to the site plan itself. Uh there's currently an existing fence. I'm showing a photo of the fence here. It's
kind of a wood slat fence. That fence is built on the gardens property behind us. So, we're going to dismantle that fence and move it back a few feet to be on our property. That's really the only change we're making to the site plan itself. Uh there's an existing street tree which will remain. Uh in the backyard, we have
a trench drain which leads to a dry well. So, uh, we're taking care of all of our storm water in the backyard, uh, on our property. Uh, with that, I'm going to jump right into the floor plans. Uh, the smaller plans at the top are showing the demolition plans. The plans on the
bottom are the new plans. Uh, so starting with the basement level, uh, there are actually no changes on this level. So, starting at the back of the building, we have this uh, existing small one-story structure, which is used as a closet. We have what we're going to be using as a mud room, which has a door
out to the backyard. Then we have the stair hallway, uh, which gives us access to our mechanical closet, a bathroom, and then a front room, uh, which would be a living room or a bedroom, however you wanted to use it. Uh, this space does have a door out to the front as
well. Uh, moving up to the first floor, again, this is a mostly unchanged space. It's an entirely open living, dining, kitchen area. Uh the only thing we are doing is we are removing what was a door in the back and replacing it with a wall of windows. And then that also allows us
to enlarge the kitchen a bit so we could have a U-shaped kitchen as opposed to the L-shaped kitchen that we previously had. Um moving up to the second floor. This floor we are gutting and we're expanding that. Uh we're bringing it forward in
the front and a little back in the back of the building just to match the floor below. So, we're basically filling in the same footprint we have below. Um, on this floor, we have an open living space in the front that's open to the uh to the staircase. We have a half
bath, we have a laundry closet, and then we have again what we're calling a den, but can also be considered a bedroom. Um, and then lastly, moving up to the third floor, this is an entire entirely new floor. Um, the front again aligns with everything else at the front of the
building. At the back, we are proposing a two-ft uh cantal lever out of the back. And this floor is being used for two bedrooms, one in the front, one in the back, and one uh large bathroom in between. Uh we have a flat roof on the building. It's used just for our air
conditioning unit, and it's it's uh um accessed via a roof hatch, so it's not going to be used for people or for recreation. Here we are with our building elevations. Again, uh the existing at the top and the proposed at the bottom.
I want to start here on the left with our front elevation. Uh everything below the second floor here, we're going to keep uh the existing uh finishes to remain. So that includes the brick, that includes the windows as well as the doors. Uh any of these will be painted and repaired as needed, of course. Uh
the second floor, we have a brick finish. We're going to uh reuse brick from other places in the building. If we run out of that, we're going to match the brick as best we can. Uh above that, we have a shadow shadow gray colored fiber cement crown moldings. Those are at uh the third floor line as well as
the roof line. And then in between on the third floor, we're using black vertical fiber cement siding. And you can see those finishes over here on the right side. Um, and then lastly, we are doing new black frame windows, which you can see up top
here. Uh, sliding around to the right side. Uh, this is on the property line. So, we're not proposing any windows. What we have is at the base of the building, a dark gray, uh, smooth stucco finish that would be on the staircase. That would be on the base of the building. Also on that little one-story
closet section. Then everything above that is going to be finished with a pearl grey colored fiber cement siding. And again, that same uh shadow gray fiber cement crown molding is going to extend all the way along the uh the roof line. Uh wrapping around to the back of the
building, again, we are wrapping again all those finishes around. So, we have the same smooth stuckle finish at the base and the same pearl gray fiber cement siding above. And then looking at the left side of the building, uh the building from the corner is actually built right on the property line and
we're showing the outline of it here. However, our building is slightly taller than them and a little bit longer. So, where we do peek out, we're going to be using those same finishes as proposed everywhere else. So, that same smooth stuckle finish and fiber cement siding as we're proposing uh everywhere else.
Uh the last thing I would mention is we do have two existing chimneys. They would be extended up to the roof line as required by code. Um but besides that, is there anything else you'd like me to address, Stephen? >> No, I think that that covers it. I think. Uh, >> okay. I could answer any questions. I
could zoom into anything. I know they're very small drawings. If there's anything you want to see more closely, >> just original. Good evening. First of all, >> what? Hi. >> Just the original um house. >> You want to see the floor plans or the elevations? >> Existing house. A picture of the existing. >> You want to see the pictures? >> Yes. >> Sure.
And I think uh Oh, wait. Our planner is not going to be >> Commissioner. Could you please speak into the mic? >> Sorry. So here you can see the front from an angle. Um, currently there's a little front terrace which we'd be filling in and keeping this line going straight up.
>> Yes. No, that's what I wanted to see. Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> And then this is what the rear looks like now, which I think will be improving greatly. >> Okay. >> I would like uh you guys just to clarify for the commissioners uh on this side view of this the house and this image.
Oh, you can zoom back in. >> Oh, sorry. >> On that right hand side, you're going to be removing the conduit, removing what looks like a vent and that lot line window. Correct. >> That is correct. Yes. >> Yeah. There there's several non-conforming conditions at the property. Uh, one was the fence that's
across the property line, which Jeff testified to. Others include the the window lot line window and uh conduitent and vent on the side of the building. So, those are all non-conforming conditions that are going to be removed. We normally keep questions to the end,
but your your planner is not here or anybody's not here. Okay. >> Not here. I'm not sure we need uh planning testimony or anything. I think you've heard a lot from Jeff about what's happening. >> I do have a question then. Um so what is the proposed height of this building and how does that fit into the neighborhood?
>> Uh sure. Um, I could zoom in a little bit on So, we can see here the existing height was 31 ft. We're extending that to a little less than 36 ft. >> Mhm. >> Um, so we're still well below the 42 ft
that is allowed. Um, as I showed in the side elevation, the building that's existing to the left of us is only a few feet shorter than us. Um, and the two buildings to the right are three-story buildings now. No, I think they are being proposed to be >> demolished. So, the 364 and 364 and a half, which if you're looking at our
property, the two properties to the right, um, this board actually approved, uh, two new projects, one on each lot, which are going to be four stories. There's a parking lot and an existing building. The building will be demolished and um, two new four-story buildings will will be there. So, it'll
be comparable with with that chain of buildings. >> Okay. Okay. So, does that complete your testimony then? Right now, it does. Okay. Um, is there anyone from the public here that wanted to comment on this project? Okay. Seeing no one is here, um, um,
commissioners, do we have any comments or questions on this project? Okay. Um, staff comments. >> Uh, yes. Thank you. Um, chair. Um, I staff prepared a memo dated uh, April
7th, 2025. Um we detailed as well the uh small size of this lot it being 12 1/2 ft by 50 ft deep. Uh this is a existing lot um and all lots in the zone are considered conforming. This despite that
the this very shallow lot um has resulted in them requesting a rear yard setback variance. the the standard for that is uh 30% of the lot depth which means that that would translate into a 15 foot
requirement being required. They are proposing 8.7 ft or or 9 ft um as far as a rear yard setback. Uh this is comparable to um what we would allow in
the R1 on a lot of this depth um under the the townhouse lot subdivision provision. Um staff has included conditions in the staff memo. Should the board make a
motion to approve, um we would ask that those conditions um be agreed to by the the applicant. >> The conditions are acceptable. Matt, there's also a uh forestry letter that was uploaded to the portal, I think yesterday or the day before. The comment there was to uh make the tree pit as
conforming as possible um in in front of the house. There's an existing tree. The tree pit's non-conforming. We we agree to to do that as as much as feasible while maintaining ADA access. >> And thank you for that. Council staff recommends approval. >> Okay. Uh any other comments based on
what the staff had to say from our commissioners? Okay. Um so now I am asking um for a for a motion to vote with conditions on case Z2025-000055. >> Madam Chair, excuse me. Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve case
Z2025-00005 as presented to the board this evening. >> Okay. Can I get a second? >> Okay. >> All right. >> Acting Vice Chair Allen. >> Yes. Commissioner D'Angelo, >> yes. >> Commissioner Shadid,
>> yes. >> Commissioner Burns, >> yes. >> Commissioner Patel, >> yes. >> And Chair Coyle, >> yes. >> Motion carry 6. >> Thank you all. Have a good evening. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. And our next case is Z2026.
-0000432 Sherman Place. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. >> Would it be acceptable if I set up some papers on this desk? >> Sure. Good evening. Jennifer Bard of the firm Wells Dorski and Leeman on behalf of the applicant 32 uh Joseph Bardo who is the
owner of property located >> excuse me I'm sorry Mr. You could should be able to like go wiggle the HDMI cord into the computer. That should hopefully fix it. That there we go on my screen. But I still
don't see it on yours. Am I not wiggling right? Here you go. >> Miss Barado, before you start, you do have notices for this case, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And they're on the portal,
>> correct? >> All right. Uh, that's number one. Number two, uh you and I had a conversation about this case earlier in the day. >> And we both noted that there is a challenge to the ordinance, the legality
of it, whether it complies or comports with the case with your name on it uh that went to the appellet division however long ago. And as I told you, uh the ordinance is being challenged in a different case. Uh I gave you the
citation for that. So you can probably join in that if you like, but for the moment we're we're going to >> just in case it's on my hand. >> We as a board are not going to be able to rule on the legality of that ordinance because we have to accept the
ordinance as it is. >> Absolutely understood and I would not ask that of this board. >> Okay. And then in the interim uh as you know with there is no stenographer here. >> So we're going to speak make sure we don't speak over each other.
And uh I'll swear him. That's Mr. Primava. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> All right. >> Oh, there we go. >> Yes. >> There we go. >> So, Mr. Primava. >> Yes, sir. >> You raise your right hand. You swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give this court to be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, help you God. >> I do. >> And so, the record is clear. Uh you also testified in the last case. We recognized you as an expert in historic preservation. So I'm assuming your license >> the last case meaning the historic
preservation commission application. >> I'm sorry. Even the case before that when didn't you test? Oh you didn't test. >> No, that was a previous consultant. >> Oh, okay. >> That was Robert Wise. >> All right. But uh your license is still current. >> We don't have licenses in historic
preservation, but we meet certain requirements. And the National Park Service spells out the criteria for architectural historians, historians, architectural archaeologists, and historic preservation planners. I happen to meet all four. >> Great. Thank you. You can proceed. >> Okay. Going to start from the very
beginning again. >> Yes. >> Good evening everyone. Jennifer Bard of the firm Wells Jorski and Leeman on behalf of the applicant, Joseph Bardo. The applicant is the owner of property located at 32 Sherman Place, which is also known as block 3702, lot 44. Is
your mic on? >> Louder. >> Yes. >> Please pick them to the mic. Yes. Thank you. >> Sure. Thanks. Uh the property is located within the RH1 uh residential housing district and it presently maintains maintains a 2 and a half story 4unit
multif family dwelling. The property was originally constructed in the late 1890s and as we are going to hear from the testimony this evening, the property has been so significantly altered throughout the century that there are no remaining
historic qualities left on this building which would warrant the preservation of same. So the applicant as a reason why we are here, the applicant had submitted a request to demolish the building on May 22nd, 2025. The historic
preservation officer had detailed a determination of significance on August 29th, 2025, recommending denial of that permit and suggesting that the property maintains historic significance. The applicant appeared before the Historic
Preservation Commission on December 15 and on that date, the Historic Preservation Commission similarly found that the property maintained enough significance to warrant its preservation. Um, subsequently
thereafter, the HPC had um adopted a resolution of denial and the zoning officer subsequently thereafter denied the applicant's permit request. The applicant is here this evening pursuant to the city's ordinances challenging
both the determination of the HPO and the HPC, but also that of the zoning officer. The zoning officer determination to deny this building is a legal consideration and this board not only has the power and authority to
determine appeals of zoning officers but also you have the duty to ensure that the legality is followed with respect to this. the the zoning officer aired in her decision by finding that this prop
by denying the permit because this property is not located within a historic district and it is not a local landmark. For that reason alone, there is absolutely no authority within the municipal land use law that
would allow the zoning officer to deny this permit application. That is separate and distinct from the ordinance. that are separate and distinct from the validity of the ordinance. So this evening we're proving on both fronts that the zoning officer's
determination was improper as well as the HPC's. This evening I do have with me again Mr. Peter Primava who is a historic preservationist. I will be happy to go through his credentials for the board and we will be presenting a
report which was submitted to this board and further confirms that this property does not maintain any historic qualities which would warrant the preservation of the building. So unless the board has any questions of me at this time, I'd like to uh begin my questioning for Mr.
