Good evening everybody. We're going to call this meeting to order. Okay. Uh good evening. Um, welcome to the zoning board of adjustments meeting for um, October 9th, 2025. Joseph, do we have any um, sunshine announcements?
Uh, yes. Um, in accordance with the open public meetings act uh, notices meeting this notice of this meeting has been sent to the Bergen record and especially uh, as well as posted with the uh, city clerk. Uh, I would like to submit this
into evidence as B1. salute the flag and then roll. Okay, please join me in salute to the flag. The United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Joseph, may may we have roll call? Yes. Um, acting vice chair Baron here. Commissioner Shadid, yes. Commissioner D'Angelo, yes.
Commissioner Podell, yes. Acting Chair Allen, present. We have five present for this meeting. Can you swear in the staff? Uh any correspondence tonight? Yes, we do. Uh we had um a few requests
for uh to be carried. Um first we have um a request to be carried for case Z2024-0076. Uh see variances for 30 DAB Avenue. request to be carried for October 23, 2025 with preservation of notice.
Um, we have the second uh being case Z2024-0071 uh appeal of notice of violation 432 Sherman Place uh request to be carried for October 23rd 2020 2025 with preservation of notice.
Another for case Z2025- Z0011 minor site plan with DNC variances for 219 SIP Avenue request to be carried for October 23rd 2025 uh notice required.
And lastly, we have case Z2024- 0000001 preliminary and final major site plan with CND variances uh 448 Central Avenue uh requested to be carried for October 23rd, 2025. Notice required. That is
all. If anyone is from the public for any of those cases, they won't be heard tonight. They will be posted and uh excuse me, carried to a new date and posted. Joseph, uh, while you're there, uh, I
think, uh, members of the board, we have to, uh, elect Joseph as our new secretary because Eric is gone. Is that correct, Joseph? Is that the position you want to take? Yes. Yeah. You're going to you're going to uh uh accept that role for us?
Uh, yes, sir. We Nobody has an objection to that, do they? No. No. No. So, uh, here it is. Oh, thank you very I can swear you in, but I, you know, I'm sure you're going to be do the job the right way. Correct. Thank you so much. All right. Good luck to you. Thank you.
Okay. So, it covered correspondence and adjournments. So, let's move on to new business. First case, first case tonight is KZ2025-000065 117 North Street. Yes.
You need me to I'll get close. Iris, okay, good evening. 117. Good evening. Good evening. How are you, sir? Mr. Bascaron, just before you start, you did notice for this case. We have the
notices on the portal. We've checked them. And so, uh, we don't have hard copies here, do we? No, I have copies. Oh, so why don't you notice the notices? Yeah. Proof notice. Sorry, I may have missed. Well, well, they're on the portal.
They're on the portal. Yeah. So, okay. So, just I I think we've reviewed them on the portal and they're accurate. So, you can go forward. So, since this is a notice case, we have to make sure the notice was sent and we we've done that. Okay. So,
This is a simple matter. What is your Why don't you proceed and we'll go from there. Um, a bit nervous, so I wrote out what I want to say. So, I'm just going to read this. Don't be nervous. We're all nervous up here. You have to be calm. We've got Let's do this often, right? So, this is my wife also. She's pregnant, so
I'm going to have her sitting. Oh, very nice. When do you do two weeks? Oh, God. What are you doing here? Jesus. The timing was perfect. Let's go. Come on. Thank you. My my medical skills are not here. So, let's go. All right. Appreciate it. Um, so my name
is David Aesron. I'm here this evening to request approval for C variance relief to allow front yard parking. I purchased this home in 2020, followed the town's rules to properly pull building permits, and spent two years converting this multif family home into a single family home, my wife and I's
first home. I knew that parking in Jersey City has always been a challenge. I did not realize on North Street, it's nearly impossible. On North Street, nearly every property has either a legal driveway or is utilizing front yard parking, even though they they do not have a listed
driveway on the town's zoning driveway website. Many of these driveways were grandfathered in, yet they have much tighter spaces than what my potential driveway would have. What adds to this hardship is that a lot of people with legal driveways park one or two cars on their driveway and also have friends
come over and park in front of my house. In fact, at times it feels as though people are waiting for me to move my car to come and swoop in and take the spot. There have been countless times where my wife or I have to park at the end of Washington Park uh or three or four five
blocks down the road. And unfortunately, this has made for some very uncomfortable walks back home. Uh Central A is littered with people loitering. Um my wife probably can't tell you how many times she's been catal. And while Washington Square Park is beautiful during the daytime, it can
be a scary walk back when it's dark. I know that these parking cases can be challenging, uh, my property is one of the very few on the street that does not have a driveway. Yet, I have a front yard space that more closely meets the requirements than many of the legal
driveways. I believe these variances should be granted due to the reasons I've stated today, but also mainly because my home is practically the only house on North Street that's being penalized and that's my case. Do you have any no other further witnesses? No. No.
Does the board have any questions? No. Anybody from the public? I have a question. So, go right ahead. So, I I just pulled the picture up. Um 117 North Street, I guess. Is it Is it a white Is it a white house
with black trim? Yes. Okay. Yeah. So So So do you have plans to move the gas meter? Um I I have not considered that. Have you considered
Have you putting Have you considered putting a guard around that? I can absolutely do that. Okay. Yep. Because when you're driving, if you have an accident, Yeah. that could be a major problem. Understood. Yeah. I mean, you can just tap the gas
meter and crack it. That's That's my concern. That's That's why I asked Have you consider moving it or at least putting a guard up? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Any other questions? No. Um staff, hold on. I forgot the public to Anybody from the public want to make a
comment on this case? There's something to No. Seeing none. Okay, we'll close the public. Close the public staff. Yep. Trying to deal with the internet. It's not registering at all. Yeah.
I'd love to see a picture, too. Yeah. If not, I could try to put it on the Yeah. Everybody has a picture. I don't know this was on. I have no idea.
