Now it is okay. Oh yeah. Good evening everyone. One second. Mine's not. I always make noise. Honey, this one. Check. Oh, this not
Well, I turned it on. check. Check. All right. Okay. So, we can get started. You want to just use that one? You sure? It's okay. All right. Let's share. Okay. You can't go too far, but No, that's fine. Good evening and welcome to the July
10th, 2025 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. To begin, Mr. Beasley, are there any
Sunshine announcements that you would like to share with us? Yes. In accordance with the open public meeting act notice has been provided to the Bergen record LS Bito as well as posted with the city clerk. I'd like to request to mark this as B1 for the
record. Evidence. Okay. Will you please take roll call? Yes. Commissioner Patel here. Commissioner Allen here. Commissioner D'Angelo
and Commissioner Baron here. Vice Chair Rule here. Chair Coyle present. Uh for this meeting uh we have our new uh commissioner Jodie uh D'Angelo. She is present tonight. She will not be a voting member tonight.
She'll just be sitting in attendance and listening to uh tonight's t um discussion. At this time, I ask everyone to 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. Uh Bridget, will you please swear in our staff? Well, okay.
Do you swear or the testimony or comments you're about to give this evening will be the truth. Eric, is there any correspondence you need to share with us? Yes. Any adjournments? Yes. The attorney for case 12 under new
business Z 2025-000020 reached out and requested to carry this item to August 7th with preservation of notice. Did you say with further? Oh, no. It's case Z2025-000020.
They requested to carry with Oh, yeah. Yes. with preservation of notice. Any adjournments? Uh other than the item that's listed under other adjournments, um there there
aren't any other items that are adjourning. Okay. Uh so this evening we have three cases. Um, it looks like they're all with Mr. Lean. You're gonna be a busy man tonight. Um, so we can begin with
our first case, which is uh Z2025-000041, a one-year extension at 130 Summit Avenue. Good evening, commissioners. Tom Leen from McConnell Foley here on behalf of the applicant. I do have three matters this evening. They are all
related to the same property and really they all deal with the same subject matter. So the question is is does the board want me to just present it all at one time and then you can vote on it at the very end or do you want to hear each case individually and then vote on them as we finish?
I think we should hear it all at once. Each one is very simple. Yes. Where we just do a one-year extension. So why don't we just do that one and get that over with? If that is the case, then what I will do is I I noticed these in different sets because we realized that when we weren't heard on June 5th, the
applica the approval had expired. So why don't we do the extension up first if that works and then we can proceed with the subdivision of the site. You should just give it to Bridget so she can mark it because we've looked at the uh at the uh notices
and this is the A1 evidence. One moment. Okay. Uh I will actually use this opportunity to sort of um uh remind the board of what this project is. Uh it is uh the rehabilitation of the St. John's Episcopal Church, which is a historic
site. It's currently located at 130 Summit Avenue. Um it is close to the corner of Summit Avenue in Fairmont. Um it is approximately 120 year old church and uh my client is seeking to not only renovate it but add
an addition to it uh and develop approximately 81 units on site. The board has previously actually approved the development here. Um and uh we're back before the board because the fundamental issue is that uh in order to fund and actually construct this
project, we're going to need to subdivide the church itself off from the new construction portion of it. Um the main reason for that is my client is not only getting money from the state uh from the landmark society, but also from Jersey City's um uh DCD, which is the
Department of Community Development. Uh when this was originally approved um the obviously there was the renovation of the church, five stories within the church within the existing framework of the church and a five-story addition on the side of it. Uh in total there was 82
units approved between the two buildings. Um we are what it was approved at was 39 in the uh the existing church and 42 uh within the um within the new development. Um when we
obviously had conversations with the city and with historic about subdividing these so we could fund them in different matters basically getting the funding for the historic portion of it while my client gets funding for the the new portion of it. Um we realized we probably do need to subdivide them. Um
and so we filed an application not only with uh the zoning board but with historic. Um historic has granted us a uh certificate of appropriateness already. Uh but in the meantime, unfortunately, the uh the approval
expired. So, the first step here is just to ask you to extend it for one more year. You've already granted a two-year one here. So, this is our third and final one. So, we would ask for the extension first and then we'll provide you with the information on the subdivision. And obviously, now that the
lots have shrunk, we're just going to have to show you what that how that affects the previous variances we had received. Okay. So, uh, is there anyone from the public here or anyone else? Okay. Uh, commissioners, do we have any questions, uh, concerning this? Okay. Mr. Beasley,
would you like to take a vote on that? Can I hear a motion to um, Matt? So, there you go. Yes. Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve KZ2025-001 as presented to the board this evening. Can I get a second? I second. Commissioner Beasley.