Prima Vera. >> We'll hold our questions till the end. >> Thank you. Would I be able to take >> think so? Yes. >> Mr. Primava, could you please provide the board with the benefit of your background, education, and experience?
>> Uh, Peter Primava, principal of Peter Prima Partners. Uh, we're a historic preservation, cultural resource management firm. Our staff are made of as we talked about in the in the uh qualifications architectural historians, architectural
conservators, historians, archaeologists, anthropologists uh who are all involved in some aspect of the historic preservation work we do. Uh I personally have been involved in the field professionally for 47 years,
which means I started when I was three years old, I think. Um, sorry it's a terrible joke. And um we've done I've personally directed almost over I o have directed over 4,000
historic preservation studies uh for every kind of public agency, every kind of private sector agency uh from individual homeowners to Fortune 500 companies and had represented clients in
both the priv private and public sector. And you that's throughout the state of New Jersey. Is that correct? >> All over the United States and actually abroad. >> Okay. And not only do you have I guess national uh experience here, but you have some particular experience with
respect to Jersey City. Is that correct? >> Yes. Uh >> tell us a little bit about >> Yeah, I have a long history with Jersey City. Uh when I was a graduate student, uh I was involved in the Army Corps of Engineers. If anybody remembers the Jersey Reach drift removal project where
we had all the abandoned peers and all the abandoned docks on the Hudson waterfront on both sides of the river and the Army Corps of Engineers had the obligation for identifying all those deteriorating peers whether they were historically significant or not. So back
in 1977, I was on the team that evaluated all the peers, the docks, even some shipwrecks, which we uncovered, whether they were historically significant or not, because the goal was to remove all the drift that was accumulating in the Hudson Bay
uh for safe navigation. So I go back that far. Uh I've worked for the city on four projects. Uh I worked on the reservoir project for the city engineer. Uh I worked on the Applegate project many many years ago when it was first
introduced. Uh that was for the city engineer also uh advising them on some of the historic preservation regulations that would apply to preserving the Applegate house and to some of the potential funding opportunities that would be created as it got listed on the state national register of historic
places. Those are a couple examples of projects and uh I'm proud to say we've done many many projects in the city uh in many parts of the historic district and projects like this in historic districts and as of this week we are the
consultant to Conrail for the embankment project and Conrail as you know has a number of conditions that they were required to meet under their federal approvals to hand over the embankment. which include historic signage and all
sorts of things that are supposed to be done by Conrail as part of their handover in the embankment. And our firm was hired this week by Conrail to execute all those mitigation measures for the uh project and work with the city and the embankment groups and all the other groups in the city to help get that done.
>> Thank you. And >> so yeah, we know Jersey City. >> Okay. And in addition to kind of uh local authorities, you've also had the opportunity to work with the various national agencies as well as the state agencies um with respect to historic preservation.
>> Is that correct? Yes, we uh we work well we we've actually worked for a lot of the uh government agencies, state and federal, but we also work presenting projects to them for usually regulatory review under state law like the state
historic preservation act under that's overseen by the historic preservation office or we're doing a project right now in Union K city which is a historic tax credit project where we're putting a building on the national register. We're going to get the historic tax credits that come along with rebuilding a historic building and that's going to be
reviewed by National Park Service. So, not only have we worked for most of those federal agencies, but we do projects that are approved by some all of them. >> Okay. I would like to offer Mr. Primava as an expert in the field of historic preservation. >> Yes. Yes, we've recognized him before and
>> Perfect. Thank you. Mr. Prima Vera, um you're familiar with 32 Sherman plays, correct? >> I am. And were you engaged to analyze um the historic significance of the property or lack thereof? >> Yes. Uh after it had previously been
done by Robert Wise who is a pre preservation consultant uh from a different firm uh that had worked for the applicant and who also came to the same conclusions that we did. >> And you've had the opportunity to review Mr. Weise's report. >> Absolutely. >> From 2019.
>> Absolutely. And you agree with the position that has been set forth in that report as well? >> Yes. >> And it has been appended to your own expert report. >> It is an appendex in my report. >> Okay. And you've also prepared a report for um this particular site and project
which has been submitted as part of this application, but I would like to mark it as exhibit A1. >> And I do have additional copies in case anyone needs them. But um they were submitted with the application. Okay. Um, and Mr. Prima, you've had the
opportunity to visit the site. >> Yes. >> And you are very familiar with Sherman Place and the surrounding area over there. >> We had uh, previous to this project done a couple of of other consulting projects for other properties on Sherman Place
within the last couple years. Uh, we're invited to do another. I didn't have the opportunity to do that. We couldn't fit it into our schedule. That was just this year. And then uh so we were familiar with the Sherman Place area. Uh we were familiar with the previous studies that
had been done by this done by the city uh at various levels which we'll get into later. And then we became very familiar with this particular property in this building. >> And you're also familiar with the city of Jersey City zoning ordinances with
respect to both demolition as well as uh landmarks and historic preservation. >> Yes. Okay. Um, as part of this application, you indicated you've also re reviewed some other materials. >> Yes.
>> Okay. And did that include the various master plans and re-examination reports and surveys that have been uh commissioned for the city? every study which included the original survey that was done of Jersey City, then the second
survey of Jersey City, then additional studies that were done sponsored by the city by cons for performed by consultants uh for Sherman Place uh potential historic district. We've reviewed all of them.
>> Okay. And you've also >> and they're referenced in our report. >> Thank you. And you've also had the opportunity to review uh the report from the city dated December uh sorry dated August 29th for the historic uh determination of significance. >> Yes. >> As well as the resolution.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Um I guess you've also prepared for us um a PowerPoint presentation which I would like to mark as exhibit A2 please. Um which is on the screen in front of us today. Um Mr. Mr. Pera, could you please
just generally provide us with some context of the property that we're looking at today? >> Sure. Um, you know, the area, particularly this block and the adjacent blocks of Sherman Place are
characterized by buildings from the late 19th century, early 20th century. residential buildings all built in various styles that were typical of the Victorian era. Uh people often mistakenly refer to Victorian as an
architectural style. It is not. Uh our building was originally as are some other buildings on this very block Queen Anne style. That's how it was the the style within the Victorian period. Uh there are other queen buildings on this
block and in the Sherman Place area uh Italian8 and Romanesque and other styles that are characteristic of this period. So it's a period that we've worked in quite a lot uh we've done a lot of projects not only in Jersey City from
this area from this era um but many all around the state and the country. >> Okay. Um, and can you just generally tell us the the position of the HPC, >> the historic preservation office and the
HPC uh, as part of the application for demolition uh, recommended the office recommended to the HPC that the building was culturally and historically significant. Um, and they specified, and we're going
to get into the detail in my PowerPoint presentation about what they specifically said about it and what we think about what they said. Um, they concluded that it was of sufficient historic character and significance
uh to uh deny the demolition permit. >> Okay. And based on >> the Historic Preservation Commission voted the same way. >> And based on your professional experience as well as the report that you have prepared, um is that your position as well?
>> Uh no. >> No. >> Uh it's our position that it's not remotely historically significant. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, so maybe you could skip a few slides and we can um go into
>> what is a Queen Anne building. Can you give us a little tutorial here? >> Sure. >> on what are some key defining. >> I'm going to skip around a little bit, but I'll I'll I'll follow your lead, Jen, and uh in where you want to tackle different subjects. Here's an example, and this is a slide we showed to the
Historic Preservation Commission. Uh it's the exact same slide. Um, and can everybody hear me? Usually I'm pretty loud. So, uh, I know that was a concern tonight. Uh, so usually I'm told to turn it down instead of turn it up. So, uh,
what I did here is, uh, tried to find, uh, that's our existing building on the right. And what's on the left is a classic building from uh another city in New Jersey, not from Jersey City, of a
classic Queen Anne residential building of the same style, character, period. Uh this is and you'll see we have very specific documentation about what our h what our building looked like at one
time. Uh we have 1935 tax records and a photograph. We have 1974 tax records and a photograph of what it looked like in those two time periods. But to Jennifer's point, what you can see on the left is this is not an unusual Queen
Anne building. This is just pretty classic. It has the defining characteristics that you would find. Uh I would first start out and I'm not going to compare the two. I'm just going to talk about Queen Anne. Uh to start uh the uh as you see the windows are tall.
They're usually in a 2:1 ratio, height to width. That would be characteristic of Queen Anne building. The porches and the elaborate detailing of the porches, the grand staircase, uh the way the windows are articulated
internally, as you can see, the smaller panes, the windows are off and not always that way, but they're often detailed in similar ways. A lot of different finishes. So you have shingles and sidings and different shape of shingles and sidings would be typical of
the facade of a Queen Anne building. The turret uh which you see on the left those terrace can be trets, they can be towers, they can be all but they're usually some sort of ornamental grandiose expression of the age of the
style of the fashion uh in the Victorian period. And this would be an example of a queen ant house. Uh typically they're painted in a multiolor paint pattern. Uh and we'll be in some houses where we're actually restoring it. We'll try to find what those original paints are. There
are paint colors that are specific to that period that are appropriate to that period. Uh the one on the left is one of those and those would be typical paint colors. Often there would be landscaping and things like uh gates, rowd iron
fences and things like that that would have been added to embellish the property. Uh again that's the case with the one on the left. So what I to not get into excruciating deal detail, but what I often say when you think of Queen Ann, New Jersey, you should be thinking
about Kate May, New Jersey and those gingerbread fancy effusive uh buildings that people so much love in in in a a place like Kate May. >> Perfect. Thank you for that uh explanation and tutorial. And I guess
now we can also focus on the particular ordinance that we had to analyze for demolition. >> Yep. >> Um it's accurate to say that this ordinance was amended in 2025. Is that correct?
>> That's correct. >> And there are two um two sections for this ordinance. One is section 345-30e1 and the other is E2. Correct. And E1 provides the review for properties which
are neither located within a historic district nor designated as a landmark. >> That's correct. >> Correct. And is that the particular ordinance that has been um the subject of our review? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. Could you just generally review for the board before we get into our
specific analysis what this ordinance requires review and analysis of? >> As I'm sure you know, and I'm not going to read these slides to you. I'm just going to and please interrupt me or ask questions if I if I don't get specific enough for anyone. Uh but uh this part
of the demolition ordinance is about buildings that as Jennifer just said that weren't previously designated, but it has a criteria for how a demolition application would be flagged and sent to the historic preservation
office staff and then to the historic preservation commission for determination of whether that building is historically significant or not. And the first one is the obvious one. It's at least 50 years old. uh whether the building has any structural or any
identifying elements that had previously been identified. We alluded to that before in the master plan or previous studies or previous surveys or inventories that have been done. Uh has it been identified by anyone else previously as a potential historic
building? Uh is there any demonstrated significance that maybe has not been repealed before? uh you know I I I use this somewhat uh cartoonish uh analogy and you know did George
Washington sleep there and nobody knew before those kinds of things can happen and so this ordinance allows for the investigation of those kinds of things. This ordinance also allows for is this a place associated with a significant person and I use the George Washington
example. Uh we could use Mayor Hey. I've worked on buildings that were associated I worked on the beacon uh on two projects there with were associated with major may with Mayor Heg's uh efforts to
uh build the city and provide social services and provide the hospital complex that the beacon used to be. So it gives a lot of opportunities for the historic preservation office and the commission to uncover things that are
one are already known and may not because it's not designated wouldn't be necessarily obvious and also it affords the opportunity to find if there are other things that might have not previously been known like is this
an example of a Queen Anne building that's historically significant. Thank you. Um, and as part of your review and analysis, you were able to uncover some tax photo cards which indicate what the property once looked like.