Okay. You good? You want this? Still like this. Oh, it's on top. Yeah, that was the tablet number. That's too easy for us. You got to Yeah, it's coded somehow. No, we haven't had these tablets in a
year. Mine's not booting up anywhere. Okay, good. You have a mic right by you, Tanya. If you want to Okay, I get it. You have a mic right there for you. Okay. So, it's blurry, but um
I think Commissioner Allen recognized that it's the white house with the black trim. Yes. Good. Um, so if you looked at my staff report, you could see this is the gentleman's house where the red rectangle should
have been. Um, and you can see that in almost the entire block has front yard parking. So, we'll do a brief history because I don't want to bore you and we've already done it, but we'll have to do it again just for the record's sake. Um,
in the late 80s, the zoning allowed for uh front yard parking. If you had a single or two family house, as long as you had 18 ft of depth, you would call the zoning officer. They would come out and they would measure using the the
measuring, you know, wheel. And if you had the 18 feet, they'd sign in a ledger. Uh, good or no good, etc. No good would always mean that you didn't have the 18 feet. Uh that continued on through the 90s and in 2000 we did our
new master plan and front yard parking was no longer permitted. So everything before 2000 as long as it had the 18 ft um was permitted to have front yard parking even if they didn't
have a garage or driveway. And part of what uh this board does is does certificates of non-conformity. This is not a certificate of non-conformity, but let's just kind of talk about it a little bit, right? The certificate of non-conformity means that you had that
um situation, that variance, something that would be considered a variant. Now, you legally had it before it became not permitted. And you can show that it was not permitted in a place like Jersey City where there's hundreds of thousands of people. Some people probably had the
18 feet and actually called the zoning officer to come out. And some people had the 18 feet and probably just went ahead and did it. And again, in a a place like size like Jersey City, it's probably impossible that everybody was going ahead and actually getting the the
approval to do so. So, we've got a real mix of properties right now with front yard parking that have probably had those spaces since before 2000. That's act one. Act two, the zoning
officer after 2000 goes ahead and gives that certification to any property that they could find that had front yard parking andor curb cut as long as they could see that they
had it on Google Street View from 2007. So, I I know I skipped over seven years, but just bear with me. Um, so it's 2008. You are uh 17 117A, which is the blue
property with the white trim. Uh, you go to the zoning officer. The zoning officer goes at Google Street View goes to where it says, you know, there's uh for more dates, click here and you the furthest you can go back and Google is
2007. That's why that year was picked. Um and if you had something in 2007, the zoning officer went down and said, "Okay, you have illegal parking." He did not have the authority to do that, right? So the MLU is actually really
clear on this. Um you have to have had that space when it was permitted. Anything after that, um you would have had to have gone for the variance to do so. We did a calculation. The amount of front yard parking that was approved
pre200 is about 3,500 spaces, right? And then the amount that was approved from 20 2000 to pretty much when I took over maybe 2025 is another 4,000. So there are seven pro let's say roughly eight or
7,000 legal spaces, right? people that have actually gone ahead and get approvals and they're in a in a portal in a database that we've collected over time that we've had to take from all the ledgers from all the papers and put it into the into the online portal system. So, you can go and you can see whether
or not you have illegal front yard parking. I I give all that background because when you're driving down a street, especially like North Street, you're like, "This is crazy. This is out of control. How did this happen?" That's how it happened. However, in this
instance, at least 50% of the block has um legal, let's just go with curb cuts for right now. Okay. They have legal curb cuts, right? And so the conversation does start to change a little bit in
Joseph. Sorry, I think you might have. Yes. Okay. Yep. The conversations start to change a little bit in 2000 because the parking authority says you can park in front of your curb cut if you own the property and you have a legal parking
space. So the zoning officer then started giving out permits just so you could park in front of your curb cut. add a couple more thousand people to the list who maybe didn't have front yard parking or didn't have the 18 feet but somehow had a curb cut and now mix it
all together and you've got a curb cut with a maybe only 11 foot uh parking space. Uh it doesn't give an excuse as to why we should be granting new variances. This is something at least the planning division has been trying to handle and kind of deal with in the last
20 years since I became the zoning officer. It's been something that we've been trying to wrap our hands around and kind of create really clear parameters for um the two properties at least on to me they're to the right um of the
gentleman's 117 117A and 119 were both approved in the late 90s. So that means that they were approved under the actual law where it was permitted. Now, when the inspectors went out, the inspectors wrote that it was good because it was 18
feet. It's not accurate. So, just because the stairs or the retaining wall or the fence comes out to some point, that doesn't mean that that's your property, right? Your actual natural property line on the survey can be a
different place than where your stairs or your fence is. This is in Jersey City. This is everywhere. This is a historic condition where you have a natural fence line. If you're in downtown Jersey City, there's a natural stoop line, etc. Tons of places in Jersey City where you have that. Now,
after it comes to property line, it's city property, right? It's public property. Um, and in order to really access it or to use it, you have to have an easement, which with the city is just called a franchise, right? So, you go to city council, you get the approval to use it. I'm sure there's insurance that
happens and um it gets a part of your tax assessment. Well, the city really wasn't enforcing that until probably anywhere after maybe 2010. Um so we have three houses in front of
us, 17, 17A, 119. All of them are identical. based on their property survey, they only have 12 and a half feet and then they get to the property line and everything after that is technically public right of way. Um, so
that's why I'm walking you kind of through as to how we got to the variances, right? So there's a few variants here. One variance is that there's no parking permitted between the building and the front property line. You have to have a you have to have a garage, a driveway. So, for example, the
gentleman to the left has a garage. So, he has a driveway. If he parks in his driveway, that's what he's doing. The other variance, of course, is now like I just started to explain, parking or blocking public right ofway. So, you
have to have permission to do so. So, you have to have the legal kind of say so, sign off from permission from the city, the franchise that says I'm allowed to be in the sidewalk or this portion of the right of way. Um the third variance is front yard
landscaping. So as a part of your front yard, you're required to have 50% of your front yard be coverage, whether that be, you know, grass or etc. Um so there's none here obviously because it's all concrete. The fourth is parking dimensions and I
want to explain this even though um he this gentleman can get to the 18 ft. So the minimum parking spaces is 18 ft by 8 1/2 ft wide. In order to get to that 18 ft, he'll need the franchise.
But I can't we can't say that he has that 18 ft until he has the okay from the city. So the variance is incurred because on his property he can only account for 12 and a half feet. I believe that's all of the variances. Um,
I tend to be very uh vigilant when it comes to this. I'm going I'm really just kind of going to let the board decide what they want to do. Again, this is 50 at least 50% of the block on this block front on this side of where uh the gentleman lives is
legal front yard parking. The majority of it is probably I don't know if there's I honestly don't know if there's any uh curb spaces on this block at all. As you can kind of see like again again he's right here. Um I think that this spot right here is
kind of between two curb cuts. You kind of see. Um so if the board does uh grant the variance, it will have to come with a condition that um the franchise be sought. So that's up to the city council to decide whether the franchise is
sought. um uh the franchise is granted, but uh he can't have the space without it, without that franchise legally, even though the two people next to him historically at this point have kind of just been uh into their they're legal
non-conforming situations. That was a lot. So, any questions that you have, we can walk through them. So, if if we approve him tonight, can we put it in a condition that he puts a stop in front of the gas meter? Because
I can I mean, not saying that you or your wife would just drive into it, but a little bump can set off a whole catastrophe of gas leaks and shutting the block down for PSNG. And that's all I have to say. Yeah. Okay.
Yes, you can add any condition that's completely reasonable. Yeah. And Tanya, you would think that they should go for a franchise even though some of the other people on the block don't have it. I I think I think that I have to go and
actually take a look, but I guess we could say at least 60% of the block that um has it doesn't have it. We would have to completely recreate it. Yes, we could be setting a precedent. I I'm not going to pretend like we're not. As I said, this
is an incredibly frustrating and difficult thing that we deal with in Jersey City. And since I became the zoning officer, it is the bane of my existence. Um but we are we've kind of inherited um this uh and
in this instance- because it was so prevalent and the two buildings next to him had the identical situation we at least were going to see let's go to the board and and let the decision be made there. Any questions?
No. I I just I have a question. So when you say the properties next to it, so are you talking about mostly the encrouching over the property line? Yeah. So I actually think that I mean I can I can take out his survey. Um I
think he submitted as a part of the application, but I actually I think the property line might be somewhere closer to there. I don't know if you can kind of see where my the finger is. Mhm. So 12 and 1/2 ft and then 4 and 1/2
ft over. So this car is actually a really great example. Um you see that like kind of sidewalk line right there. That's probably the 18 ft. You need five feet of clearance for ADA
for a sidewalk. Um so there is five if one of these squares is five. Um, in a lot of instances maybe we would consider for your landscaping something you can possibly do permeable pavers but in this instance even a tree is
difficult because the lots are pretty narrow. Yeah, this is a hard one. Yeah, if this is the the the start of this is a violation which is the start of a lot of our things. We enforce by violation.