Commissioner Patel. Hi. Hi, Commissioner Allen. Yes. Commissioner Baron, I. Vice Chair Rule, yes. Chair Coyle, yes. Motion carries. Five in favor, none opposed. Okay,
let's move on to case Z2025-00002. I think we want to hear about the minor subdivision and let's let's do that piece as well. Okay, I will mark my exhibits for this case. This ALS the I notice for both the subdivision and the site plan amendment within one notice. So, this packet covers both of those,
but we're going to work on the first case first. Okay. First time I see because you back me up. Okay. So, the minor subdivision you're going to see uh just to to give some uh background here, we are in the R1
district. Um as the board might be aware, the R1 uh changed pretty substantially when uh the city took a look at the um uh the master plan. And one of the the biggest things that changed was within the R11 and two district. Uh multif family buildings are
no longer a non-permitted use in the in the R1 district. Um so just to give a little context of what we're doing here, we are taking two lots that would conform under the R1 both previously and now. Um and we're just we're just
putting these two multif family buildings within those zones. And uh I'm just going to very briefly have Mr. Andre Shawn, who is our surveyor, uh walk you through the uh the subdivision that I have up here. Eric, I don't know
if you can get that up for everybody. Oh, is there anything connected? The testimony you're about to give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth. I do. and state and spell your full name.
Andre Shen. A N D R E S C H A N. Uh Mr. Shan, I don't believe you have testified in front of this board. If you haven't, or if you did, it was quite some time ago. So, you would just briefly give them the benefit of whether you are a licensed surveyor in the state
of New Jersey and when your whether your license is current. Okay. I am currently a licensed land surveyor in the state of New Jersey and have been since uh 1985. Um and the survey of the subdivision plat that is before you, you did not
prepare it, but you did review it. Yes, correct. I did not prepare it. I did review it. Okay. Um and you've reviewed the zoning table uh that was prepared by the licensed surveyor in concert with our professional planner. Yes. And the two lots that are proposed uh
conform to Jersey City's ordinance? Yes, they do. Okay. I have no further questions for this witness. Okay. Okay. And that's our test. That's your presentation. Okay. All right. So, is there anyone from the public to ask any questions? I see no
one. We'll close the public portion. Commissioners, do you have any comments or questions? Okay. Can I get a motion um to vote on case Z2025-00002? Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion, excuse me, to approve KZ2025-00002
as presented to the board this evening. Can I get a second? I second. Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Commissioner Allen. Yes. Commissioner Baron, I. Vice Chair Rule, I. Chair Coyle,
yes. Motion carries. Five in favor, none opposed. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Our next case is Z2025-00004 uh final major site plan amendment uh for 130 Summit Avenue.
Okay. Um so as previously stated um the uh the two buildings that were approved here were were really approved as one, but the subdivision that the board just approved is going to create them as two separate buildings. So, the final numbers on what you're going to see, it's uh uh 39 dwelling units and 12
parking spaces in the church, 42 dwelling units and 18 parking spaces in the new building. I'm going to have Mr. Chris Wescott get up here, walk you through what was approved, walk you through what we worked on historic with. And uh the other big thing that I should mention here is this was approved
originally with nine affordable units. If we are able to move forward here and he's able to get the financing that would be required from the subdivision that you just approved, that number actually increases to 11 affordable units. Uh that's a requirement of his funding from the CDC. And not only are
those affordable, but all of them would be 50% 50% of AMI or less. 50 or 50 50% of AMI or less which normally there would be a mix of moderate units and low and uh lower income. This would all be
low and low lower income. So okay, with that said, I'll let Mr. Wescott just walk you through very briefly what has already been approved, but so you can see the pretty pictures and see what my client's going to do to Yes. Good evening everyone. Raise your right
hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding will be the truth? The whole truth. I do. Uh Christopher Wescott. C H R I S T O P H E R. Last name W S T C O T.