>> Yep. >> Is that correct? >> Could you please review for us? >> Yeah, I'll do this real quickly. And again, please, if you ask for any if you want more detail, I'll go into it, but I'll try to be brief. And this is all spelled out in our report. Um the
historic preservation office staff uh uh had uh when they originally got the demolition permit, they pulled the 1935 tax photo and uh we found the same. Uh and unfortunately, you know, you can see
the that's the 1935 tax photo of the building. And what we've done in this particular slide is illustrate some of the things. You know, it's a bad photo, so there's only so much we can say about it. But some things are obvious. You know, the chimney has changed, the
landscaping, the row iron fence has changed, two windows have been removed on that diagonal left side of the building. You know, that would be characteristic of a building from Queen Ant style and from this period that you
wouldn't necessarily have four walls, but you might break those walls with perpendiculars or 45 degrees angles. And so on the on the left side of the building, as you see where all those arrows are pointing and now we're in the current condition,
you've got a a gutter and no windows. uh that would have been one of those kind of a skew walls uh that we can see from the uh from that and then we can also see and for a little bit about the materials from this bad photograph you know you can see there's some shingling
you can see there's some siding you can see there's some var variegated print uh uh uh finishes and you can also see there's a very significant and characteristic of the Queen Anne period front porch which is no longer here.
Then 1974, the photo gets a little bit better and it gets a 1968 Volkswagen added to the photo. And this one I was able to do a lot more detailed uh analysis of
what's there and what's not. We identified 26 differences between in the primary facade of the building, not the interior at all. We did not ex examine the interior. the ex interior is not subject to the historic preservation ordinance. And we didn't really have to
look at the other sides of the building because what the ordinance is about is what's viewable, what's viewed from the public right away, which would be the primary facade. And the others are pretty pretty pretty
bad. They've pretty much been stuck out over almost completely. But in evaluating the primary facade, we identified almost 26 things and you can see them here. And I won't read the whole through list whole list. >> I would actually like you to read the whole list and if you could go through one through 16 identified on
>> we can do it. Uh the rod iron fence first of all landscaping was is an often uh uh ignored component of Victorian area houses. They were designed with very specific and elaborate landscape
architecture. And some of the most prominent landscape architects in American history are from that period. Uh people like Olmstead, people like Downing and the like. And uh so a house like this wasn't done unless it had
certain plantings, certain trees, certain often planters put on the porches. often very elaborate uh handmade row iron fences. So you see that in the foreground. Then going up the left side uh you see the brick
infill that has happened in 1974. Uh we can't really tell it doesn't appear to be there in 35 at all. Uh and by the way we we generally agree with the city about the approximate date of construction which would be 1890s to
1904. Uh so uh you see the brick infill. That's absolutely not something you would you would uh design or build or include in a Queen and Victorian house. Going up the tall windows. I mentioned that before on the first floor, uh you
see the difference in the windows on the right and left. Uh the tall have been replaced. Uh not only have the tall been replaced, but they've been replaced with a different size and a different configuration. and the shutters that were added to the house at some time I
think in the in the 70s or 80s probably when they did this horrible stucco job to it that's not something you do to a queen in house they don't have shutters uh and you can see from this photograph this one did not uh the tall windows the
siding uh when we going up we're still going up on the left side uh the siding has changed obviously uh we don't know if the siding's underneath that stucco or not. If it is, the probability it's badly deteriorated. Uh, but it wouldn't matter anyway because this is the
current condition of the building. Um, the chimney has been modified. I mentioned that when we looked at the 1935 photo, it's been modified several times, not only in height, but in configuration. And you can see in this one that it's actually shows in 1974 the
chimney was a different uh configuration than it is now. I don't know if the chimney was completely replaced. I don't think so. Uh but it was significantly modified and that would be common occurrence of a house of this period. You know, chimney fires and things like
that. Seven. Uh we get to one of the points of diff different different a difference between myself and the historic preservation commission is we're getting to the roof line. Roof lines of Queen Anne houses are often quite elaborate. We talked about the
turrets. We talked about the uh towers. We talked about the angular gable ends that you see. Uh and uh you can see in 1974 we do have uh two elements of the roof
line. Uh the first one which is pointed out by seven and eight and then also the tower. Uh the roof line just see the roof line. So hold your breath for a minute. Uh uh those would have would
have been part of the design of the original Queen Anne building and those would have been one of the characteristics of a Queen Anand style building to have that kind of uh uh uh elaborate roof line and it you get them in all different sizes and shapes and
configurations. But we know what this one was from the tax records. Coming back down the other side, uh then we get into some of what was there. The windows that were there, the finishes, the shingles we can tell that have been changed, the brackets that have been
removed, the decorative siding that's been removed or covered over. Uh the window changes that we mentioned before. Uh I would stick on these windows again. Uh the word we use in preservation and in architecture for windows is doors and
doors is fenestration. And uh it I like I like to use that word because it expresses the significance of windows and doors on a historic building. And windows and doors were really critical features of the Victorian period and
Queen Anne style buildings. You know, you saw the earlier depictions of the windows and doors, and it was partly a function of technology. It was partly a function of fashion. It was partly a function of other things that were going on in architecture that windows became
so prominent. We've lost all the windows on this building. They're gone. And they've been replaced by not only uh aluminum and vinyl sided windows. The glass has been removed. And most importantly, I think for defining the
historical significance, the dimensions, that 2:1 ratio that I mentioned has been lost uh by the new ones. Coming back down on 11 and 12, you can see that we've got a portico on the second floor that was built above with uh with paired
sets of columns above the uh porch. that portico is. You can see where it was, but it's not there anymore. And any of the materials or geometry that was associated with that
portico is lost. Uh what I did I skip the mansard roof? Yeah. Oh, yeah. There there was there you if you look really closely this little portico on the second floor had sort of a mansard roof which I'm sure you're familiar with what that is and
and obviously when you take the portico out you lose the mansard roof mansard roof would be classic classic defining characteristic of a queen an building and a Victorian period of building particularly residential coming back
down we get to 14 and we're at that point. We're talking about uh the front porch which I mentioned before and I want to go back to uh a very important slide.
This would be Sherman Place looking down our block to the west. This would be Sherman Street looking down our block towards the east. And what do you see? You see two-story
houses all from this era of different styles. As I said before, different materials, variegated materials on the individual buildings. And virtually every single one that's preserved from that period has its elaborate expressive
front porch. And as we were just talking about, I showed you there on the classic clean. There's the front porch. You see? And let's go back to where we were just far. There's the front porch. But even
in 74, this front porch has been modified with the brick and fill and brick infill on the steps. The steps have been replaced. And the front doors have been replaced. The front doors in a Queen, I don't have to explain this to anybody here. I'm sure the Queenand doors were very formal
and often double doors uh with illuminated sometimes stained glass uh sometimes not. Uh and uh elaborate detailing. Uh you can see what door we've got now. Uh on the photo on the
left uh my guess is that's probably 10 or 15 years old and vinyl. Uh I think I when I went out there it was vinyl. uh certainly not the kind of door that would have been part of the composition
of the front porch. And then finally, you know, the front steps and the railings, uh, you know, they've been completely removed and replaced with a brick front steps. Sorry for the length of my description,
but there's a lot of changes. So, we can all agree that when this structure was constructed, it was an example of perhaps a Queen Anne uh building. Correct. >> I think it was a pretty classic example. Uh and you can that's why I used that
slide where I compare a classic example of a Queen Anne to what's there now. Uh what evidence we have uh from the tax records and the two photographs. Uh yeah, >> but it's safe to say that nearly all of
those um once beautiful design elements are no longer features of this building. >> Yeah, we're saying we're saying that uh over 26 of those character definfining elements and I specifically mean of the
character defining elements, the elements that you would use to identify a queen and style architecture. uh 25 of those are missing. Uh what the historic preservation staff and the
commission uh uh pointed out that and they said they agreed with that and in we have a slide about that which we can refer to if you'd like uh about what they said was and wasn't significant. And they said, and the consultant who then looked at it later in 2024, also
said that the building had lost almost all of its historic fabric, but they felt that it had lo that it retained the roof line, which I referred to before, of a Queen Anne building. And I would
say that's partially correct if you eliminate the chimney from consideration. Uh if you eliminate the stucco, if you eliminate the portico, if you eliminate the asphalt sighting on the tower, uh
yes, there are two triangles there. And there were two triangles there as part of the original geometry, the configuration of the queen and house, but that's it. And that's what that it was. And that's the difference of opinion in between myself and and
between myself and Mr. Wise. He agrees with me. I agree with him. He did his study first. And and the Historic Preservation Commission. I don't think those two triangles make this a Queen Anne house. >> So would it be fair to say then that the current design is incompatible
um with the original building? >> Incompat uh let me rephrase that. um it's no longer the original building. I'll be a little more direct. Uh if we're talking about the primary facade,
which is what's subject to the demolition ordinance, that's not the Queen Anne building that was built. >> And >> uh it's it's not the facade with all of those character defining elements. They've all been lost except for those
two triangles. And would it also be fair to say that the building that exists there today is also not in character with the other buildings along Sherman Place? >> No. As we showed in, you know, we have a number of slides in here.
Well, here's something a little bit dramatic which we probably should cover too is what happened after this house was built is these two apartment buildings were built on either side of this. These two apartment buildings are completely anomalous to the rest of the Sherman Place area. The rest of it is
defined by what I showed you before. We're we're now left sandwiched between two later style buildings, not Victorian era buildings, buildings that were apartment buildings, not single family houses. Everything else on on Sherman Place was constructed design as single
family houses. So, first of all, our setting and our context has changed substantially. But let me go back to those streetscapes at the beginning a little bit. And uh you know you there you can see um uh this is what's characteristic. I don't see a single
building there that has been completely covered in stucco. I see a lot of buildings that have their front porches. I see a lot of buildings that have the elaborately decorated cornises or roof lines. I see buildings, we've got an
example coming up of of uh uh structures that have maintained And the word we use in preservation and the word that's used in the ordinance and the word that's used in the town's ordinance when you designate a historic site is integrity.
Does the building maintain integrity? Does it still represent what makes it significant? And so I'm sorry I moved away from the mic. Uh does it represent what made it significant? So what the position of the Historic Preservation Commission is this is still
representative of a Queen Anne period house. What I would suggest is look at the rest of the block and then look at what we know about this house before. It's missing those it's missing those elements. And the context as you described Jennifer is uh you know single
family residential houses and as like it's happening in a lot of Jersey City. A lot of these have been cut up into two families or three families and things like that. Uh I have one I want to show that's directly across the street. There you go. Uh that's 57 across the street.
Now this is not a pure clean. You can see the siding's been changed. We could pick on some things. This is right across the street. Um the 2:1 windows have been preserved. The front porch has been preserved. That skew angle on the
one one facade has been preserved. the mansard roof, the dormers in the mansard roof, the fascia uh and and the cornice lines have been preserved. This is a three-story version uh and a little bit more of an Italian8 style building, but
it's, you know, those boundaries between queen in and Italian 8, the other characteristic uh styles of the Victorian period are are not are not set in stone. You'll find houses that often have hybrids and a little bit of each. And this is an example. And you can see
the little gray one right next to it. That's an even better example of the period. A more intact example of the period. Oh, I mean the one one is bigger and more monumental, but the little gray one and the paints they've used and the way they preserve the proportions and
the components is terrific. Uh, if you're trying to preserve the integrity of a building that is a Queen Anne style building, >> if I'm talking too much, tell me. I'm trying to be I realize I'm not talking
to the Historic Preservation Commission, so maybe I'm being a little more elaborate. You know, they're all people that are passionate about preservation, have various levels of expertise and knowledge in the field. >> Okay.
Um, thank you, Peter. Um, if are there any other items that you want to address with respect to the facade at this point before we move into your analysis of how this property um applies to the ordinance?