I do not have the staff to go out um and to kind of uh patrol the streets and see what happens. So, a lot of our forcement is done by violation uh uh by complaint. I'm sorry.
Okay. Excuse me again. But the the two properties are now legal. They've been so they've been legal since the late 90s. Mid90s, late 90s. 95 96. Okay, thank you.
Any more questions? We did that already. Yeah, okay. Um, sorry. May I just um ask um can I share any of the other properties on North Street? Do you do you want to I have printed copies? I You could turn You could give them to
the board. Yeah. So I I just there's a few um on the opposite side and I'm not here to you know u cause a stir or anything like that, right? But um I I I want to present my best foot forward. Um so I
think I will just pass two sheets um 106 and 104 screenshot images from Google if I if I can hand these to you guys. Um they're a little bit further down on the opposite side. Um the opposite side of North
Street, the opposite of my side, the same ones you can pass on. It's a bit tighter. Um, like I mentioned, right? So, um, so just sharing in terms of dimensional and
the I don't I don't know which way you're going. I um, it would be going this way for people. I just wanted the public to be able to see also where you're going. Yep. 104 106 that gray city
on the left there she's saying some of the city lines are technically representation of the hardship on the street that's all mean anything in particular just um just that they're um they're legal I I believe and they're in usage
I just want to make sure that what they say yeah there you go I just want to make sure is this what it Uh, no. I think um you're a little too far down. Maybe I knew you want two houses up. Yeah, that that's the shot I think that I shared.
Okay, you want this? We're going to have to mark this anyway. Tanya, you hit before you roll back. Is that the same photo? I don't think so. Is that the phone? Same photo. This the same photo? No, no, no. It's different. Yes, that's a different
Yeah. A3. So, is it is the correct to say that this is this is 107 North. What do you know what the street addresses are? I have it. At least for the record, I want to make sure. 104 and 106.
Okay, great. So the pictures show 104 106 North Street and it looks like slightly some of 102. Yep. I think my wife would like to just add one thing. I don't know if you need to swear her in as well.
Yes, she has to. I do. Nirva Nirvana Aad Nirvana N I R V A N Aad A W A D Excuse me. Um, sorry. I just want to
share I think my husband obviously did a lot of the research on what's going on with the street, but just from like a personal perspective, I think like just in general, safety is definitely a concern on the street. And I just want to share that because um I I'm a
healthcare provider. I work in the city and I come back late sometimes. And so that walk coming back can be a you know concerning in terms of my safety. My husband has had to go out and actually like talk to there's a restaurant down the street called Roomba Cafe and there's a lot of people who loiter down
there. So, um there was, you know, a situation where I was like cat called like every day for like 2 weeks and um he had to have a conversation with the owner. And so, I think it's just generally hard when um you know, as a homeowner, you feel like you can't
really park one car in front of your house, whereas there's many tenants on the street that we know that again like bring their friends and park in front. So again, just speaking from personal experience. I mean, clearly, you know, he's done all the research, but I just wanted to share that.
Thank you. Thank you. If there are no more questions um from the commissioners, I like um have a motion. I'd like to make a I'd like to make a motion to approve with conditions.
Got to say the case. Second. Got to say the case. Yeah. Oh, he's good. Uh so we'll make a motion to approval the conditions being the screening on the uh on the gas. Yes. And we have to go he's got to go for a
franchise agreement. So with those two conditions we have a second and then Okay. So on the motion we take a role. Yes. Um acting vice chair Baron.
Yes. Commissioner Shaded, yes. Commissioner D'Angelo, yes. Commissioner Patel, yes. Acting Chair Allen. So, I just want to say we all feel your pain. We're all from Jersey City. We all
have the same problems. It's the parking is crazy. I get your wife. I mean, people do park in my driveway, right? And they get attitude with me when I say, "Hey, I got to go." So, I'm a yes. Motion carries. 5. Motion carries. Good luck to you. Good
luck, ma'am. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Take care. I get it. Yes. All right. So, we'll move right along. Right, Mr. Joseph? So, the next case is Z 2024-000011. [Applause]
That's uh 626 Palisate Avenue. We took testimony of that. Uh, in fact, we we really closed the public except for if somebody's here from the public that uh didn't speak last time, they can speak now. Correct. And if somebody wants to comment on what
uh Mr. uh Wickerman is going to do now. Yes. Karnification. Yes. Someone spoke last night. I I can't hear you that. Yeah. Come up. come up to the mic, please. Yeah, we're not unreasonable. If
somebody spoke last time and wants to do what? You just want to speak to the to the because it's a a revised plan. Yeah. Oh, yeah. That's that's exactly right. Yes, that's what I was saying. Of course, no objection with any any new comment to the changes we're presenting
this evening. Uh so, my appearance Stephen Joseph Casano Quigley Chami uh for the applicant. My colleague Jim Bruno was here last time. I'm sorry you're stuck with me this evening. Um there was a there was a hearing. We completed all of our direct testimony. There were some comments from
the public, some comments from the board about some uh specific suggested changes um and some additional interaction with the community. Um I I think it's I think it's safe to say that that uh RNA still is not in support of this project. Uh
not in support of a of a fourth story here. Um without the fourth story, we we wouldn't be in front of this board, right? Um, but uh let's let's have Will present the changes. I I I think the changes make the project better. We shrunk the building a little bit. Um,
uh, and let's let's Yeah, let's put Mr. Wman under oath again. I'm assuming his license is still current. We accepted him as an expert. So, just Iris, one moment. Can we just also um do housekeeping? M. Commissioner Patel
wasn't um in attendance at the last meeting. I just want to get on the record that he had time to read the transcript. That's right. I did. Yeah. Thank you, Matt. Thank you. Yes, I do.