Yep. Have you ever presented before this board? Um Miss presented in front of this board before? I have virtually a few years ago on a few different projects. And you are a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey. I am. My license is current. Yeah.
Okay. Thank you. I submit him as a as an expert. Thank you. Good evening everyone. Um if you wanted to Sure. Oh, is it It's still over. Good. Um so yeah, so obviously there's a lot of different directions we could go, but
I'll I'll kind of give a brief update on I don't know. Just wait for them. Um, I'll give a brief update on where this project is now versus um the last approval that occurred for the property. Um, so I'll go to the I'll scroll through
through this through the civil drawings to the architectural plans um because this the ground for architectural plan is likely the first change that'll be noticeable um for the property other than uh the subdivision which has just been approved. So when you go to the
first floor plan, one of the things that's changed is that originally or in in the previous approval, there was proposed two dwelling units in the front portion of what is now currently called the gallery space of the church. Um as part of discussions with Shipo and when
the time comes NPS, the intent would be that those spaces would turn into an open gallery space. Two units were removed because of that. Um and and when you refer to Shipo, you're talking about the state's historic historic preservation board. That's correct. Um, and so that would have
removed two units from the project, bringing it down to 80. In the in the meantime, the owner was also looking into the option of potentially putting one additional unit inside of the church. And so what he's proposing to do, what we're proposing as part of this plan is the inclusion of one additional
unit in where is essentially the clear story section of the church above where the resident where the uh lofted residential units are already proposed. So, this won't make any modification to the gallery space below. It'll only be it'll turn a space that was, you know, a triple height space above some of the
some of the loft units into um still a tall ceiling, I think 12 or 13 ft within them. But then above there, you would have one unit in the um in the clear story of the church. I believe we have a section, but I can confirm. Um,
so I'll try to zoom in on this a little bit, but and of course it feels like not moving now. Um, let me go to the next page. So, if you can see up up on the top of the screen, um, detail two on sheet A300 is the
third story dwelling unit above the lofted units within the church. So, the lofted units have a first story entrance on the ground floor and then stairs within the unit that bring you up to the second floor. This would have an entrance from the third floor at the elevator lobby bringing you directly into that dwelling unit. So, it'll have
a different entrance from the rest, but all part of the same um construction of the church, you know, the re renovation of the church and the addition of the new construction on the rear of it, which are all part of the same property. So, this all works within the subdivision, which was just approved.
Um, and again, if you guys have any questions as I go through, let me know. I've we've been staring at this project for years at this point, so everything kind of seems backhanded. Um, but I'll just kind of go through a few other items that I think are worth mentioning here, too. So, the um the facades of the
building from the last approval have not changed from what they were before. You still have the same entrance way into the buildings. Um, in fact, the entrance to the little so the entrance to the um, let me see if I can draw it on here, but
essentially the subdivision cuts where the where the where the drop in the building is, where you actually have the small walkway that brings you within between both buildings. So the when you're looking at it from Summitav, the left side, the main entrance of the building is going to be this right here, which is on the left side of the
subdivision when looking from the street. um on the other property from the church which has the entrance on the right. Um that central corridor you could call between both of those structures is where that um where that uh delineation occurs. And I think it's important to mention
that these two buildings can function independently of each other given that we just received a subdivision to make these two separate properties. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. So both properties will have their own electrical services. Both properties will have their own sprinkler systems in them. Um and will
be able to be turned on and off as separate properties. Um the only item that if I can go back to the site plan or the the floor plan. So one item that will require connection between both properties and an easement. Oh, there's two of them I suppose. So the first one
of them is the egress from the basement of both properties. Um you can kind of see along where that property line is in the middle. Um, I'll save you guys from me not zooming in. That's not going to work, is it? Um, too much.