>> No, I think that's good. I think we're good. I mean, it's it's a pretty open such case. I mean, it's the difference between uh Mr. wise and my opinion of what's left that's character defining
and I would mention that the four previous city sponsored surveys had identified this house as not historically significant. It was only within the last
two years that uh an additional study was done that maintained that this building was not individually significant as a historic landmark but that it was a contributing building within a potential
historic district and that was the Sherman Place historic district which was studied by a consultant working for the city. So four times before that the city had said this was not a landmark. This was not historically significant and we have slides demonstrating that
from those reports. And then Mr. Weise comes along comes up with the same conclusion with a lot more detail. Those previous studies by the city were were cursory sort of reconnaence level as we say. They weren't really in detailed analysis. Uh and uh Mr. Weise goes a lot
farther and then I go farther than Mr. Weise in my analysis. Okay. So, uh, starting with section 345-30e1, is it a or one? Apologize. Um,
the first uh criteria to analyze is the age of the building, noting if the building and or structure was constructed more than 50 years ago, architectural style, historical associations, and significance of the building or structure. >> 50 years. There's no two ways about it.
We're guessing it was the turn of the 19th century to the 20th century. Uh and uh Artoco architectural style undoubtedly when it was built was characteristic of uh Sherman
area, the Sherman area of the city and it was characteristic of other Victorian era buildings that were built being built in Jersey City and in New Jersey and the United States at that time. it was when it was built. >> And based on your professional opinion,
does age alone make something historic? >> Uh, I'm over 50 and I'm not sure if I'm historically significant or not. So, uh, uh, that's what my staff regularly reminds me. Uh, but no, a age alone is
not, uh, the criteria that's used by the city ordinance, and the city has two specifically relevant ordinances. One is the one it uses to landmark historic properties and then the ordinance that we're dealing with tonight, the demolition ordinance, which identifies
previously unidentified or unlandked properties. Both of them use a set of criteria to establish how historical snips is established. The first threshold you've got to get through is 50 years.
And then you go on to persons, places, events. You go on to significant works of architecture, sign significant properties that have some other value. For example, archaeological value. Uh you know, a component of the Apple
Treehouse that a lot of people didn't think about when the Apple Treehouse preservation pro uh movement started in Jersey City is people said, "Oh, it's the oldest house. It's 18th century. It's got a lot of its defining characteristics." And very early on, a lot of us started saying, you know, people like John Gomez and myself
started saying, uh, you know, there's an archaeological site around that house from the 18th century and the 19th century. And that was an additional aspect of what made that property historically significant. So there's a there's a disciplined process that was
developed in 1968 when the National Register of Historic Places was created that is specifically referenced in this ordinance. It's specifically referenced in the ordinance that landmarks properties in the city and it's used by
virtually every municipality and every state in the country and every federal agency and that's called the National Register criteria for eligibility. and it's published in a publication. Not
only is there legislation uh 36R 36 CFR 800, but there's there's also a publication National Park Service did uh which is called Bolton 15, which is an elaborate 140 page book that shows the discipline of how you go about measuring
significance. And that's really what we're talking about. How do you measure significance? When does something qualify? when does it get all the way through the process? When does it get bumped out? >> So, >> people think that's a very subjective process. It's not.
>> It's not. It's a very very disciplined deductive process. And now that we've been doing it since 1968, uh we've got thousands and thousands of examples and precedent to give us examples of how this that that
measurement system, the logic has worked and it still stands. So, we agree that the building was constructed over 50 years ago, but it's fair to say based on your testimony that the overwhelming majority of the architectural features have been removed
from the building. Correct. >> Correct. >> And in your research of this property, have you encountered anything to note a cultural uh significance associated with the building? >> Uh,
let me answer it this way. The four surveys that I mentioned that the city did did not. Mr. Weise did not. I did not. Uh the 2004 study did not. But the 2004 study did say, "Oh, wait a minute.
You know, you still do have that roof line." So, it noted that everything else was lost, but the roof line remained. >> By 2004, you mean 2024? >> 24, I'm sorry, 2024. Yes. >> Okay. Um, and city staff agrees with that. no
cultural significance with >> Well, the city said the city actually said it was architecturally and culturally significant in their conclusion letter which was handed to the historic preservation to advise and inform the historic preservation commission so they could then evaluate
for themselves and vote. And as we know, as referred to in the previous uh litigation that was conducted, there was a time in the city where the staff of the historic preservation office was making that determination. The result of that lawsuit, which is was is admirable,
and I'm glad the city has adopted this new position. is the it's the it's the historic preservation commission who decides the staff advises and the staff has professionals who are appropriately educated and with appropriate uh uh experience to wisely advise the historic
preservation commission. Uh but the commission gets the vote. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, now we're going to go through point two. And I'm going to apologize in advance to this board because it's a little bit uh dry, but I
think it's important to go through kind of the history of these items. So, the second item indicates uh for review whether the building or structure is identified in any component element of the master plan.
>> Yes. uh it's listed and I'll show you exactly where it's listed right here. This is one of those early surveys that was done and sponsored by the city. And >> if we sorry if we could just identify
this this is table 4.3 entitled Sherman Place his Historic District study area property was recommended for phase 2 survey which is which was a component of the Hunter survey. >> This was the original survey. Yeah.
Yeah. This is the earlier survey but then it was included in the Hunter report. >> Yes. >> Yeah. And what it does, as you'll see here, I point out with these two yellow arrows. What it does is it points out, it inventories every building. So, every building was evaluated, yes or no, whether somebody thought it was
significant or potentially significant or not. And this one was identified. Uh there are kinds of significance as I mentioned before, architecture, persons, place, events, all sorts of other things that could make something significant, historically significant. This was
identified in the category under architecture which is was the appropriate way to identify it at the time based on what they knew at the time and they said it was not significant. >> So they the >> architecturally >> architecturally it says architectural integrity. No. Is that correct?
>> That's correct. Integrity lost. >> Okay. And just to confirm there was also a 1985 survey of historic sites commissioned by the city. >> Yep. >> And that did not mention 32 Sherman Place. Correct. Right. >> And there was also a 1986 survey for
historic sites and that similarly did not reference 32 Sherman Place. >> It inven all of the properties were in inventoried but it concluded it was not historic. >> Okay. And >> and then the 2024 which is the one I
have on the screen. >> Um >> which is the most recent one. if you right >> I don't know if you want to stop go to the other ones before that >> uh perhaps Peter are you able to pull up uh table 4.1 >> I don't think I have table 4.1 in the slide presentation
>> I emailed it to you but um >> no I don't think we in I don't think we did there's the uh the section from the 1985 survey uh and all that is is just a map and >> and it actually identified the two properties which flank 32 Sherman Place
>> right right >> correct And uh I yeah I don't think yeah I don't think I have that. >> Okay. >> But what I do have is what I think is most relevant and salient is is the most recent study that was done by the city sponsored by the city and done by a
consultant under research from Trenton. >> Okay. Um I apologize. I don't have uh another copy of it, but it's table 4.1 of the Hunter survey uh which is
available online and that indicated 1,144 properties which were proposed for cons parcels that mer merit consideration under phase 2. uh 32 Sherman place was not identified on that
table >> and that that that means studies that warranted further investigation about whether they were significant or not. This was in that table identified as a study that didn't even warrant further investigation. >> Correct. And
>> was was would would be the appropriately cautious way to evaluate when you're looking at the whole city. >> Correct. Um I guess just for convenience purposes I would like to mark as exhibit A3. Um table 4.3.
Uh exhibit A4 will be table 4.1 and exhibit A5 will be table 4.5. All a part of the Hunter Research uh 2022 survey. You'll be able to give a
copy to staff. >> Yes, there it's located online. I apologize. I >> Okay. >> Can certainly share. It just didn't print out properly. >> Yeah. And those are all studies that the staff has. >> Okay. >> Right. >> And those are all studies that are available on the city's website.
>> Right. So, if we also take a look at table 4.5, it also lists the properties um in a combined list. So all of the lists that Hunter Research had compiled, they're all assembled in 4.5. Is that correct?
>> Right. >> And in that we do have 32 Sherman Place that is identified in this survey as it was one of the properties that were identified on the list. And it indicates in column Q elements of architectural
style present. No. Is that correct? >> That's correct. And it has another column for architectural style where nothing is identified. It has another column for archite architectural integrity where it
indicates no. It has another column where it indicates assemblage with potential historic significance. It indicates no. And finally, it also has another column which indicates phase 2 survey candidate and it is blank. Right.
>> Okay. Then we get we get to the historic element in 2024. >> Is that correct? >> Yep. >> So, prior to that, 32 Sherman Place has not rendered any conclusion from the
city or Hunter Research that it maintains any architectural significance or integrity um >> or historical or cultural. >> Those are those are three categories that are included in the demolition ordinance. Okay. And
I'm not sure we need to mark it, but um the historic element uh which is from 2024, I guess we could mark it as exhibit A6, >> which again is available to the public on this on the city's website.
>> Okay. >> And master plan and all the preservation elements that have been adapt adop added to the master plan. one being just this last year a new historic preservation element was done >> and and through that historic element um throughout the body of the text of the
element 32 Sherman Place is not identified correct is that correct but it is identified once again in the appendix as a part of the survey that was conducted right and in that it maintains various
classifications and designations is that right and 32 German place only has the designation for RH1 which indicates that it's in the residential housing district. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. But there are other designations that occur within that uh within that
appendix. Is that correct? So for instance P1X and P1 would identify New Jersey sites inventory survey of Jersey City, New Jersey phase one prepared by Joseph C. Brooks 1985 survey. >> That was the original historic survey.
Do we know maintain that? Uh P2 would identify those properties identified in New Jersey sites inventory survey of Jersey City, New Jersey phase 2 prepared by Mary Dedrics in 1986. >> Yes. >> And we are not list we do not have that
designation either. WD would indicate >> and those are and we should to be very specific those are surveys that inventory. So those are those are not the process of designating. Correct. Those are the process of identifying properties that should or should not be
landmarked. >> Um >> we call those surveys. >> And WD would indicate a phase one historic historical architectural survey and phase 2 survey recommendations for Ward D prepared by Hunter Research in
March 2022. We don't maintain that WD. Is that correct? >> Yes. Um, further RDP would establish if it were referenced in a redevelopment plan. We
are not identified as being located within a redevelopment plan either. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> And further designations on this appendix. A single asterk next to a site name signifies that the properties in the city have been determined eligible
for listing in the national and state registers. And a double asterk next to the site name signifies that the property is designated at the local, state or national levels. We do not mean an a singular or double asterisk. >> That's correct. >> Is that correct? Okay. Thank you.
>> So here we are now in 2024 and we still don't have any details indicating that there is any historic significance of this property. Is that accurate? And then we come to the Hunter 2024 survey and could you tell us a little bit about
what Hunter has determined this for this property? Yeah, the scope of work for this survey uh that Hunter Research did in 2024 was to evaluate the historical significance of a potential historic
district around such uh Sherman Place, Sherman Road, excuse me. Um, and so it was just studying the specific area and it zoomed in on that specific area and it
evaluated individual properties in this specific area in more detail. They did more historical research. They did more fieldwork. They did more photography. And one of the things they did is fill out forms. This is a copy of the form on
the left from the Hunter 2024 report. You can see they have a photograph which is just like my photograph and they put the building in a little uh tax map in the green bar and then the text. This is a whole new level of investigation that
Hunter had done but uh it is pretty much consistent and we can talk about that. >> Okay. And the survey here indicates that the majority of the
building and the materiality has been significantly compromised. Is that correct? >> That's correct. And it acknowledges the loss of certain architectural features which would be defining for a queen an >> absolutely >> and
based on that it indicates that it's old in form only but retains sufficient scale and architectural character particularly at the roof line. >> Yes. >> Okay. And so what they're saying and and to be very specific here since they're evaluing a potential historic district
in a historic district you can have different categories of significance. You can have key buildings. Those typically would be sufficiently significant to be a landmark on their own. Uh you can have contributing buildings. Those wouldn't necessarily be buildings that would be significant on
their own but as part of the assemblage of the historic district. They are consistent with the character definfining elements of the district. And then the third category uh is is non-contributing. Those would be properties that do not contribute to the
historical significance. And in 24 uh for the first time uh uh someone has uh concluded that the roof line is enough to make this a contributing building. >> In your professional opinion, would the
roof line be enough to >> categories? It's a it's a laughable confusion conclusion. >> Now, we did just go through this entire rigma roll, but it doesn't really matter, right? because these surveys
um the property has not been designated as a landmark and it's not located within a historic district. Correct. >> That's correct. >> The city has not undertaken um the adoption of any ordinances to >> they've done the study but they haven't
formally adopted the study. So it's not officially attached to the historic preservation element yet. It's my understanding. And then the next step would be for the city to decide if it's going to landmark the Sherman historic district. And that hasn't happened yet.