Sure. Thank you. All right. Um, so so we're going to start off by entering an an exhibit. The the rendering for the project wasn't uh completed 10 days prior to the to the hearing. the revised plans were, but the actual artistic
representation of it wasn't. So, um I don't see it coming up on the on the screen. And I believe this will be a A2. A1 should have been the notices and we will upload this uh to the portal
as an exhibit. Okay. Thank you again for your for your time this evening. Um I will uh be brief with my testimony. I'll just uh run through the changes that we made to the project uh since the the last hearing. Um
uh fortunately we were able to accommodate all of the board's requested changes. Um and as Steve mentioned, we think it's a it's a significant improvement uh to to the project. Um, the first change that we made is, and it's a little bit hard to see because of
how the perspective is is working, but I'll I'll show it in the in the floor plans, is that we we shifted the building back um about three and a half ft um a little bit more on the on the ground floor. Um, so what that did is the the the neighbor to the south has a
zero foot uh front yard setback and uh the neighbor to the north has about a 9 foot setback on the upper floors and a little over seven on the lower floors. So on the first floor. So um the three and a half ft for the main facade was
kind of a a middle ground between the between the two setback conditions that that exist here. Um um we looked at a number of different options. We looked at stepping the whole building back, but the facade just was
looking a little bit weird. Um so we did some further setbacks uh on on the ground floor, which again I'll you can see a little bit more clearly um once we get into the floor plans. Um the other thing that we did which I think is
another um big improvement to the project is we reconfigured some of the utility spaces um on the ground floor which allowed for the commercial space uh to get a little bit larger and to have a little have a more prominent um
frontage here um where previously we had had a an entry door and a hallway and some utility spaces over here. So, this is really a a substantial uh storefront. That was the one positive that that that everybody agreed on was that the the commercial space was a nice nice uh nice
feature of this project and and would be a real benefit. Um the other thing that that we did was we removed the canopy. Uh instead we we flatten that so it doesn't hang over the street. Um, instead we have a a lower cornis band to help divide the the
storefront uh base from the from the upper floors. Um, within that 3 ft we were also able to add uh some planters and some landscaping. So, we do have a nice um uh buffer uh along the the
storefront um as well. Um, and then finally, the the last change that I' I'd like to point out, um, which I think really helps with the transition um into the into the neighboring buildings is is we added a a
radius um, curve to the to to this corner of the building. So where we have the uh setback um so with with this building we have a very clear clear edge um that defines the break between the
buildings and then as we um where we have the uh zero foot setback on the sideyard here we have a a radius corner which I think helps to further ease that transition um to to the neighboring buildings and I think helps with that.
Um, some of the comments last time was a little bit too jarring between those those two buildings, between the new building and and and the existing building. I think that that this corner is is a lot more successful uh than it was previously. Um,
so with that, I'll I'll I'll uh go through the floor plans that are illustrating uh some of those uh the changes I discussed. starting with the first floor. Um so uh again you can see the the setback
here with the landscaping that we've added. Um and then we have the uh entry uh vestibule which is uh further set back an additional um additional uh 2 feet 4 in um which helps with that uh
the sight line coming out of the the driveway and the garage for this property. So, it's a it's a a staggered step back on the the first floor, which again, I think is is very helpful to transition from the the zero front yard, which is the predominant condition on
the south side of the block to to the uh the neighboring building. Um, another thing that we did, there was uh some some uh concerns raised by the neighbor um regarding impact to his his building. So, um we did an additional uh
setback uh on the side here so that uh we would not disturb his um his uh um service mask for his electrical service. So, um we won't have to inconvenience uh these people in any way by uh shutting off their electrical service and having
to you know redo that on the front of the building. Um the other change I want to note uh in the floor plan is is uh previously we had discussed uh a lot line window um that was uh on the the neighbor's
building. So um we have now created a courtyard uh to accommodate that that window and we shifted the elevator back. So, um, not only is that, um, again, we don't have to disturb this unit in order to, uh, construct the building and it
also pushes the elevator back further, uh, by an additional eight or nine feet. So, um, the elevator is the tallest portion of the building, and, you know, having that set back further from the street is is always a is always a benefit. Just go to full screen here. It's a
little easier. Um so moving up the to the residential floor. So the the the the building was uh compressed. We we didn't shift the building back. We actually um uh we maintained the uh the rear facade and
the general uh mass of the building. we just compress these um uh the front units a little bit um as well as as the the rear units. So um we
the one thing that another factor that was was determining the uh the front yard setback that we ultimately went with is we didn't want to this is the the affordable unit here. Uh this is the three-bedroom affordable unit that we're proposing and we we really didn't want to constrict that unit. uh too much. We
wanted the the bedrooms and the living room to feel um uh substantial. So that that that those are the factors that went into uh it wasn't just the the sighting and the and the massing. It was also the cons the consideration for the for the um unit layouts.
Similar um floor plan similar the changes are nearly identical to the lower floor. Um and then um just want to point out there were some uh minor changes to the roof as well. Um this the setback from the
property line for the for the rooftop amenity space was increased. Um it's roughly the same as what we were proposing before, but the but the building is set back. Um so the amenity space is pushed back on the roof. Um it did get a little bit bigger in terms of
square footage, but it got a little bit shallower and that was because of the elevator position um so that it would open into uh into the amenity space here. But but aside from that, the the roof plan remains largely unchanged. Um
again, uh the elevation changes are uh reflected uh on the rendering. I think it's a little bit easier to see on the rendering because it's not so, you know, it's hard to see a curve in in a flat elevation view. Um, no changes to the rear facade aside
from, you know, some minor tweaks to the to the rooftop uh amenity space. Same with the side elevation. Um, you know, this this section of the building got a little bit uh smaller and the the roof uh amenity space changed slightly,
but other than that, no no major changes. And then again, same with the the side elevation. The um we did update the shadow study. Um if there's any questions I can go into it
but um I'll I'll just quickly go that is the last page. Okay. So yeah that uh that concludes my my testimony. Um thank you. We'll hold questions on the plan.
So we do have our planner here Caroline. Uh we'll get her sworn in very very brief testimony um on the changes. I do. Thank you. Um and my license is Hello. Good evening everyone. My license is good standing
this evening. Um so, uh we're here uh as mentioned we made the minor changes. So with that change when we create we um set the building back we actually um had to add a variance uh because the way the
ordinance reads is that you have to meet an adjacent the setback of an adjacent building. So we don't meet either setback of the adjacent buildings. We're sort of in between or sort of a transition between the two of them which triggers the need for a new front yard
variance. So um we are requesting that as an additional variance this evening. Um in terms of looking at this you know this is a bulk C variance. Um and I'd really look at this as a C2 criteria where you know um based on the feedback
we rece we received regarding visibility and light and air to the adjacent structure to the north. We did increase that setback uh to help provide additional visibility and light and air to that building. So, we do believe that that the benefit here of providing that
additional light and air um uh outweighs the the minor detriment of needing and not meeting one of the adjacent uh front yards at backs. Um other than that, the other variances that we had requested and I provided testimony on at the
previous meeting um have remained unchanged. Just a quick recap, we did request the D1 use variance for the commercial space on the ground floor uh which again it's uh you know on Palisade Avenue where we have a a substantially larger lot width than we
we typically see and so we think that that's a an appropriate use of the space there. Um we are requesting the density variance. again um where you know we're consistent with other multif family buildings in the the neighborhood and we are providing uh the the full three
affordable housing units where um only 2% is two is required. So again we we do think that that that um is a benefit there. um the height variance uh where we are at the 43 feet 8 inches. Um but again we think that this provides that
consistent harmonious visual environment consistent with the adjacent structure which has a very similar height. Um and then the rear yard back which was the little over 30 feet. Um uh but again where it's
consistent with the uh the adjacent structure to um our south south um and a roof again the mix maximum rooftop a pertinance height which is for the uh building elevator.