Definitely messing something up. Okay. Um, so along the B along what is now currently on the middle right side of the sheet is an egress pathway from both the church and the basement of the um the new construction building on Summit A. those both connect share a connected
egress pathway that will have easements between the properties in order to allow for egress from both of them in perpetuity. Um the other item which is currently in discussion with PSENG is the transformer path for both sites. The current the after after you know talking
with PSENG about it the intent is that we would have one transformer that runs both properties. Part of the reason is that you would either require to have them inside the buildings or you would have large 10 foot by 10 foot transformer pads, one for each site. Um, likely,
you know, making it not as nice at the entrance of the Summit AB building because there's not much sight area other than the nice landscaped area front. And so what what the proposal is currently is to actually have one transformer along the northern side of the property so that when you're looking between both buildings, for example,
here you won't actually see a transformer. It'll be off to the right side behind some landscaping and a sign. Um I believe we talked about it with Dan Reed and the possibility of doing a historic sign along that in front that would be removable if they need and along with Ballards. removable in case
they need access to the transformer, but ostensibly put in front of the transformer so it's not, you know, staring at you from the street. Um, going back to the the submission package, um, the other thing of note is
the uh roof terraces. The previous application had one roof terrace along um the Clifton AB portion of the of the church site of the two sites facing New York City. This new proposal includes a terrace on both of those buildings include in in in
addition to an additional stairwell on both of those that you have an an enlarged mayor uh way of egressing the property. Um so both of them in both of the cases you would have access to the elevator on the Clifton AB portion of the property you'd have two stairs that
bring you down. On the Summit AB portion of the property you'd have one stair that brings you down. Um the reason for choosing this stair is because it's actually away from the facade of the building. So with the way our roofs are working, you actually wouldn't see it from the street is the intent is that from Summit a you wouldn't have views of
these elevator, you know, elevator bulkheads or stair bulkheads in the same way if they were at the edge of the building. Um which is what the first the stairwell and summit have on the corner um is currently shown at on the lower floors. We stop it there and we just have the stair from the roof coming down
um from the middle. And before you move on from this particular sheet, yeah, under the prior approval, we didn't have any green space or solar panel, right? That's actually a new approval under the ordinance as is written now. We've agreed with planning and we will
agree with this as a condition of approval that we will meet the requirements for the green space or the solar, whatever they think is the most fitting as part of this approval. Yeah. And one thing I've noted too is that because of the size of the property, ostensibly, if you
were to have taken the entire church side of the property um and use that square footage to determine the amount of solar you would need on this roof, it would be much more square footage, what we're proposing is to actually split it up evenly based on the roof size, not based on the lot size. So on the summit
a portion of the prop or on the summit summit a building um that building will have more of the green or solar solar panels versus the clifton a where the roof is smaller so you'll have less of that but overall as in in aggregate both projects will meet the requirement
together with that I I think that's all I want to um bring up now but I'm open to questions if you have anything you want me to ask me about this we we usually Well, you have a question. I do. Okay. We usually hold out questions to the end. Do we have Oh, I'm so sorry. That's okay.
Oh, good. I I just wanted to find out what exactly you going to do with that facade, the front of that the the church. Um, what are you going to do with that as you go? There's going So, there there's going to be an entire restoration scope for the facade of the church. Essentially, it's removing old stone, replacing old stone,
new slate shingle roofs. Um, there's there's a fair scope here. Um, I think it I think I think it should be called out on the sheet, but essentially it's a full restoration of the facade of the church in addition to the roofs. But when you go into this building,
what's going what what do you have? There's going to be an open gallery space that will likely for the most part be used by the residents, but will you there will be times coordinated with the ownership that will allow access to the public, I think, is the way his approvals work with with historic in the city.
Um, but there will there will be public access to there. um based on you know times and events that are coordinated with the owner. So it's not going to be uh used as a church at all any kind of religious No. I see. Okay.
Um and and I would just use this opportunity to say that you have worked extensively with historic on this. Correct. and that we've gotten a uh certificate of appropriateness not just for the work that we're doing, but we're currently working with historic to stabilize the
building because the building is in it has been in really bad shape for a long time. Sorry. We're currently working with historic to stabilize the building because the building is in really bad shape currently. In fact, there's there's currently no roof on the
building. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's just beautiful. I would love to see it in color. Well, that's what this is for. So, we have, you know, I I'm excited as well to see what this turns into when once everything's restored to, but we're
we're excited for um for the time finally to come for the renovation of the church. We've been working on this for the past I think it's been 10 years at least. We definitely did the first uh structural uh support work for the roof of the church at least I guess 10 years
ago at this point. But um this would be great to see move forward. Okay. Okay. I have nothing uh further. Thank you. And before I before I bring up Charles Hut, I will just kind of give context to
this. Uh obviously there was a number of variances that were approved for this building the first time. Shrinking the size of both properties intensifies those variances. So, while we're not asking for very major changes on this building, Charles does need to come up
here and, you know, explain our reasons for why we feel it's okay to intensify those variances on these smaller properties. Okay. Thank you. With that, Mr. Charles, do you swear or testimony, the whole truth? I do.