>> Okay. And based on criteria two uh from section 30 of the ordinance when we talk about being identified uh in the master plan, do you think that the intent was simply to be identified that you were going to be a surveyed property?
>> Yeah. Yeah. No, I think that's correct. >> So, um, so can we go back to the sorry the slide with section 30? >> Which one? >> The slide with section 30. So, we could
continue with our our analysis. >> Which slide are you referring to, Jennifer? Um, >> HP recommendations or our recommendations or our conclusions? >> The review. >> Oh, the review under the ordinance. All right. I'm sorry. >> Getting over a cold, so I might be a
little bit foggy. >> Okay. So, oh, sorry. One slide back. >> Yep. So, we've confirmed here that the 32 Sherman Place is only identified just as an item to be surveyed, but it is not designated historic. Uh, and it is not
designated within a historic district. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Now, if we can move down to uh number three, sorry. And that's whether the building or structure is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our local, state, and
national history. Could you tell us a little bit about that? And I think the only the only uh uh two studies that went to this depth uh were the wise study and mine where we used the formal
criteria to evaluate historical significance uh to determine was there historical information of any sort, person, place, events, architectural styles, archaeological sites, some other cultural significance. And both of our
studies did primary research and secondary research and we didn't find anything. We didn't find anything to believe that uh there was anything that had been missed previously. >> Okay. Thank you. So, >> you never know. Sometimes you stumble
upon one I had a project just a couple years ago in town and it was a ordinary uh convenience store and it had a demolition permit. When we looked into it, um it turned out it was uh I mentioned Mayor Heg before uh it was his
primary political uh opponent's headquarters and many of the rallies that were conducted to uh remove uh Mayor Heg from office or happened in this building. So there you can see if you do more research all of a sudden you can find out there's some history there.
In that case, it wasn't enough to make it significant that they had just, you know, had some rallies and talked about opposing uh the Hey administration, but that's how when you go deeper, you can uncover other other stories and some of
those may be historically significant. >> Okay, >> that is not the case here. >> Thank you. And if we can move down to number four, whether the building or structure was associated with the life of a person who made a significant contribution to local, state, and or national history,
>> you have no reason to believe so. We've not seen anything in the historical search and none of the previous surveys have found anything or the previous studies or the Hunter 2024 study. >> Okay. And then we move to number five. Whether the building or structure embodies the distinctive characteristics
of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represents the work of a master, or that possesses high artistic value, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction, most especially if no
other, or very few buildings or structures with the same association has survived. and all of those clauses separated by commas. It does not. But we underlined embodies
distinctive characteristic of a type because that's what the historic preservation commission concluded in their vote that that roof line, those two triangles that we discussed was enough to make this uh distinctive
characteristic of a type. Uh I think all the precedent that I'm aware of in the historic preservation world and in evaluating historic landmarks would uh clearly uh conclude that uh a little bit of roof line is not a Queen and
Victorian building. >> Thank you. And number six, whether the building or structure has yielded or maybe re reasonably likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. No, that's, you know, that's a stretch and that's often put in there to
cover things like archaeological sites. You never know what you're going to find in archaeological sites and what secrets that might unfold. Uh, and so, uh, but that's not the only place where you can have number six prop up. But we and no one before us, uh, and Mr. Wise have not
founded anything. >> Okay. And and finally we get to the last the seventh criteria here which is whether the building or structure maintains integrity of and then we have seven subcategories. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Could you tell us just generally before
we get into each of these subcategories um a little bit about integrity, feeling association, what does it mean? >> Let me recap a a fundamental concept first. Um when I referred to the 1968
National Register and how they developed and promulgated which uh criteria for evaluating historical significance which then every state adopted almost every municipality adopted strangely enough that city across the river did not
adopt. They came up with their own set of criteria. In New York they don't use the national register criteria or that same logic for determining whether it's historically significant. And I'll leave it to others to decide whether that's good or bad. But the vast majority uh of
of entities that have uh the authority to determine whether something's historically significant or not are using the model of the National Register. uh the model of the national register is as I've recently given a paper at the national preservation
concert conference uh is I boil it down to 477 four criteria for what is eligible persons place events architectural style archaeological sites then there are
seven uh considerations and those seven considerations are really things that can't be landmarked so like graveyards. Uh you can't put a graveyard on the National Register unless the architecture of the monuments is
significant. So that so you can't put a memorial on the National Register, a memorial statue unless it has some other redeeming quality about its architecture, artistic or the work of a master. So uh the se
the the the first four then the seven considerations we're not the seven considerations are really about eliminating you from consider uh being historically significant and then the final seven are what we call the integrity test and
those are the aspects of does the property maintain integrity and all of you I'm sure are thinking right now of the dictionary definition of the word integrity and I think we've got it in here somewhere. Uh, and that's pretty much what's used
in the National Register criteria. Uh, where's our integrity slide >> in the beginning? >> You just passed >> before. I'll just go back to this. I'll just go I'll just go back to this one. Uh so the model that was created for the national register and again used by everybody
else uh is these seven criteria which you use to evaluate whether the integrity. So let me cut to the chase. This building is purportedly
uh uh significant according to the historic preservation commission and the staff significant as an example of queen and architecture. And so then what you do is you apply the integrity test and that is when you look at this building
does it maintain those components that made it significant. So another George Washington example I use in this 250th cesi centennial year is if George Washington slept there and the building's gone, it's not significant
for the George Washington sleeping there. It's memorialized that he was there, but the building he was in like when he used the village in before the battle of Mammoth and he used it after the Battle of Mammoth, that building's still there. So the
integrity of why it's significant, the building that Washington stayed in and started the court marshal of General Lee in uh is still there. The integrity of why it's significant is still intact. Uh and so that's what you do with the integrity test. And I won't go into
great detail, but I'm sure you'll leave me some questions, J Jennifer. Uh, but these are the these are the seven. Location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association. Each of these are defined in great detail in Bolton 16 and the bolton 15 from the
National Park Service. And that criteria is referred to in the city city's ordinance. The unusual thing that happens in Jersey City when this demolition ordinance was adopted and revised in the last few years was
um it inserted the integrity test as if the integrity test was an evaluation of significance. Now here's Peter.
Is he significant or not? Then I lop off my left arm. Is he still significant? Well, his integrity has been modified physically. Right? That's a grotesque example, but you get the point I'm making. So integrity as it's used in the
national register and state register and I've done over 4,000 studies in my career uh is uh when it's evaluated by national parks for service by the shipo and when a property is designated under the historic preservation ordinance in town not the
demolition ordinance requires that you meet the integrity test. It's the final part. Does this building still represent a classic example or a significant example of a Queen Anne building? And what we're saying in this case is it
was a Queen Anne building. We know that factually we know it, but it's not anymore. And so it fails the integrity test. If we could go through though um utilizing the analysis that you showed us from the modifications of the
building with the 1935 and 1974 tax map tax card um these items so the location of the property >> the and you can see I've answered the questions uh in red and this is in our
report and it's detailed with further exploitation and citations in our report. uh you know location can't argue about that. Yeah, it's on the same property. It's same location. Uh the location has been slightly modified in that the front porch has changed, the
landscape has changed, the setting has changed, but the actual location of the footprint of the house uh is pretty much where it's always been. Then design without going into great detail, I don't think we have to at this hour this time
at this point. We've made the point already. Design obviously the design is no longer there. The setting all you have to do is look at the two buildings that were built after this. Uh but uh the setting of the individual property and the setting of the property within
the adjacent context of properties has been compromised by buildings that have been changed and buildings of different characters and dimensions and mass and scale. Uh the materials, you saw those little yellow arrows, uh the materials
are lost. Uh and uh even on the two triangles, the finish on the two triangles has been changed. Uh that's not the original materials. Uh and then the workmanship, well, that's already explained by what I just said. The
workmanship is no longer remnant. The feeling, feeling is uh something that people get confused about. is very very specifically defined in the national register criteria has a very specific definition and you know as it says here it's the property's expression of its
historic sense as a of a particular period and you know all those previous surveys that were done by the city concluded no uh the early Hunter survey concluded no the 2024 survey said yes because of the roof line
and then the city's historic preservation office staff concluded yes because of the roof line and then the historic preservation commission concluded yes because of the roof line that that feeling was still there. Uh I think that's
hard to imagine. uh it's it's it's by any objective criteria it's not uh and uh association again uh is there association to person place or events or or uh or other significant
characteristics and we think this clearly there's no association but remains >> so can't say it's not the same house so I don't want to skip over that obvious fact It's the same house originally built,
but the house has been highly highly modified and most particularly for your consideration is the primary facade has been completely modified. >> So in your professional opinion here, the property does not maintain any historic significance to warrant
preservation. >> No. >> And the loss of this building will not in any way impact the preservation of the remaining character of the neighborhood. Is that correct? That's correct. >> And based on your analysis,
we don't meet the criteria set forth in section 345-30e1. >> That's correct. >> And the property does not maintain integrity. >> That's correct. >> To warrant its preservation. >> That's correct. And what we should uh point out to this board since we're
appealing a previous decision by a different board is the point of one of the point of contentions was uh the ordinance and I'll tell you just fact this is just not just a professional opinion but it's factual. The demolition ordinance is is legally deficient
because it uses integrity to evaluate significance. How do you get to integrity? How do you say yes, that's Peter if you haven't established what Peter is? That's what I'm saying. You can't say integrity exists if you haven't
established why it's significant. And so uh the ordinance unfortunately for the historic preservation commission and planning department I feel sorry for you guys too is capriccious and arbitrary by any any any objective evaluation because
it's only using >> some >> uh uh uh uh uh uh the integrity test which the city's own landmark ordinance uses. But in the demolition ordinance as
recently revised, somehow or another, it got through without somebody like me looking at it and saying it's got the cart in front of the horse. It's you can't draw a conclusion about significance from integrity. And so that was debated the night we were in front of the historic preservation commission.
And if you look at the uh uh video of that, the preservation commission actually debated in lifetime in front of us what is integrity because it's not defined in the ordinance. And then at
some point they they debated how many of the seven integrity components is enough to be integrity. And there were different opinions by different members and there was a a vote taken and I think they I'm not sure and I don't want to make this an accurate
reflection of the vote. I think there was a general consensus it was like most of the seven or if it was like four of the seven or three of the seven. So there was kind of a general agreement that that's what should be, but they were voting on something that's not in the ordinance.
They were making it up as they go along as far as I'm concerned. And uh so that's how they got to integrity. integrity, you know, you know, as every state historic preservation office, every national uh national park service
office, every the national register of historic places uh which is current the keeper is a is a personal friend of mine right now and I've talked to her about this issue on numerous occasions related to other projects and this one. The integrity test is a binary decision.
And uh to be a little bit insensitive, you're pregnant or you're not. You can't be a little bit pregnant. >> Understand my point. >> The HPC also placed kind of a significant amount of weight on a
potential restoration of the property back to what it looked like in 1896. Is that correct? >> Very good point, Jennifer. and and and that that that was a little disturbing to me, too. Um that there was discussion and it wasn't caught, as far as I could tell, by staff or the attorney that was
present representing the city, um that the the property is potentially restorable. Well, restoable has nothing to do with an evaluation of significance. It's not in any ordinance I've ever seen
or any ordinance that exists. We're measuring significance. With enough money, you can restore anything if you have the documents and the evidence of what it was before. What we have is these two bad photographs. And that's
only of the primary facade. So theoretically, something is restorable, but restorable is not cited in the ordinance as a criteria for evaluating significance. So the discussion of whether it's restorable or not was out of the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission under any
ordinance >> and that doesn't go to the integrity once again or the lack thereof of this building as it stands today. >> Right. >> And just to reconfirm here, we are not a designated landmark.