Um so again I I think that you know all of these these variances really advance the purposes of the municipal land use law. Um again creating that uh appropriate use consistent with purpose A um with a mixeduse building on Palisad
Avenue just north of Congress Street and within 02 miles of the Ninth Street Congress Station um uh passed down to that. Um and I we think it'll enliven the streetscape here. um providing adequate light, air, and open space consistent with purpose C. Again, we're
providing that increased front yard setback to provide additional light and air to the adjacent structure to the north. We do have the 30-foot rear yard setback consistent with the adjacent multif family building. Um uh hold on was four.
um you know providing the appropriate population density um uh in a in a neighborhood that is nourish some transit uh consistent purpose E um and again providing the three affordable units where only two are required and um consistent with purpose I constructing a
new building with a bulk that will provide a cons that consistent harmonious visual environment um I don't see there any substantial detriments uh to the general welfare again it's It's a mixeduse multif family dwelling that's consistent with the character of the
neighborhood. Um, you know, the height and bulk is consistent again with the character of the neighborhood and provides those sufficient setbacks for light and air. Um, and no substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the zone plan or the zoning ordinance. It, you know, advances the city's goals uh to provide unique, attractive, and
high quality uh housing for a wide range of housing uh lifestyle choices. So again, I I think that this meets both the positive and negative criteria for those variances. Um, and that's the end of my testimony.
That's uh that's the our direct testimony for this evening. Um, so the public I was going to say so we can hear from the public now. Yeah. As to at least this testimony and somebody who
didn't speak last time who wants to speak again, they're welcome to come up. Current just you. Oh, there's there's us. Thank you. Yes. Why don't we line up so we know who's coming up and and as a reminder, you have two minutes. Commission three. I mean,
excuse me. Three minutes and don't cut me down. Game coming on at night. We used to get five. You You have three minutes and Commissioner Shadid will keep time. Okay. Last name is W SS M and your address is
576 Palisade Avenue. Great. So I I'm uh um reading this letter on behalf of uh Paul Stellanu who owns 628 Palate Avenue. And the last name again is
uh uh Stellanu. It's St Y L I A N O U. And the address again? 628 Palate Avenue. Just going to read this so it'll be uh brief. Uh the property most uh I Paul say I own the property most directly impacted by this
development. He's right to the north. Um unfortunately long ago planned international business trip pre prevented me from being physically here today. Um I remain categorically against granting the requested variances. This building will impact and significantly
worsen the quality of life for all neighbors in this area. This property should not be permitted to exceed any of the current zoning restrictions um especially the bulk restrictions as it as presented. It will affect my property's light and air as well as the
overall value of my property which now uh is which now exist will now exist next to this monolith. There is no compelling reason to approve these variances other than to increase the developer's profit. Uh the planning group seems to have presented that there
is no reason not to approve these variances. This statement needs to be flipped around in line with the law in the newly enacted zoning. These variances are not needed if the developer would build something of size and scale that fits in with this neighborhood and block. The only harm
that might befall the developer would be a decrease in the profit margin of the project. The developer across the street at uh 617 uh Palisad Avenue developed two three family town houses. Um that was the correct size. He had a image
here. This is right directly across the street. Um that is the correct size uh and scale with the addition of an addition with the addition of an additional 20 plus units. Without parking facilities, it will become impossible to park. Most people's driveways will be blocked on ongoing
basis. increase in Ubers and food delivery service at all hours were increased as well as noise. We met with the developer to review the re revised proposal as it presented as the it was presented as the absolute minimum needed to meet with the board's initial
feedback. Uh they remain commit they committed remain committed to developing this atrocity and damaging uh this part of the heights all the while peacefully going back to Great Neck New York at night. Uh please do not approve this plan uh send them back to the drawing
board uh and build something on being within the existing zoning ordinances without needing heighten and varian setback variances. Um I would also just want to now comment on behalf of Colonel Weissman who was a neighbor. I would encourage the sorry Col just before we move forward who who is that letter from? Uh Paul
from the owner next door Paul Saliano. Okay. I mean he's not here so I can't ask him any questions but he he did he spoke last time as well. spoke last time. He also sent an email at one point saying he was supportive of of the project. No, no, he didn't. He actually he said
he was he was fine with the well. Okay. I mean, we're talking about here at this point, but I just want to point out he's he's not here. I don't have an opportunity to cross. Okay. Well, but I can read his into the record. I mean, so I I would also speaking Yeah.
Oh, thank you. Right. I appreciate Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. I just want I just one quick Yeah. Um, so, so as Kurt Weissman, the neighbor, um, I would encourage the developer to leverage the AHO, right? So, the planning department, I think, did a really good job. I think Tanya and
Matt did a great job in implementing the affordable housing overlay. It's exactly for these type of projects. They they could probably do 18 units with two affordable units and they could build within the bulk that's that's require, you know, allowed at this lot. So, leverage the AHO, leverage the zoning
that was put in place for these exact type of scenarios. don't just grant additional variances because they want to increase, you know, their profit for one additional unit. So that's my opinion. Thank you for listening. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening.
I do. Viviana Perez. B I V I N A P E R E Z. And your address is 637A Palis Avenue. Thank you. Miss Perez, you spoke last time? Yes, I did. So, you're just going to
comment on I had the opportunity to meet with the developer. Fine. Tell us about that. And uh we find that the uh the changes really don't address they don't address our concerns, which is mainly density and the large case of the scale of the
pro of the project. So, my neighbor Bridget and George Fujiaka, they couldn't make it to the tonight. So I would like to read uh during my time I ser the communication that they sent to Matt Ward and u
Marion because they address my concerns as well. So, Bridget, and George, is everyone going to read a letter that they someone else? We can't
Yeah, it's it's not permissible. Um I don't Yeah, thank thank you, Matt. Yeah, it's it's I I mean all all all the if we're reading letters from people who aren't here, they didn't have an opportunity to see. I'm reading the letters because I agree with everything that my neighbor
outlined and they read in the letter. So she wait ma'am, if everybody starts reading letters, first of all, it's hearsay. Second of all, uh he doesn't have a chance to to
cross-examine anybody. What are you trying to tell us? That that lady is against this property. Correct. Yeah. That that she sent a communication on October 3rd, 2025 addressed to Tanya and Matt where she's outlining all the
neighbors concern about the the size and scale of this of this uh development. I don't have that communication that wasn't provided today. Why don't we just leave it at that instead of reading it? Matt, you got
that as well. Do you remember that? She's going to read this as her own testimony. We can copy of the Mr. Weissman, this conversation right here. She's saying she's reading somebody's
comments. I'm I'm reading excerpts of a communication that my neighbor sent because I agree with everything that she she outlines perfectly all our concerns. But isn't it the concerns you expressed when you testified?
It's the same thing you said, right? the the concerns outlines specifically the the problems with this the size of of this um of this uh new project that is being proposed which I also strongly opposed
right which is what you testified to last time. Did did she testify have a chance to testify last time? Yes. Uh Bridget Yes. Okay. So Bridget She testified last time. Bridget testified last time and
Yeah. And and she sent a communication after we met with the developer. She's she's testifying on tonight's No, no, no. I'm using my time to read a service of her communications. That's what I'm saying. Yeah. I
We're opening the public just to have comments on the new plan, so to speak. So, you testified last time, ma'am, and so did Bridget. It's it's all in the transcripts. So we okay so what I'm saying today I would
like to say that um this this project as it is presented it's terrible for our community like I don't agree with anything that they're saying it doesn't go with the character
of the of of the neighborhood and they didn't get and we they didn't consult with the neighbors before they started planning this monstrosity. So I think we get it. So what you're saying and what Bridget is saying is whatever
changes they made at the suggestion of the board still doesn't change your mind. Absolutely not. Because it undermines the master plan. Correct. And we as residents, we have to trust on you to make sure that this master plan
is being followed. uh we have the the project that they did at 617 and 619 where where the the master plan was followed and we nobody was inconvenience and we didn't have to
make all these hearings and and do all they basically uh abandoned our lives because we now now instead of having dinner we have to meet go on on Zoom calls. Mhm.