Thank you. Yes. Charles Height. Last name is spelled H E Y DT. Good evening board members. Um it's always a pleasure to be before the board. Uh we have an exciting project. Obviously, it's been before this board in in past on prior approvals. Uh and
just as Mr. Lean said, I just wanted to make sure everyone was comfortable with the intensification, as we would call it, uh with the subdivision. So, we are proposing two lots um where the existing property is one. Um, for a matter of
record, uh, lot 11.03 or in some cases it's 11.01A, that's the property that the church will remain on, uh, is the larger of the two. That's 16,744 square ft. And then the second lot where
the separate detached apartment building will remain is uh, uh, lot 11.04 or 11.01b. Uh that's 11,487 square feet. So that's where we start kind of the discussion because those lot sizes and the numbers change a lot of
the calculations. Um when we look at the density variance request, um the R1 has a base basis of 42 units per acre. The sports heard me say that many many times over. Um, when you run through the new calculations
with 39 units, some of them going into the existing church with the addition, uh, and then 42 units going into the new proposed apartment building on on the second lot, your density calculations get revised to 103 uh, and 162 units per
acre. So, these are substantial increases in the numbers, but from prior approvals, the unit count actually decreases by one. So again, there's no real substantial change in the plans and the proposed number of units. Uh but the increase the decrease in lot size
increases the density. Um running through a two others that are directly related to the lot size or lot coverage and building coverage. Common theme here, the denominator changes. Um the lot coverage on both respective projects
uh increases to 96 and 95% respectively where 85%'s permitted and then the building coverage with the recalculations adjusts to 76 and 75% respectively. Um again no changes in the
footprint. Uh really minor modifications on the interior. uh and uh I think what what is being done to accommodate the re rehabilitation of the church and right sizing the additions the the main addition and the second building uh
require a certain square footage and a certain coverage. Uh so again that's that's all been previously discussed and I think it's still uh is appropriate for the property. The two other variances that aren't so much related to lot size but just really
a recalculation of where these parking spaces and bicycle spaces occur. Uh are another intensification. So with respect to vehicular parking, uh lotto three requires 18 spaces. That's the existing church. Um I I
correction that's the the existing church requires 12 spaces. Um and the uh existing the the proposed uh lot 1104 requires 18. What's being proposed is 13 spaces with the church. There's a
smaller footprint in the rear of the church with the new addition that can can accommodate that. And the proposed uh is is 14 for for the new structure. Um the bicycle parking uh there's no
bicycle parking uh being proposed on the church property. Uh that property mainly the church has been dedicated to uh apartment units and now the gallery. Um the in the rear edition there's uh the the vehicular parking. So that layout
really was concentrated and focused on accommodating those two aspects. Uh the bicycle parking is provided um in the uh proposed structure on lot 11.04 where there's 24 spaces. Uh again, so the bicycle parking has not changed. I'm
sorry. I thought the resol uh rendering was still up. Um that's why I'm looking up to see if it's still there. But um those again are are uh really just a matter of where they're occurring on which lot and we're just clarifying it for each of the proposed properties. Um
when you look at special reasons that would uh um encourage this sort of application or amendment uh I do think as with the first applications or the prior applications we're looking at purpose E of the municipal land use law establishment of appropriate population
densities. Notwithstanding the increase in density that we just walked through. I still do think this is an appropriate uh location. This is a very large property in the R1. Uh to have a subdivision that is in excess of the minimum lot size of 2500 square ft. I
realize that's for a one family home or a two family home, but sizes properties of this size, 16,000 and change, 11,000 and change are substantially uh larger than what the R1 is intended for. Uh and accommodating infill residential is an
appropriate use of a size of that property. Uh I do also think we're promoting a desirable visual environment um for a number of reasons with the rehabilitation of the church but also the aesthetics of the proposed addition and new proposed apartment building. Um
they've been designed to be consistent in terms of the facade and materials with the existing church. I wouldn't say they're uh any ex uh a historic structure uh but they do have a lot of historical cues with the peaks