>> Correct. We are not located within a valid historic preservation district. >> There is a district that's been identified as potentially significant, but it hasn't
been voted on by any city agency or otherwise >> and it may never be. Correct. >> Yeah. It's it's irrelevant to this because it's not currently in a district. >> Correct. Um, and once again, in your professional opinion there,
this property would not qualify under the National or State Register as a property of historic significance. >> Definitely not. >> We do not meet the or we do not meet the historic significance of section 30 um E1,
>> right? And this property based on all of the modifications that have occurred over the last century no longer maintains any historic significance that would prevent its demolition. >> And to the ordinance specifically cultural, architectural or historical
significance? And the answer would be no. Okay. >> Thank you. Any further comments? >> No. And I just, you know, I I put this one in the end, this slide at the end. Uh you saw it before. Um the building on the right is one
historically significant is a queen building the architecture it under the seven exclusions it doesn't hit any of the seven inclusions so it's still in the running so you get to the integrity test look at all the character defining elements that
are there materials design the various features that create the definition of a queen an style building that are all there. The only final thing that I would add and this is the final thing I have to say is uh you mean is it okay if I
take a few minutes after this? >> You continue. Uh the only final thing I would say is at the historic preservation commission meeting uh as it looked like
there was a divided vote in in the room or a debatable point on whether this was historically significant. A member of the staff advised the historic preservation commission that this building could be considered
vernacular queen ant architecture. What's left is considered vernacular queen ant architecture. Your furrowed brow is exactly the same expression I had that night. Vernacular is a style. You build buildings in the vernacular style just like you build them in the
Georgian style, just like you build them in the colonial revival style, just like you build them in the Queen Anne style. Vernacular is a style of architecture. You can't strip a Queen Anne building down to vernacular style. By removing the Queen Anne elements, all you've done
is remove the Queen elements and it's no longer Queen Anne. It doesn't become something called vernacular hy. I can't find it anywhere in the literature. I can't find vernacular uh queen ant because I went back to my staff that night and I said I
I just heard a new style that I'd never heard before. The the historic preservation was instructed that night that they could consider this and the city had not said this up to that at that point that they could consider this vernacular queen in well sorry there ain't no such thing.
>> Thank you. I have no further questions of Mr. Primivera at this time. Okay, thank you. We'll save our questions till the end. >> This might be the end. >> Oh, this the end. I want to see if there's >> Is this the end, Miss Bar? >> You have nobody else direct of my direct
um of Mr. Prima Vera, but I reserve the right to rebuttal. >> I'm sorry, I should have said, do you have any further witnesses? >> No. No, >> that is all. Thank you. >> Yes. >> Okay. Should we call it public now? >> I guess public.
Oh, okay. Um, the board is asking for a five minute recess, please. So, we will take about It's uh 5 to 8. So, let's say we'll come back in 10 minutes. >> Nobody beat me to the water fountain. That's where I'm headed. >> That was absolutely
>> ridiculous. Aren't you glad you came to this meeting? >> I know that this is really just a diversion for me. just a waste of time. >> For me, it's
get a check. >> Simple. No heavy lift. >> Yeah. What's the point? >> They have an attorney, too. >> Yeah. Ron. Ron. Um, look, I forget his last. Real nice guy. Ron. Um, I forgot
his last name. real nice guy. >> Young, old, >> maybe 55, 60 in that range, you know. Jersey City Jersey City guy. He um >> he does all um immigration.
That's all he practices. Immigration. All >> I wish I knew that >> he's he's I sent him a few people. They'd be very happy. >> Yeah. >> Oh, yeah. >> Better give me his name. Might need him. real good guy.
>> Well, that's what I was going to ask. Just go Everybody's based on No, this is this side anyway. As long as you tear down would be there is
Yeah, right. >> I It's not necessarily district. >> Defending yourself right now. of the window. I was something Yeah, we might.
Just I wonder if we're gonna have that testimony. >> No, they're not supposed to. >> For what? Man, I would really like to take this giving me a lot of That's not good for Start
maybe a little bit. My guess is >> six. They're back. Well, it's the truth >> and it's going to be repetitive. No, no, you can say here. I was just going to give you this mic and then
>> I didn't put that one there for the public. Would you would you prefer that I not stand up here while they speak or just sit down? >> I don't have a preference. >> So I don't mind. >> Okay. We are reconvening the meeting. Um
and at this time we are going to uh take any um comments from the public. Um any individuals that would like to come up and say something, we're going to ask you to come to the mic. You will be limited to three minutes um in your comments. And as I said before,
Commissioner Shahid will time you and let you know when you have one minute left. Um, so at this time, if there are any individuals uh from the public who would like to come up and speak, please do so. Please give your name, your address, and >> your comments.
>> Okay. My name is Cynthia Scott. >> You're going to swear them in. >> I live at 63 Sherman Place. >> Okay, Miss Scott, before you >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Proceed now. Do you selm do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
>> I do. >> Okay. Again, my name is Cynthia Scott. I live at 63 Sherman Place and I am on the board of the Persingfield Neighborhood Association. Um, first of all, I would like to say we support the views and the
work done and the ruling by the Historic Preservation Office and the Historic Preservation Commission. um they are our safeguards for the city to maintain some of the integrity and and I believe the word is integrity of the building and the architecture of of the city. Um
we've lost so much so far and I think it's it's important to realize that we have people working at trying to preserve what we have. Um I know there's been a lot of discussion about the style and the roof line. we have something. So, I think we can work with it and I think we shouldn't just give up on what
we have and and and what's in our neighborhood. The um Sherman Place um historic district has been in the works for several years now. I mean, it's a process. We had a pandemic in the meantime and um we've had two public
meetings that have been required and we're having a third public meeting, I understand, in the beginning of May once it's scheduled by for the space. Um, and then I think maybe one more after that if necessary and then it'll go before the city council. I I do um again want
to stress the importance of having an historic preservation office in Jersey City and an historic preservation commission because I think they safeguard the the history that we have and I think it's so important to maintain because Jersey City has a very rich history and very rich architecture.
Unfortunately, I did move to Sherman Place in 1972. I was only 15 in 1974, so I don't remember what the house looked like before it was destroyed, but the people that have owned it since 1974 really have done a disservice to that building. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> My name is Laura Ford. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. Miss Ford, do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give before us would be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. I live at 101 Sherman Place on the next block over from this
property at 32 Sherman Place. And I understand this process and I understand that very regretfully our community is stuck between we're so close to the finish line to having a historic district. Every other ward in the city
has one and we've worked so hard on having it and as Cynthia mentioned, we've been delayed for various reasons. Um, this uh Hunter research uh did find that this house was contributing to to
the neighborhood. I I doubt that anything that put that's put in there afterward is going to be. Um, just a couple of of other comments. Uh the house that was used as an example of what of what the um
of what the Queen Anne should look like of course was a beautifully perfectly you know restored house. Um and and that's not really a realistic you know uh comparison. uh if you know if I I've lived there
since 1989 and our house was covered with uh horrible uh asphalt siding for many years until my kids got out of college and we could afford to do something about it and we took that siding off and
the house was gorgeous. All of, believe it or not, some of that ugly sighting that maybe you saw in the 32 Sherman place might be covering up a beautiful, you know, original uh clapboard. We won't know that. Uh to me, it looks like the sighting came down. Uh the siding
was put up and the porch was was taken off. Uh I think that your expert mentioned that the um uh he he objected to the uh housing preservation commission uh referring restoration. Well, most of
those houses that now uh we see on that block and the next block over were restored. Uh 20 or 30 years ago, they didn't look like that. And that's isn't that the whole purpose of having a historic preservation commission? It's not to walk into a place where
everything is perfect with integrity and and and and uh checking all the boxes, but it's a place where we have an opportunity to make it uh to keep it from from further uh deterioration. Uh we've seen many parts of our city
deteriorate. So, I just hope that this could be taken into consideration when we talk about words like integrity and and uh preservation. Uh, I would hate to see uh Historic Preservation Commission be so totally undermined by uh a little
bit of nitpicking and um uh you I think you understand what I mean. Thank you. >> I think you better check your computer. She was leaning on it and I think she adjusted some of the files. >> Yeah, I'm there. There's a preserv There's a project I presented in Jersey
City last year. >> Okay. Right. Maybe you should take your computer with you so they can keep on coming up to speak, please. >> I'm going to close it so they can. >> Okay. >> And then we'll we'll open it if we need it.
>> Hello. Good evening. My name is Amanda Levy. I live at 8 Troy Street. I am the vice president of the Persingfield Neighborhood Association. Miss >> Ley, sorry. >> Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give before us will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
>> Yeah, absolutely. Yes. Sorry. Um, so I took a lot of notes during the the experts remarks. Um, I just want to start with one of our main goals as PFNA residents uh in Jersey City is not to use past underminings of codes and
zonings to bleed into um um or eat up the last remains of historically significant buildings in our neighborhoods. Um there's plenty of remarks about the apartment buildings that are sort of overbearing on both sides. Those were actually in the what
1935 picture to begin with. So, we I really as somebody that lives on Troy Street and is constantly fighting for my neighborhood aesthetic or my oneb block uh neighborhood aesthetic because one building was built in 1924, which is now the Verizon building. It is
a it's an uphill battle every time a developer comes in and they always point to that building. So, I just want to talk about the dangers of using past mistakes, past oversightes, um, and even like past violations that have gone unnoticed or inconsequential that become, you know, the enveloping or
engulfing thing that causes things like this to get demolished. Um, okay, there's a couple other things. We're not uh strangers to cut corners and small unreported violations accumulating that result in the playing into the hands of those who never cared about
historic preservation to begin with. Those are not the people we're talking about, right? Um uh the expert mentions that the huge apartment buildings that are there in 35, but they were already in the 1935 uh photo. Um and still that was still while it was deeply a Queen
Anne style building. Correct. um we as a city um have a a habit of being passive or inactive um towards violators that ultimately cause us to shrug our shoulders by the time demolition is even on the table,
right? Um you break a little rule here, cut a little off there, you take something off here, and pretty soon it's not the same building. And I guess we can't do anything about it. And that's why restoration is so important. That's why historical significance is so important. Um
uh the quote of being old in form is a very interesting way of saying um original in form. Um it's also very interesting that the facade when it comes to being in favor of demolition uh is so important to the integrity of the
building, but when it's talk when we're talking about restoration, it's almost it's almost, you know, not even that significant to think about whether something is restorable. Um, I guess the Washington anecdote is very
interesting because explaining that a building that Washington slept in is still there, but if it's torn down, it's not significant. That's what we're trying to do. We're trying to keep things significant. Correct. Um, um, and then what a shame when it is torn down and nobody did anything about
it. Correct. Um, I also just want to mention that the Hunter survey said that the survey was done in 2020. Even though we're acting like this is some last minute evaluation in 2024, the survey was done in 2020. Right.
>> Oh, sorry. Done. Bye. >> Yes. Do you I'm sorry. What's your name for the record? My name is Colin Egan. I live at uh 35 Sherman Place. And now I will >> swear and affirm the testimony you're about to give us would be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes, I do.