And and and be and be uh you know consulting on that. Oh ma'am is time is up. Okay. Thank you. Let's listen. Thank you for the time. You spoke as well last time, did you not? Excuse me. Did you speak the last time on this
hearing? Yeah, I I speak a little bit because they don't give me enough time. Anyway, what is your name for the record? My name is Juan Martinez, right? J U N M A R T I N Z.
I live on 623 Palisite Avenue, right across the building they going to build. Okay. And the testimony that you will provide will be the truth, the whole truth, and I think the truth will help you. Yes. Thank you. So, could you keep your comments to what they presented tonight? Yes,
please. Thank you. First of all, I don't see the variance that we we are against for I don't see they don't change nothing about the height.
You got new you got new rules. No more than three stories building no more than seven units. They present they still 24 units.
They got the four build uh four uh uh u uh heights four four heights. Comparing with the other building that it got four you four height but at the
bottom they got parking. They don't have parking over here and they want 24. The other building got 18 unit on parking. 18 parking 24 uh unit. You need more
than 30 parkings. They don't have nothing. What they going to what we going to do on the street right now on the other case before you said it that Jersey City suffer of parking spaces.
Now you are proving this other building that is going to be worse with the parking. I live right across right now. I can see some part of the uh New York uh view. Now with the four uh
uh height I'm not going to be able to see nothing. And over here like I see before it look like I is even with the other building but whatever they going to build on top like a recreation room
uh the uh elevator uh box it's going to be higher and higher. It's not going to be like this one over here up front. You see like this but you see from my house it's much bigger. So where is the rule? Why you study all
the new uh uh rules for uh three three stories instead of four seven uh apartment now they want 24 and look like uh they're going to get that. I don't think
it's fair. We don't need uh another store on the same block that is too empty stores. Too empty. They can just whoever want to rent, they can rent that one. You don't need this one.
That's all I can say. Whatever bridge put on the paper that I have it over here, I agree with that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Hi Do you swear that the testimony will provide the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth? Yes. Diane D I A N E Rubino R U B I N O 621 Palisade. Hi. Um, so this is my testimony. Um,
let's see. Um, construction constructing monstrosities with variances benefits few out of community developers and their lackey who are not disturbed in any way. Existing residents like myself
suffer, profiters profit, and my neighborhood is forever changed for the worst. Please vote no to the variances. Thank you. Thank you.
Yes. Please state your full name. Kate Silverate. Kate Silver. S. Correct. 646 Palisade Avenue. Um, I just want to say I have like
amazing rework on the design. I think that really works well and I think it's actually a good blend for the neighborhood. Um, I've been a resident of Jersey City Heights for 24 years. I bought my house in uh 2001. I've raised my children here and I'm a realtor, so I
am very much pro-development, but I'm also very much pro community and pro responsible development. Um, when I see a project like this where um where there are multiple units and there
isn't enough for affordable housing, it makes me sad because our community is incredibly inclusive. Um, I've helped to make it inclusive. I've joined lots of community organizations that are very
very dear to me and all I want to see is um just a little bit more heart in in development. Um I do love that we have, you know, a new community commercial space. I think a restaurant would be phenomenal. I think it'd be great for
the the neighborhood, but um the parking obviously is is is going to be an issue. Um I do live a little bit down. I'm 646. I'm a little bit further north, so it's not going to affect me directly with views or sunlight or um or, you know, a
lot of people, but it is it is on my block and it's a block that I really really care about and love and I've lived there for years and years and I never want to move. So anyway, thank you. Thanks for here. Thank you. that the testimony you provide this
evening will be the truth. The whole truth and the truth. I hope you got I do. Please state your full name. My name is Brian Rans spelled with an I and then Rans is RA NS. And your address, please? 21 Pierce Avenue. Thank you.
Good evening, commissioners. Uh my name is Brian Rans. I'm a resident of the Heights. Um I ask that you support this project. Um here it's a larger lot. There's commercial on the ground floor. It's consistent with other multifamily buildings, specifically more north on Palisad. But the most important thing
that this project is doing is it's providing three affordable housing units to provide an inclusive opportunity for residents within the Heights. Uh the city of Jersey City needs more affordable housing. As you all know, on December 15th, 2021, ordinance 21-077
was passed, and that was the inclusionary zoning ordinance that was passed to create mixed income housing through the new construction to assist the city in promoting the creation of inclusionary developments and affordable housing as the city grows and attracts new market rate residential development.
Um, if you look at the specifics of the ordinance, it exempts projects with 15 units or less. Um, the Heights to my knowledge has not had a project that's invoked the ICO primarily due to the low density nature of the neighborhood. Uh, majority of the Heights is residential
R1. Um, but if you look at um, Palisade, Central Avenue, Summit, JFK for a little bit more density, um, the Heights neighborhood needs affordable units and we can't lose this opportunity to do so in this project. This is the perfect opportunity to do so. It's Palisade
Avenue. There's the 87 bus, the 119 bus, the 85 bus, the 123 bus. Parking is not needed when you have all this public transit. It's within a few blocks of the light rail station. Um, and then there's some talk that there should be 20%
affordable units on this project. Um, you know, I would love 20% affordable units. I think that would be unbelievable, but you have to look at each project on an individual basis. uh requesting 20% on privately on a privately financed project without government subsidies or municipal tax
abatement risks losing out on those three affordable units and with no ICO development in the Heights. I cannot risk that. I want these three affordable units in the Heights. One minute. Um and uh the proposed density also meets the intent of the
land use principles of the master plan to continue to enhance residential neighborhoods and ensure that the housing supply is balanced to meet the needs of current residents and future residents. So based on this and all the testimony from the developer, I think this meets the positive and negative
criteria that you need to grant the G variance pursuant to the municipal land use law. Thank you so much. Thank you. Uh before the next speaker come up, Mr. Joseph, I just want to make clear. Is it two affordable units or is it three affordable? It's It's three. We're required to do two and we're voluntarily doing a a
third. Okay. So, three. Okay. Yes. Danielle Dalton. Correct. And your address, please? 640 Palisade Avenue. Thank you. Hi, and thanks. Um, I couldn't keep it
short. I just the the variances are subtle and the amount of units inside the building is
largely beyond what if it's supposed to be seven and it's 23. I love the idea that there's affordable housing there and but I don't appreciate that there's as many units in there
without parking because despite there being all of the um um you know uh transit available in in the neighborhood there will be cars coming with the people that move into
that building. I came here today and just it was certainly rush hour, but it took me like 15 minutes just to get off of Palisade Avenue. And so with that
many more people moving on the block and the cars that will inevitably be coming, um that's a major concern. And so because the footprint is so dense and is beyond the scale of what is supposed
to be allowed, I am against what they're trying to do here. And scaling back makes the most sense. Um, style-wise, it is attractive and I do agree that if it were something like restaurant in that
area, that would be wonderful. But there are also, as other people have said, there are rentable um commercial spaces that aren't in use and are vacant. And um if it is a popular restaurant, it's
going to be bringing even more people. So, we just have to make sure that, you know, while in that section, it looks like there's a whole lot of large buildings, but if you go down the block, it's it's just houses. And um so it doesn't it doesn't one minute
quite fit. So but thank you. Thank you. Okay. Hi sir. Do you swear that the testimony you provide this evening will be the truth. The whole truth. I do state your full name. It's Anthony Townsend. A N T H O N Y T O
W N S E N D. Your address, please. 353 Webster Avenue. Thanks. Uh I'm here representing the Riverview Neighborhood Association tonight. Um and I want to make two points. The first is that we disagree with the planning staff's report.