and uh and the facade materials. Uh I would also say that uh with respect to the overall height and massing of the building, nothing's really changing from prior approvals. The peaks of the church are the highest point of the overall property. So while the proposed
structures are five stories, it's still going to be a lower than the peak of the church. And while I don't like referencing other adjacent properties, just to the north is a redevelopment project in a separate redevelopment plan, but that is a a multi-story
building at 10 stories. Uh, and I think even one portion might be 11. Excuse me, mistake. You don't have any photos or pictures or you know, I I do I updated photos. Do you have in your set you had photos? I have um so as part of my as part of
the presentation, I have elevations that show you uh the the you want photos of Oh, you're saying to me about height and whatever. I'd like to just see that. So, let me I'll I'll show you what we have. But ostensibly, we have elevations that show our height in relation to the
neighboring. So, I'll pull up the what's currently there. So, that's on the right side of the screen, you'll see the the adjacent property, which is the 10story property, I believe. And then along Clifton AB, I think it ends up being approximately 11 stories, but that's that's in reference
of height of what's what the surroundings are. Thank you. This is a really uh useful image to help with that. So, um you can see on the far right, this is the uh project that's in the Summit Fair Mount redevelopment plan. We're not advocating
for 10 stories, we're at five stories. Um but you can see the context and the relationship. This will be the immediately adjacent structure to the the proposed five stories along Summit Avenue. Um, okay. So, that's building height and
desirable visual environment. Um, I do think enough is being done and and appropriate design techniques are being in in in uh involved with the development here. And lastly, I think purpose J to promote the preservation of historic sites uh is also being met and
furthered with this application. Uh and that's that's always been part of the the theme with uh the adaptive reuse. Um with respect to negative criteria, uh I don't believe there's any substantial detriment to the uh general welfare. I actually think the lower parking count will actually reduce the number of
vehicles in and out of the property. Uh so notwithstanding the variance, I think this is a very walkable neighbor neighborhood. Um there's a lot of mixed uses along Summit and and in the greater area. Um with respect to um the overall
massings, I do think that uh the positioning and setbacks that were previously approved are still the same. They're not being exacerbated or shrunk. Um so they're they're still appropriate for appropriate light and air. Um with respect to the uh zone plan or zoning
ordinance, uh we are referencing the R new R1 standards. Um most projects that pursue affordable housing would do so under the new affordable housing overlay and that actually would remove the requirement
for a density variance and parking variance. This application isn't relying on the AHO from a formal standpoint as Mr. Lean mentioned the affordable units are really a product of the financing with the city um from the Department of
Community Development, not so much an application under the the new affordable housing ordinance. We're actually in excess of the 10% that would be required. We're proposing 11 units where eight are required. Um I'm bringing this up not so much as as a
as an excuse as to not why we're not complying with the AHO, but I actually think we're doing more than the AHO would require. Um, so I don't think there's an impairment there. Um, again, I don't think there's an impairment to the R1 standards. Generally, the purpose is to accommodate infill residential
development, and that is this project. Uh, the master plan also advocates for adaptive reuse and historic preservation. So, uh, I think this project completes both of those. That's my testimony. Happy to answer any questions.
Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um, at this time I Is there anyone? Mr. Lena, are you finished? Oh, I I would just mention that um I I got the chance to actually go visit the interior of this church back on a very very cold January day with Dan Reeden.
Um, and it is it's in really bad uh condition on the inside of it, but even when you stepped inside, you could see what the potential is there. So, I think this is a great project. I think it's providing affordability. It's providing a a a public space and it's repairing a
a historic element of the city that I think will will be look great and and be a great place to live. So that's all I have. Okay. Thank you. Let me let me ask you a question. How many affordable apartments are you putting up? It's all told it's 11 units. And how many units are you building?