>> Great. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> First comment is that I think this body should give an awful lot of weight to what the professional staff at HO and then HPC recommended based on that. Um,
next comment is that I do sympathize somewhat with the owner. Perhaps you'll be surprised that I say that because preservation can be a pain and can be pricey. I know that's why I'm doing work on my own house right across the street myself because fortunately I can. But
preservation is worth it. Now, not everyone believes that, and that's why those who don't bring in consultants to try and find a reason to say that their property shouldn't be preserved. Um, now we've heard a lot about uh significance
here. The significance of the property that we're talking about is that it was a smallcale Queen Anne house that has helped anchor the look of our block for all the years it's been there. and the look and the feel and the appearance and the comparison to the other structures
has got to be important consideration because the consultant kept referring to it by trying to compare the building there to all the others. So that's it its significance. Then we come to integrity and the issue of integrity is one that's rather uh
always open because most buildings have lost something of their original design and most consultants can find ways to try and poke holes in integrity. I have been involved in the Lowe's Jersey theater preservation and restoration for 40 years and at the beginning of that there were consultants who said there
was no integrity left in the lows at all and we know that's not true. the integrity of to take a shot at the integrity of 32. It's easy to say the facade elements are gone. That's true. But the facade elements are not the only or even the most important part of an
integrity. It is the massing, the roof lines, which we've heard a lot about, the the general shape of the building, its position on the lot, and its relations to the street. They're all still there. And that means the integrity of the building is still
there. And if you want to think about what the integrity, remaining integrity means for the preservation and importance of this building, just imagine that it is torn down and you get a bayon box or something else there. How does that relate to our street? Does it
relate better that than the Queen Anne that's there now? No, it doesn't. If someone came back who knew that building and it's in when it was built, they would still recognize it. And if someone who never saw that building walks down our street, they'd say, "That's an old
building. It's obviously part of this the feeling here, this street. I don't know why they put that on the front of it, but maybe they'll take it off someday and that old building will still be there." And that's the point of integrity and that's the point of preservation and that's the point of
maintaining the feel of an area and why this building is significant. Thank you. Thank you. >> Are there any other individuals who want to say a few words?
>> First, your name and address. >> Been a while. Uh, it's Kern Weissman. Kern, last name Wi Ss M- an 576 Palisade Avenue. Uh, >> please be sure to speak into the mic.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give us will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Great. Uh, thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Um, I'll make this quick. I know you're not used to that for me, so uh, but basically I I I'm
representing the RNA uh, development committee. Um, so we are the neighbor uh, sister neighborhood association for PFNA. uh we are here to speak in support of uh their position and hoping that you will uh you know deny this appeal uh and not allow this historic structure to be
demolished. Um we in the RNA now we don't have a historic district but we do have many many as if you walk down Ogden Avenue or even on Webster I'm sure you know there's many historic properties uh in our neighborhood within our boundaries. Uh we've had several instances where uh one
I'm thinking of specifically on Webster where the uh you know someone tried to tear it down. uh it was determined to be uh historic and it was not allowed to be, you know, the commission said no, you can't do that cuz it's contributing. Um and then the then the the next they
sold it and then the next owners actually restored it and uh it's and a lot of these properties have become beautiful uh really contributing to the character of the neighborhood to the feel the you know the the historic feel of that particular block and in fact
increased value of uh the you know the surrounding property. So, um, don't like to give up on, uh, structures just because someone made some poor decisions, uh, with them previously. Uh, but I think it's important that we not set a precedent of allowing that to happen and just saying, well, you've
done some damage already, so we're just going to let you, you know, you know, tear it down. Um, so fully support PFNA and, uh, and hope that you please preserve this historic structure. Thank you. >> Thank you. Close.
Oh, >> hi, I'm Heather Sporn. Um, I live in Webster, 274 Webster Avenue. >> Miss Sporm, did you say >> Sporn S P O R N. >> Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give us be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth? >> Yes. >> Great. >> So, I I live on Webster Avenue. I'm I'm fairly new to Jersey City, like seven years, but I've worked on historic projects and so that's my background. But it seems to me that if when you're
you have a historic district or something that is being proposed as a historic district and it's been determined that this building is contributing. Um the logic of the fact that it's not yet a historic district and it's okay to tear something down.
For that that logic, you could tear every single building down on the street for the fact that it's not yet a historic district. and there would be nothing stopping you. So I think the fact that this has been determined to be
eligible or in the process of becoming eligible and it has been determined by professionals in the preservation field that this is contributing and not merely the roof line but it that was an oversimplification.
Um, and I think comparing it to a very ornate Queen Anne building is quite disingenuous rather than comparing it more to its original form even though there's just a couple of images that we've gotten to date. I think that um
it's would be kind of unconscionable to then say, okay, we're not a landmark district yet. Let's just tear it down. So, that is my feeling. And like um the previous speaker said, I've seen so many buildings be being torn down and it's
really horrendous. And um I fortunately live in a an old house which I'm just so grateful to be in and see those that are remaining in my neighborhood. So >> thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Is is there anyone else? Okay. My name is Alexander Bushkov. I live at 33 Sherman Place just across the street. >> So, do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give us would be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. Thank you.
>> So, as other speakers have said, there are multiple reasons to preserve this building, but I just want to focus on a couple of points. Well, first this appeal asks you to overturn decisions already made by historic preservation officer.
>> Can you please speak into the mic a little bit? Sorry. Thank you. >> About by historic preservation officer, historic preservation commission and this board and nothing has substantially changed since since last time. The process is different but the house is
the same and it's hasn't changed much. And second, I wanted uh to say that we cannot um reward demolition by neglect. Uh when I read this appeal, it essentially says we or someone else
neglected this house. We or someone else removed historical features and now we are asking to be it to be demolished because of that. I don't think it's the right standard for a city and what kind of uh signal it says sends to owners of
nearby beautiful historical houses. So I just wanted to ask this board to affirm previous decisions and help us preserve the character of our city. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Hi, I'm Norice Raymaker and I live at 109 Palisade and I am a member of the Sergeant Anthony Neighborhood Association. >> Yes. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give us will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
>> I do. >> Thank you. And I want to say, you know, buildings are at the mercy of their owners. And my parents took my grandmother's house and they took out the stained glass and they
threw it in the garbage. This is about 60 years ago or 70 years ago maybe. And you know it was the 19 after World War II and people needed to um economize and I think they put glass block in place of
that stained glass. Um you know people they lowered the ceilings. They put you know acoustic tile in and lowered the ceilings in the house to save on the heat. Um in my own house at 109 Palisade when I bought it it was um aluminum siding because that was what people did
in the 60s and the 70s. They put up paneling. They lowered the ceilings. They put up aluminum. Um they put up uh 1960s row iron railings on the buildings because they were, you know, tired of maintaining perhaps wood wood railings.
So, you know, they but we shouldn't be um locked into or follow the bad decisions and uh the bad construction that our parents chose to do, you know. So, here you have a building that was, you know, a
charming Queen Anne building and someone made the decision to put in smaller windows and get rid of the wood porch because probably it needed to be repaired. But that's just the facade of a of a building. That's just the outside facade. And of course, all of those
elements can be put back. So, let's stop making poor decisions and let's stand up for the people who who are advocating for better building practices. So, stand up behind your historic preservation commission and and take their advice.
Thank you. >> Thank you. Hello. >> Good evening. >> You always have to wait till the end, don't you? >> I like to listen to what people have to say. >> Uh, good evening. >> State your name and uh
>> I'm Christopher Pettis, 185 Carter Avenue. >> And do you solemnly swear or affirm what you're about to tell us is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. Um, so I just wanted to mention the ordinance outlines various ways to qualify a site as historically
significant. Uh, but sites do not need to satisfy many or all of them. Just one is enough. If that was the case, all of our historic sites would have to qualify as having archaeological significance or prove that a historic event or person who made significant contributions in
the past was associated with the site. 32 Sherman Place was built in 1896 in the Queen Anne style by George W. Austinine, a local tobacco trust investor. His son went on to become a major immunologist. The site is in the recently adopted
historic preservation master plan and a contributing site to the soon-to-be adopted Sherman Place historic district. The turret, front gable, chimney, upper portion of the portico, sightelines to the side of the home and front yard setback are some of the characteristics that tell us that this is a detached
Queen Anne home. Some historic elements are lost, but that does not strip the site of its historical historic identity. When walking past this site, everyday people would recognize this as a Victorian era home. Preservationists that walk by would be able to dive deeper and and
identifying it as a Queen Anne variant. If someone from 1898 traveled in time and arrived at 32 Sherman Place in 2026, they would recognize the building similarly to how one would recognize a relative they haven't seen in 50 years.
Enough historic divining characteristics remain. Whether the site appears attractive or ugly to you or if the site is high style or not or not is not what historic preservation is about. I might add that the applicant used a photo of a high-style example of Queen and
architecture that you might find in a magazine. 32 Sherman Place was not originally built as a highstyle home. The original facade of 32 Sherman Place was much less ornate. Comparing it to this photo is like comparing apples to oranges. 32 Sherman Place retains
integrity of place, particularly the front and sideyard setbacks, which are generous for an urban setting, yet typical of detached homes in suburban-like pockets of urban neighborhoods developed in that time period. 32 Sherman Place is of particular significance to the block
because of these setbacks. This block of Sherman Place features a timeline of historic development references. 32 Sherman Place is a visual marker to the style of homes that likely occupied the adjacent lots before they were redeveloped into the historic apartment buildings we see today. The junk
position of this site to the apartment buildings tells us a timeline of historic development on the block. Demolishing it would destroy that reference point. The JCLC agrees with our historic preservation commission's recommendation not to demolish. We do not question the expertise of Jersey City's current historic preservation
staff and historic preservation commission or the resources consulted in identifying 32 Sherman Place as historically significant. We ask you to deny this appeal and allow 32 Sherman Place to become a part of the soontobe adopted Sherman Place historic district. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Any other one? Any other person from the public who would like to make a comment? Okay. If not, then I'm going to close out the public portion of this meeting. Um, and now I will turn to our commissioners to see if they have any questions or should we go first?
>> You have a question? >> Yeah. >> To the best of your knowledge and and based upon your investigation, has anybody from the HPC or anyone else ever objected to the changes that were made on this property over the time to make it look like it looks now?
You're asking me or I'm asking you. >> Has anyone objected to those changes? I I have no idea. >> If I may address that, I know there were a lot of comments. >> Can please speak to the mic? >> Yeah. >> Uh I know there were a lot of comments
about the modifications that have occurred to the property over the century. And I want to affirm for this board, even though I don't find it to be relevant, that the property owner purchased this property in 1987.
The property looked exactly as it does today in 1987. We have from both the 1985 survey, which is part of the Jersey City uh survey. Um you see the 32 Sherman Place on page three of nine
photo pages for Sherman Place. It looks in its exact orientation. We also have from the 1987 sorry May 8th of 1987 um the tax records which confirm that the facade of the building is all
stucco. So the building looked as it did today somewhere from 1974 to uh 1987 and there have been no modifications since then because that was permitted construction. So I guess the prior
property owner made whatever modifications to the building as was in accordance with the regulations of the city of Jersey City. So you're So So the owner now made no modifications to make it look like it existing existingly looks.