Are we speaking on behalf of the neighborhood association or yourself? I just said the neighborhood association. Okay. Okay. Um we disagree with the planning staff's report that this project does not meet the negative criteria and that approving it will seriously damage the
master plan's intent and purpose. This entire block zoning was reaffirmed just two years ago as R1 during the citywide update. If this site truly can accommodate more density, as the report claims, why wasn't that decided during that public process? Actually, it was
decided. The entire block was kept in the R1 zone and the R1 zone got new density standards. We believe that it was a good plan and a good zoning update and that it's working as intended on this very block. As you've heard earlier, the newest buildings in the
neighborhood, in fact, the only ones built on this block since the zoning changes at 617 and 619 Palisade, right across the street, were both built as of right uh at three stories. These buildings, however, were not included in
the planning report for the application before you um for the density study that was done. Instead, planning staff chose five other non-conforming buildings, some of which are as far as a block away for its density study. There are also errors in the report. Uh 614 Palisade is
listed as a four-story building when in fact, if you look on Google Maps, as we've done many times tonight, you'll see that it's a three-story building, a conventional three-story building with no semib or mezzanine. I think you should get answers to these questions tonight before you vote. uh
because we believe that this report is leading to to an indefensible conclusion to support this project. The second point uh the updated Dresnner Robin engineering report still wrongly says we believe that this site is a minor site
uh and uses the wrong method to calculate uh to calculate disturbed area. The city stormwater ordinance uh section 34574 classifies sites based on total sight disturbance, not net change in
impervious cover like this report does. The law defines major development as a project creating or replacing 5,000 square feet or more of regulated imperous service. This project replaces more than 5,000 square feet of regulated surface. And this area actually
increased in this revision. So we asked the board whether you approve it or not to require correction of this report. This law has been on the books for years. It protects taxpayers from the impacts and costs of severe storms caused by climate change. And this firm keeps making repeated errors of
interpreting this ordinance in its plans. That makes the ordinance impossible to enforce and it costs the city MUA and taxpayers money. Thank you. Thank you. Do you swear that the testimony you provide this evening will be the truth and nothing?
Please state your full name. Andrew Andrade. I'm sorry. Andrew Andrade. Andrew and your last name. A N D R A D E. And your address, please. 313 Webster Avenue. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Good evening, ladies and
gentlemen. I'm here to support this project. And I find it comical that I keep hearing a monstrosity when this building's on par with a few buildings a little someone mentioned north on Bower Street and Palisade. If you go up that way, the building structures are similar
to this one. At this point, I feel like the RNA will be against one family homes being built, calling them monstrosities. And I know someone mentioned about not there not being parking and someone mentioned that they're in real estate. I'm also in real estate and when someone
comes to look for an apartment and they see that there's no park and they tell me no thank you is a deal breaker. Not only that, me and my family were landlords. We own properties in the Heights. Maybe one out of all our tenants has a car. A lot of them, like I said, it's a dealbreaker. If there's no parking, they go elsewhere. And with
that, we have to lower rent because we're in competition with people that do offer parking. So, we have to, you know, lower our rent. This way, we could have some tenants. With that being said, this development is offering, I think he mentioned, three, if I was correct,
three affordable units. So, I was born and raised in Jersey City. A lot of my friends became teachers, firemen, cops, and they can't afford to live here no more. They had to move out. I saw one the other day. I asked him, "How how's it going? Where are you living, Elizabeth?" He said, "I'm miserable. I can't afford to live in Jersey. I had to
move to Elizabeth." That's not right. that someone serving the city, you know, risking their lives to protect and they have to leave because there's nothing affordable. So, I can't risk not having affordable units in the Heights when there's no public housing in the Heights. There's only affordable housing
for seniors up there. But, as far as for non seniors, there's nothing, absolutely nothing. So, if a private developer is willing to give this to us, I'm for it. And I don't see it being a big change in the neighborhood. I don't see this disrupting much of Palisad. have and many people are saying that there's uh
vacant properties uh commercial properties. Actually, one of the properties right across the street is going to turn into a restaurant. There's a lady a block and a half over that has a little taco truck and she's taking over that property. So, that's no longer going to be vacant. She actually has good tacos. If you guys are
ever in the Heights, I say you support her. That's the American dream. She went from having a little cart immigrant and now having a brick and mortar. So, you know, I'm happy for her and I'm happy for these developers coming into the Heights and making the neighborhood better. Someone said the neighborhood is
getting worse. I grew up in this neighborhood and I'm telling you is only getting better. It used to be more dangerous. Now I feel comfortable with my mom, my wife, and my niece walking to Central Avenue to school. Thank you. Thank you. that the testimony you provide this
evening will be the truth. I do. State your full name, please. Megan Wilkkey. W I L K I E. 21 Pierce Avenue in the Heights. Um uh good good evening commissioners. Thank you for listening to us tonight. Um I don't know how many
of you live in the Heights, but um Palisade Avenue is really the upand cominging street of the Heights. It's um got very tall buildings. Um there's, you know, kind of hip restaurants, a bakery, it's um right next to Riverside Park. It's where the farmers market is. And
you follow Palisade Avenue all the way up until basically where this building is and then it kind of dribbles out to a few um two family homes and then it's Washington Park. So this building is very in the character of the whole rest of the street. Um it seems like the
perfect place for more housing, which the Heights desperately needs. Um I um have a two family home. I I have a renter and I you know she was kind of having trouble paying the rent actually and I looked just to see like is there anything cheaper in the Heights because her mom lives there. She wants that she
uses her for child care and literally there's nothing like under $2,100 to twobedroom. So we need more housing in the Heights at at all income levels and this is going to add three affordable which I I just don't think we should lose. Um uh there was testimony last
time discussion that if it went down to three stories like the RNA was asking not only would we lose three but we wouldn't have that commercial space and also if you know Palisad like there's it's weirdly dotted like there's so many front first stories that are just residential. So it just gives these kind
of like empty spots. Um so adding commercial to Palisade would be an incredible addition to the community. And it is it's literally steps from the light rail. Um the 85 goes right down Congress. I walked right past it today to get to the light rail to get here.