82. So required affordable is eight, but you're giving us 11. The affordable is eight. And then again, just to to add on top of that, it's not just that. It's all less than 50% of AMI. Normally, we would the what was previously approved was nine just
moderate units. So, this is 11 and that means that they're all uh low or very low income units. So, it really raises this the Very good. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Okay. At this time, um I see um someone just walked in. Are you looking to make
a comment about this project? Yes. Okay. So you could come up this we'll open the public portion. Okay. Do you swear or affirm the testimony or questions you're about to give in this proceeding will be the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth. Yes. Thank you. And if you can state and spell your full name and provide your address. Erica Barnes. E R I K A B A R N S. And my address is 185A Randolph Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey.
Um, so with the 11 affordable units, isn't it still kind of cutting what the requirements are for it or no? The requirements for that size is um I
believe it said eight uh 10% of the units and they're providing 11. So 11. So those So what will the income requirement be for that? Yeah. So, so part part of the reason again for doing this is the funding we're going to get from the city. And
that lowers that requirement to 50% of AMI for all 11 of the units. And I just I just want to point out when we first came to the board with this years ago, there was there was no requirement for affordability. It was it was it was part of the give back for what we were asking for from the variances. I think what Mr.
height pointed out was if we were to come before this board and say we're using the affordability uh the affordable housing overlay or the inclusionary zoning ordinance, it would be 10%. We're above that and and we're that the the affordability level is less than
what would be required if we were to use either the affordable housing overlay or the I think the question was what's the number what's the what would the rent be or income level? Do you know? I I I I don't know the unfortunately I do
not know the answer to that one. Um I I apologize. Saying that it's in between this amount like people we look like to I wish I had that number. No, affordable housing is $2,000 minimum
for some. So is it staying at that range or is it underneath? So, I can I can actually look up those numbers for you if you'd like, but it's not a standard number because it goes by the family size. So, if our median income in Jersey City is
67,000 for a oneerson household, it's a different number than a number for a fourperson household. I'll look up the numbers uh so you have a better idea. There is uh uh I think on our division of affordable
on the division of affordable uh housing website which one of our divisions here we have that up. Um you have it. Yeah. So we're in the I'm sorry uh we are in the Hudson region one. So very this is
we'll start with low which is 50% or below a one person that annual income is $42,000. A two person is 48,000 354 460 and565.
Now if we go to the very low which would be um that that family that that number household can still apply for those 50% or below um that number goes down through the five family five person sorry being 39,000. That's the annual
income of all the folks in that household that earn an income. So it ranges, let's say if you are in a a five or four family, let's do four from 36 uh to 60 as an annual income for
everybody who earns an income in the house. Okay. And are we doing anything like for the kids in the community or anything with like affordable commercial spaces on the bottom or anything like that or no? Uh so so one of the things that is part of this and
is also part of the historic program that we're doing is we are there is a gallery space that is um going to be like a semi public semi-private space that you know uh we have to work with landmark on that. We don't know exactly what it's going to be but that will at least preserve some of what that church
element was. um what that means for people's access. I I I can't talk about that right now because that's going to be something that the landmark division of the state agrees with with my client, but that will be something that is semi-public and open to to people. Other
than that, I I Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Do we have um any So, this ends the public portion of our meeting. Um do we have any comments or questions from the commissioners? Any commissioners have any comments or questions? I I I have a question. You keep
referring to the AMI. What I don't What exactly is that? That's uh the Let me see if I remember the exact average medium income. Oh, okay. Yes. Sorry, I almost said average monthly income, but that wouldn't make sense. Say the average median income.
That that acronym could be for so many things, you know. I just wanted to Mr. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner Allen. You have a question? Yes. I I don't know who this question would go to, but I just have a simple question about the apartment above the um above the the very top apartment above the loft.
How would that have windows on it? If it's the the clear story windows of the church actually face out from there. So you what was originally clear stories from below are now your actual windows out? Okay. All right. So that makes sense. Okay. There will be windows in there. Okay. Cuz I was thinking if it's at the top, I would have Okay. Oh, and one more
question. Will the bell still be active? I think that'd be cool to do. I can't guarantee that, but that'd be, you know, it' be nice to restore the church and the bell, but would you want the bell, you know, ringing out when it's 7 in the morning? No.