>> Correct. >> He bought it the way it looks now. >> Correct. >> Any other questions from the commissioners? >> I have a statement. >> No. >> Can we hear from the staff then? We have no other questions. Can we please hear
from the staff? Um yeah, planning staff would like to defer to the historic preservation staff. >> Good evening everyone. Uh it's always great to be in front of the zoning board again. Um so this application right just
to to kind of walk everybody through the process. I know we've heard a lot about it, but yeah, so every single uh demolition application within the city is referred to HBC staff as the first stop in that review process. Uh the permit is applied for it comes to HPC
staff. Uh it is out it is actually sent to an outside consultant to review it. Um we feel that this helps us maintain some objectivity, right? It's not just our professional opinions. It's also an outside consultant's professional opinion. I as the historic preservation
officer in this case signed off on that uh agreeing with their uh determinations, adding my own research and additional information to it. And then uh because we were recommending denial of this permit, sent it before the HPC. Uh the HPC heard very similar
testimony to what you all just heard. Uh we had quite a discussion on the record about the factors of integrity uh about what is and is not significant about this building. Uh and then they voted in a 7 to2 decision to deny the per to
recommend denial of the permit which was then uh memorialized in this resolution and sent to the uh zoning officer um with the recommendation to deny the uh demolition permit uh the prior approval
for the demolition permit. Um, as was mentioned, uh, I think when the HPC was reviewing this project, uh, they really found that it does maintain, uh, its identity as a late 19th century, uh,
queen and style dwelling and that it has the integrity of location, setting, design, and feeling all in accordance with the Jersey City uh, land development ordinance uh, 34530e1. on uh I think just to also add a little bit
of my own, you know, testimony. I I think that there were certain things that were a little misleading throughout this presentation, so I would just like to clarify them for my for my own uh just to put it on the record. Uh yeah, those neighboring properties on either side are both contributing structures to
the Sherman Place uh the eligible Sherman Place historic district. um they were built later but they do contribute to the overall development of the neighborhood uh which this property as I think uh Mr. Perez uh put quite
eloquently that it falls into the um the the development of this neighborhood. Uh development doesn't happen in one single go. It happens over you know decades over centuries. Uh and so this marks a very important moment on that uh kind of
journey. and the uh HBC as well as myself uh have never disagreed that there have been some modifications to the property. Uh the materials and the workmanship particularly of the integrity have been modified. Um that does not mean they're
completely gone, but they do they have been diminished. Um as well as uh you know we can look at that 1938 tax card and there's actually a lot more information than just the photo on it. Uh, one of which being that at that time this was a three family
property. Um, multif family properties were very common throughout uh, Sherman Place prior to the construction of the two large apartment bu dwellings on either side. Um, so this kind of fits into that gradual growth towards uh,
those larger style apartment buildings uh, as a three family property, not a single family property. Um, and you know when uh the HBC has been uh reviewing
over the last uh 25 years since the 2001 uh or ordinance that created the HPC for Jersey City. Um we have are constantly in the process of revising uh the master plan. The state recommends that it's revised every 10 years which we did in
2024. Uh and in that revision uh this property was included within the ma the historic preservation master plan element. Uh the Sherman Place uh eligible Sherman Place historic district is also mentioned in the Jersey City master plan land use element. Um so it's
referenced in multiple places. Uh and this property as was discussed uh is uh was identified as a contributing element to that uh potential district uh by uh Hunter Research, one of the consultants that the city works with. Um and in
their uh professional opinions, they state it is old in form only but retains sufficient scale and architectural character. And then they just mentioned particularly at the roof line to be contributing. And I think that's that entire quote is very important. Um I
think the uh insinuation that it is only the roof line that is significant when it maintains uh the character defining tower uh that we see on numerous queen buildings of every you know uh style
every every level whether it's a high queen an or a low queen an um so I think that this property maintains a number of characteristics that uh do evoke that uh historic sense that um that Queen Anne
style that uh was popular in at the time in 1896 when this was built. Uh and if you guys have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. >> Okay. Um any commissioners have any questions? Okay. None. Okay. Um if we have no
further questions, then we're going to move to uh make a motion to move to a vote. >> Okay. Please speak to the mic. Sorry. >> Oh, I'm actually >> Yeah, >> I don't think it's going to be right
when I say it. >> Oh, uh, Peter, how do we get >> uh I since it since it got disconnected, the uh the connection isn't working. >> Yeah, you'll have to reconnect through the HDMI card. It seems like you've disconnected. >> Yeah, I I unplugged it and plugged it
back in. Uh, let's see if >> it's doing what it did when we started. It's just not coming up on the screen. >> So, make a motion. I'm asking for a motion. >> Yeah, I tried I unplugged it and
replugged it a couple times and messed with it a little bit. I don't know what happened. Maybe that magic touch. Which slide do you want? >> Oh, just >> okay. >> Are you Are you lucky?
>> No, it's still not his number. >> Yes, I got it. Thank you very much. >> Nothing. I actually unloaded the presentation and reloaded it back up just in case. >> If not, it's okay.
>> We can do it without just reference. Good evening again and thank you commissioners for your time this evening and your comments and allowing us the opportunity to present this application to you. Uh before I begin with my summation, I did want to address a
couple of comments from the public. Um there was a lot of talk once again about restoration. If we wanted to, we could restore the property. The property owner in accordance with the city of Jersey City ordinances has no requirement to
seek to restore this property to what it looked like in 1896. That would put uh an onus on the property owner and all property owners within the state of New Jersey that far exceeds what is provided for within the municipal land use law. It's a significant burden to ask of anybody and
it's inappropriate. There was a lot of discussion about, you know, we have the opportunity to make something here by changing it back to what it was. I agree. We have the opportunity to make something here. We have the opportunity to create something that is in conformance with the
remainder of the neighborhood. This is not, it was characterized that, you know, we're nitpicking here that an element or two was removed from this facade. We're not nitpicking. There were 26 elements which have been physically
removed from this property prior to the property owners owning this property and those are defining characteristics for a Queen Anne building. That includes the row iron fence, the brick infill, the
tall windows. And when we talk about the windows, we're not only talking about oh the windows were taken out and they were replaced like in kind. No, the wind the windows shapes, sizes, styles, types were all changed. The all of those
qualities and characteristics change the fact that it no longer looks like a queen. It's no longer character of this. There were also comments regarding the building. you know, we're showing you a
a decorative uh a decorative Queen Anne, but the the 1935 or the 1974 was not decorative. If we look here at even the top portion of the roof line, you can see the decorative elements that were there in that gingerbread kind of home.
You see the window shapes with the rounded corners and the tall 2:1 ratio. We have the manered roof that was removed. The columns were removed, the second uh the second roof line was
removed, the front porch was completely removed, and the front door and the steps removed in addition to the front of the home. All of those items, they not only changed the character, but they changed the massing of the building, the scale of the building. Yes. Are the four
walls still in generally those locations? Yes. But did we m lose the massing and location by the elimination of that front porch of the second level of the roof line? We did.
Um I truly appreciate preservation. I love historic buildings myself. I appreciate all the comments from the the neighbors to come out here and voice their opinions. Preservation is important, but preservation
should be done for items and buildings and structures which are historic, not those that we wish still were historic. We cannot force someone to try and maintain something that happened a hundred years ago just because it might
be or it could be. Once again this it changes the massing it changes the shape and here we have the opportunity to construct something that is in compliance with the ordinance that is complementaryary with the other homes
here this home that we have seen today and we have heard from Mr. Supria Vera. Not only does it not represent a Queen Anne, but it's out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. The the majority of the neighborhood maintains the two stories. They maintain the balcony. They maintain the front step
and uh porch. That's not here. There's not one other building that is stuckco. That's not here. It does not maintain those windows. Still not here. And the fact here simple
identification in a survey of a property that a property has been surveyed is not sufficient. That's why there are two different ordinance standards. The first for demolition actually I should say three
I'm sorry. demolition of properties both located within an a district or a or a designated landmark, properties not within a district or not a landmark and also those for designation of a landmark.
We're not here for designation of a landmark and we are here analyzing under the requirements set forth by a property which is not located within a historic district and it is not a designated landmark. We have heard from not just
Mr. Primava but he has incorporated the report from Mr. Robert J. Wise of 2019 which similarly concluded the same facts. All of these elements have been so overwhelmingly modified that there
can not possibly be any historic qualities preserved on this property. I understand the concerns of the city, of the HPC, of the neighbors of not wanting
something that is out of character, not wanting a little block uh, you know, building to go up. But this building is out of character. And once again, there is nothing historic about this building. So there is nothing to preserve here.
It's not going to impact the character of the neighborhood. And in fact, the demolition of this building and the hopeful potential of one day putting something there that this community would be proud of, that would fit in, and would be part of the character of the community.
So with that, I know you've heard a lot of information this evening. I appreciate your time and indulgence through all of it. Um, I just want to reiterate here that there is nothing historic left on this building. The roof line alone is not sufficient to
preserve. It would not meet the national criteria. It would not meet the state criteria. And quite frankly, it does not meet the city's own ordinance. And further, as I had identified, I'm certainly not asking this board to go against your ordinance. I'm not
challenging it um you know before you today. I understand the restrictions that you face. However, you're also faced with a determination from a zoning officer who is meant to look at what the
property is zoned for. It's zoned in the RH1 zone. There is absolutely no statutory criteria which would prevent the demolition of this building. We are not located when within a historic district. We are not located. We are not
a designated landmark. The the zoning officer is constrained by those facts pursuant to NJSA405D-18. The zoning officer has the authority to review this appeal pursuant to section 70. and the historic preservation
commission is also bound by the municipal land use law and the criteria that is set forth in section 111. So with that I reiterate this is not a historic building anymore and we would love the opportunity to be able to put
something that this community is proud for. Um and I would respectfully request that the determination of the zoning officer be overturned. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Thank you. So, at this time, um I'm
going to ask our attorney to phrase, um our how we're going to vote tonight, how we're going to phrase it. >> So, let me just say this in regards to what Miss Barado said. Uh we are not deciding this case based on
our thought that maybe this building can be turned back to something. That's not before us. She's correct in that statement. Okay. What we're here to decide is whether the historic preservation commission and then the
zoning officer made a correct decision in saying that this demolition permit should be denied based on the criteria that they set forth. So simple enough, correct? In our packet there is the uh
HPC resolution. There's uh uh Mr. uh Primma Vera's discussion. You've heard him talk about that at length now. So the real question before us is simply this. Two simple sides to the story.
If we uphold the appeal, that means we're reversing the zoning officer and the HPC and we're allowing the building to be demolished. If we deny the appeal,
that means the HPC and the zoning officer are correct and the demolition permit cannot be issued. >> Simple enough. >> It's either uphold the appeal or deny the appeal. >> Okay. So, I think
>> make any motion. >> I will make a motion uh to I'm going to ask for Right. I am going to ask for a motion uh to vote to deny the appeal before us tonight. Uh
can I get a motion um on the floor? >> Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to deny KZ206-00004 as presented to the board this evening. >> Can I get a second? >> Okay. >> Okay. Acting Vice Chair Allen,
>> deny. >> Uh, wait, >> you said deny. >> Deny. >> Yeah. >> Meaning, uh, you're voting for >> to deny >> for for Yes. Cuz deny >> denial, right? >> Reported denial. >> Okay. >> So, yes. >> So, yes. Is the >> Oh, yes. Okay. Yes. >> Yes.
>> Commissioner D'Angelo >> denied. >> Yes. Again, let's not let's not confuse the record. The motion was to >> The motion is to deny >> to deny the appeal. >> So, it's either yes or no. >> Okay.
>> Yes, we're going to die. No, we're not. >> Okay. >> So, you're a yes. You're a yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh, Commissioner Shaded, >> yes. >> Commissioner Kovello, >> yes. >> Commissioner Burns, >> yes. >> Commissioner Patel,
>> I would say no. >> And Chair Coyle, >> yes. Motion carries 6 to one. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Do we have any Okay. Um, we have some um resolutions that we
need to memorialize at this time. >> What's that? That's what I wrote down. >> It's destroyed. >> That's the only reason I'm against it. yourself integrity destroyed. >> Yeah, we know that
>> you're from >> No, that's right. >> Yes. >> Okay, we do have some resolutions to memorialize. >> Okay, ready. first uh resolution to memorialize was case Z2024-000063.
It was a minor site plan with C variances. The applicant was uh Mr. Lee Li and the address was 100 Decal Avenue. That hearing was on February 5th.
February 5th, there was chairwoman uh Miss Royo, Vice Chair Shadid, Commissioners D'Angelo, Zlicki, Burns, and Coello. That passed, six in favor, none opposed. All in favor of memorializing that. >> I >> I
>> The next two were heard on March 5th. Present on March 5th was again uh acting chair Aoyo and then commissioners Allan Zablicki Burns Coello and D'Angelo. The first case is Z2023-024
in the matter of Jersey City 3 deals LLC application for a minus site plan approval with a use variance bulk variance and design waiverss that passed. Six in favor none opposed. All in favor of approving that? I
>> I >> and the last application uh that evening was Z2026-000020. The applicant was 64-68 Harmon Street LLC. It was an extension
of a final major site plan approval and C and D variances for 64 Harmon Street. That passed. Six in favor, none opposed. All in favor of approving that >> I. >> And that concludes it for the evening.
>> Okay. Well, I make a motion to adjourn the meeting. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? I. Meeting adjourned. >> Thank you. I can't wait.