It's it's completely so transit friendly. Um the Heights is, you know, Zillow Walker's paradise. Like I don't have a car. You can walk everywhere. So um I hope I would expect probably and there's evidence that people who are moving there's no parking. They come with no car. So obviously, you know,
it's something we have to figure out, but um I don't think that should stop us from adding a minute great building like this to the Heights. So thank you for listening. Thank you. close the public, I guess. Uh, no, no one else to speak. We're going to close the public portion right
now. I just just a couple of comments. Um, I I know the rules of evidence are relaxed at these proceedings and I try not to make a big deal about public speaking and there there were several letters and
what they say uh Stephen in court we accept it for what it's worth. Yeah. Yeah. Uh so so you know with with those things there are things that the letters could have been provided to me ahead of time. Uh uh certainly there were other communications to me uh two
days ago asking for an endurement because no one could show up tonight and there's a lot of people here. Um I I don't know how anyone could look at this project and and say it it doesn't
fit in where it is. Um I I think it blends in very well. I think Will did a very good job. I think the board had a lot of really great comments for modifying the project and and I think it fits in really well. Um we met with the community
three formal meetings going back to June 2024. The initial feedback at that very first meeting was more affordable housing, consider adding a retail space, get rid of the curb cut. Um we we did that. Um,
yes, they there was uh request for 20% affordable housing. Client could could not accommodate that in this building. Um, yes, there was some changing of positions. Uh, everyone's entitled to do that. But I I I think what you've heard
is that there is um that there is a a passion from some people for retail space, for the affordable housing, and and as of right project here is is no affordable housing, just more multi-million dollar condos. That's not that's not what uh my client's proposing
here. Um you also heard a lot about parking. No parking is required. Um no parking is required on on the site. There was also a comment about the the storm water that that I did want to address. Um Jose Robin's position is that it is a minor development. They
they consistently make that position, but I I don't think that's that's relevant. It's it because we're meeting the major development standards. So the engineering company doesn't want to set a precedent because they disagree with RNA's interpretation of the statute of
the ordinance, excuse me. But we meet the major development standards here. So regardless of whether it's minor or major, we're meeting the major development standards. Um that's that's all I have for you this evening. I I think it's a great project and I hope uh I hope you think so too. Yeah.
Yeah. Any So we'll hear from staff again. No commissioners. Commission commissioners, any questions? Then we'll move on to staff. Thank you. Commissioners, uh staff prepared a memo dated July 28th, 2025.
Uh to just summarize again this project, this is a a four-story building with ground flooror commercial. It is triggering the inclusionary zoning ordinance. By doing so, they are required to provide on-site affordable housing. They're also afforded the
opportunity to zero out any minimum parking required on site. um to which they are both complying with and utilizing. Uh they have as put on the record uh C
variances including the minimum rear yard setback and a maximum pertinance height as well as this uh this new variance that we heard uh discussed tonight. The that is uh they they needed to match on the ground floor one of their neighbors. Um now they are in
between both their neighbors and require variance relief. They also have a D1 use variance uh D5 maximum density and um D6 maximum height both in stories and feet. Uh this project is on a 7,500 foot lot.
It is uh larger than the typical R1 uh lot. It is well suited for an increase in density and height uh as designed here. Uh there are properties on this particular block, one
being across the street which they are matching the density of exactly uh at uh 615 Palisad Avenue. Further up the block um there's one and two family homes as well as the highest density building uh at at
650 Palisad Avenue at 175 74 units per acre. Also, it's a five-story building uh as uh as it would be recognized in our land development ordinance. The regarding the rear yard setback, they
are they're short uh 7.5 ft of what they would be required. Um regarding the C variance for their height of pertinence, this is a four-story building. our LDO doesn't um at this height a four-story building at this height only allow
allows or permits an impertinence of 10 ft uh because they are providing an elevator um I'm not sure if it was testified by either by choice or by requirement um typically four-story buildings aren't required but perhaps a building with a floor plate of this size
is um they they needed that additional height for that elevator overrun the uh applicant is providing one additional uh affordable unit than what they would be required per the uh the ordinance. Um we've heard uh the
testimony from their planner and uh a summary again here tonight um regarding some of the I would say that staff agrees with with the the findings of of that testimony in their planner regarding the some of the questions and
comments from the public. Uh there was mention of the affordable housing overlay. There was mention of density. There's mention of uh whether or not we uh as the city reassessed uh certain areas
to leave in R1 or not. Uh one of the major recommendations of the uh the master plan use element was to was to further affordable housing. Um uh in furtherance of that the affordable housing overlay was developed. Um it is
a a sister ordinance to the inclusionaries or ordinance. What it's meant to do is to allow for um density by bulk um in in a project. So there would be no density standard applied.
It's just voluntary. Um and it and in that instance, it also removes this minimum parking requirement. The master plan also uh spoke to a recommendation um that uh in the R1 uh lots that
accommodate additional height could that recommendation hasn't been implemented at this time. Um it hasn't come before the council or the planning board. Um it it is an recommendation that has been left uh uh un um
unressed at this time. Um, I would say that this this project when it came before the board last time uh could be the the concerns of the board that uh they the applicant walked away
with um were summed up and I'll just read from the transcript. Uh I I said at the near the close of that last hearing, my understanding is that we were going to address the corner by potentially pulling back that corner all the way up
and recessing the whole ground floor so it can levers the floors above will canlever. And the awning will probably uh be flush with the floors above. So instead of a canopy coming out from the whole plane of the building, it will
just be that recess. So it'll be some cover to the elements by that can lever. So it sounds like I am hearing the majority of it. I'm not sure if there's any other items, but I think I understand. Um so I think the changes that they've done here by adding that
variance request um and then further recessing the uh residential entry as well as the residential egress um to the neighbor to the north is an effort to hear that uh comment from the
commissioners as well as round that corner to soften that edge. Um I believe that concludes my testimony. If the commissioners have any questions for me out here, I I just want to just add um that regardless of the affordable housing,
parking is not required here because the lot width is only 50 ft. Um uh so I I just I don't want the board to think that just because we're providing the affordable housing, we're not required to. That that's that's true in in most cases, but in this case, we're not required parking under regardless of the
development. And uh I I did review the conditions in the staff report with the applicant and and they would be all acceptable in the event of a an approval by this board. Okay. Thank you.
If no more questions from the board, um I'd like a motion. I'd like to I'd like to make a motion to approve with conditions. Okay. Um, acting vice chair Baron, approve.
Commissioner Shaded, yes. Commissioner D'Angelo, approve. Commissioner Patel, yes. And acting chair Allen. Yes. I'd like to thank the public for
coming out yet again. I'd like to thank the applicant for making the changes recommended by the board. And I'm a yes. Thank you. M motion carries 5. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. Maybe only two.
Oh, okay. Iris. Okay, here we go. So, there's only two uh resolutions to memorialize. What god? The first is case Z2024-000078. The applicant is YM Kennedy LLC. It's a
preliminary and final major site plan approval with variance relief for 1727-1733 uh Kennedy Boulevard and 259 Danf Avenue. So that was heard on August 7th. Present on August 7th was acting chair
Aoyo, Vice Chair Allen, Commissioners Burns, Baron, Shaded, D'Angelo, and Zablicki. And that pass. Seven in favor, none opposed. All in favor of memorializing that. I.
Okay. And the next case is Z2025-000054, Grove Street Hub LLC. It was an approval of a one-year site plan extension with previously approved minor site plan with variances and conditions. Let's see when that was heard.
Looks like that was heard September 11th, 2025. Well, whenever. Oh, it's September 11th, 2025. So, it's right in front of me. Is it that late that I can't see?
So present on September 11th was Chair Coyle, Vice Chair Aoyo, uh, Commissioner Zablicki, Shaded, Boille, and Baron. That pass. Six in favor, none opposed. All in favor of memorializing that is I I.
And that would conclude what we're doing this evening. Meeting adjourn. Oh, meeting ajourn. Second, third, fourth. We we do have to say meet and adjourn, right? Okay.
[Applause] No, that listen