I don't know. It would sound good, but no. Yeah. For for spec for someone who wanted to hear it, it would sound good. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the commissioners? Okay. Could we hear from the staff? I I also wanted to qualify
that if um a a household qualifies based on their annual income, their monthly rent is actually based on 30% of their income. So even if the highest income is 65, it's actually 30% of if you are for a family household and you only make 50,
it's 30% of that. I just uh I it popped up in my head last minute. Uh the conditions are pretty standard. The only two that I I assume you've read them, the only two I want to call out um which one of them is a little obvious is that you comply with the conditions of the
historic approvals. Um but the last one is that uh the applicant shall complete the church building first or at the same time as the new construction building and no CO will be granted for the new construction building prior to any CO for the church building.
Okay. So all the there's seven conditions uh for the record so it's clear. Um I know this uh at least the memo has been up for a bit. Uh but that is the one that I wanted to call attention to. Absolutely. And and we agree that I just do want to put on the record that means
we can at least commence construction on the new one. But there just will be no CO granted until they've completed the church. Correct. All right. Okay. Okay. Based on that, are there any additional questions or concerns from our commissioners? Okay. Um
Okay. Um I'd like to make a motion uh to vote with conditions on case Z2025-00004. Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve case Z2025-00004 as presented to the board this evening. Can I get a second? Second. Okay.
Commissioner Basley. Mr. Basley, before you take role, uh, I just wanted the record to reflect that just as this hearing started, Commissioner Shaded came in. He was here for the entire testimony, but you might not have him on the role, so he did
come. Okay. Prior to the start of this. Okay. Okay. Mr. Beasley, Commissioner Shid, you're still here. Yes. Thank you, Commissioner Patel. Hi,
Commissioner Allen. Uh, I can't wait to see this project finish. I'm a yes. Yeah. Commissioner Baron, yes. Vice Chair Rule, yes. Chair Coyle, yes. Motion carries. Six in favor, none opposed. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. Um, before I make a motion to adjurnn, I'd just like We have some motion. Oh, we have some. Okay. So, I guess we have some resolutions to memorialize tonight.
Yes, we do. So the first uh resolution uh is this case Z20-043 which is a preliminary and final major site plan with C and D variances. That was for 2011 Newark Avenue Property LLC.
The property was 2011 Newark Avenue in Jersey City. That was heard on numerous dates. October 24th, November 14th, December 12th, February 27th, March 27th. Uh, February 27th, 7, and then March
27th. And, uh, oh, we need that. Really? I thought I projected. No, I don't. Sorry. It's old age. So, who was present? Let's see. Chairwoman Coyle and then at one time uh
Chairwoman uh Aoya, Vice Chairwoman, also Commissioners Burns, Baron, Boille, Patel, and Zablicki. And that was approved. Seven in favor, none opposed. All in favor of memorializing that? I I. And then we have a corrective
resolution, which is the applicant is 500 Communipo Avenue LLC. The case is Z20-081. It's a preliminary and final major safe plan approval with C and D variances for
5510 Communipore Avenue. That was heard September 23rd of 2021 and we memorialize it October 28th of 2021. We're correcting it now. I forgot why, Eric.
Why are we correcting this? There was some minor ministerial. Yeah. They accidentally omitted a lot. That's right. Yes. So they just added one of the lot numbers into the resolution. Right. So that's that's really the that's what we call in the trade
ministerial. Yeah. Whatever that means. And I believe we wanted to announce on record that it doesn't extend their That's right. Right. It doesn't extend their time. They're still operating under that under the that original resolution.
Yes. Sorry. Finish. Fenito. Sorry. Oh, so I thought you wanted me to just keep quiet al together. It's me. So in the original resolution was who
voted five uh nothing. The first uh first vote was chairwoman Coyle and then commissioners Ziplicki, Patel, Boille, and Burns. So all in favor of memorializing this corrective resolution I that's it.
Okay. So before I call for motion to adjourn the meeting, I'd like to say I didn't welcome you before I just introduced you and said that we had a new commissioner. So welcome to our and hope you have a good time with us. Welcome to the board. I had a couple of I had a couple of laughs. Okay, good.
Say you had a couple. So I make a motion to adjourn this meeting. Can I get a second? Second. All in favor? I. Meeting adjourned.