want to be up above everyone good evening everybody could we come to order please and join me in a salute to the flag allegiance to the flag United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all thank you everybody could we have a Sunshine announcement please cam good evening chairman uh today is Tuesday February 20th in the year 2024 this is a Jersey City planning board meeting with a scheduled 5:30 p.m. start time and in accordance with the open public meetings act notice of this meeting has been given to the editor of the Jersey journal the Jersey City Reporter and posted with the city clerk on February 15th and then re sunshin on February 16th of this year this meeting was also posted on the Jersey City division of City Planning web page and all district distribution materials made available to the board were published and made available to the public thank you could we a roll call please yes uh Vice chair Dr Gonzalez here commissioner Dr Desai commissioner David Cruz here commissioner stamato here commissioner uh Vidia here sorry about that okay G in um and uh commissioner Torres all right thanks and chairman Lon here all right we have seven Commissioners present we have a quorum all right could we swear in the stop please Mike you guys yes all right thank you Cam do we have any correspondence none chairman okay do you want to read down the adjournments or do we want to just get into uh potatoes here you can do it it would take probably uh 5 to 10 minutes okay you let's do it all right so uh we do have quite a lot of adjournments um they are under uh item six of the agenda um and we will start with ajour uh adjournment item a and we will work our way to J A to J um um so that is a case P22 d189 it's for a preliminary and final major site plan with variances address is 216 Palisades Avenue um this is actually a good one that we've made an announcement to because um this is being carried to February 27th which is a special meeting of this year so that's next week on Tuesday um so it's a it's a good announcement to make yeah and it's listed on the agenda but um that is to be carried to February 27th 2024 special meeting and there will be new notice um no notice is carried of course so Item B uh under adjournments is case p23 075 that's a preliminary and final major site plan with C variances address is 319 to 3214 street that is carry to March 5th with preservation of notice uh item C case P20 23-23 preliminary and final major site plan addresses 30 and 40 Newport Parkway um this is carried to March 5th of this year with preservation of notice item D case P22 d uh 227 for preliminary and final major site plan with variances address is 605 to 607 Grove Street um this is being carried to March 5th of this year with preservation of notice item e uh that's case p223 - 0044 a preliminary and final major site plan address is 35 Fairview Avenue and that is being carried to March 5th of 2024 uh with preservation of notice item F uh that is case P 223-0749 to 259 Cole Street and that is being carried to March 5th of this year with preservation of notice item G G on the agenda this is case P20 uh p23 032 this is a preliminary and final major site plan with a conditional use in C variances that's probably the longest title that you could get um that is address 791 to 805 Westside Avenue and that is being carried to March 19th meeting of this year with preservation of notice um item H um is case p223 uh z uh- 0053 a preliminary and final major site plan uh for an interim use address is 675 to 695 Grand Street and um they have requested a carry with preservation of notice to March 19th of this year item I um under adjournments it's case P 2023-24 to 685 Newark Avenue and um they have carried to March 19th of this year with preservation of notice and last but not least J case P22 d187 at preliminary and final major site plan with variances address is 191 to 193 Academy Street and they have requested to carry with preservation of notice to March 19th of this year and that uh is all of the adjournments chairman okay thanks cam so let's get into new business we'll call Item eight is case 23- 099 it's a site plan Amendment for 17 to 23 per RAV yeah I know it takes right good evening Commissioners Tom lean from Connell Foley on behalf of the applicant uh the application before you this evening is a notice case I did provide an electronic version of the affidavit uh to uh planning uh I do have a newspaper copy an affidavit from the newspaper I appear to be missing my mailings uh we re noticed for this once we went back in person I believe they might actually be in my car so if I could proceed with the presentation and provide them to uh councel uh after my presentation it would be greatly appreciated so Council why don't you give me the I did so I had the opportunity to review the proof of publication Affidavit of mailing electronically uh so chairman we can mark them as A1 for purposes of the record I have the affidavit a publication the original here in my possession and based on council's representation that those proof of mailings are uh in his possession he'll deliver them to the board so we can Mark those as A1 for the record and proceed thank you Council thank you Council uh the application before you this evening uh is an amendment for a project that was approved by this board several years ago uh it was amended and extended uh several times uh it is currently a valid approval one of the reasons for the extension was uh that the uh Journal Square Redevelopment plan has been amended and this area was uh changed to Zone 4A it was approved as Zone 4 uh that the major difference being that the heights under Zone 4 were six stories this building was approved at six stories the amendment before you today does not change that height in any way the Amendments before you today change the approval of 48 units uh to 57 units um that does not trigger this being a new application uh there are also changes to the uh setbacks to the previously approved building as well as the removal of the previously approved basement and an expansion of the green roof and Rec ational roof uh I have two witnesses uh this evening Jeffrey Lewis is my architect and he will be my first stop all right thank you Council yes I do Jeffrey Lewis J FF re y l e w i s Mr Lewis good evening we've qualified you in the past uh your license is current tonight it is current and a good standing yes okay thank you you're qualified thank you are we going to be able to get this up or Le Mr Lewis if you're going to be sharing any slides that were not included in the submission to the board obviously those we will Mark if they're all in one slideshow no this can work it as an entire package I believe Mr Lewis is just going to walk through the plans as uh submitted thank you and Mr Lewis before you start uh you did not prepare the plans that are before the board this evening that's correct but as a license architect in the state of New Jersey you've reviewed them and are familiar with them yes I'm sorry it's my screen's a little silly right now okay so 17-23 parav as um mentioned is a previously approved six-story uh building um I'm just going to focus on the revisions here U most notably uh the unit count which has been revised from 48 units to 57 this includes a reduction of the one-bedroom units from 37 down to 20 and then an increase of all the rest of the units so Studios have gone up from 5 to 18 one bedrooms with an extra Den space went up from 1 to 5 the two bedrooms went from 5 to 9 the two bedrooms with a den we previously had none now we have three and we previously had no three bedrooms and now we have two of those uh looking at the plans we have the previously approved on the left and then uh the proposed on the right um first on the top left here you can see the building previously had a Sellar this was used for tenant and bike storage we are removing uh the cell space and relocating these spaces above um moving on to the ground floor plan I want to go over to the right where the new plan is shown um Mr Lo just give us one second we're trying to oh sorry get these up on the screen no view large display good over here yes okay go ahead okay great okay so let's go back to where I was at the first floor plan I want to start with the bulk of the building um where at the front of the building we did decrease the front yard setback down to 3 feet uh along the right side of the building we previously had a 3-ft alley and we've removed that alley and now we're building up to the property line on the right side uh on the left side of the building we did keep the alley along the back and um along the side of the building and along the back of the building excuse me however we did make some changes to the back of the building here where we have um these two one-story add-ons that extend out to the rear property line and create some enclosed uh private yards for the tenants on the first floor um moving inside the building uh on the front left of the building here we have our main B our main lobby which remains in the same location uh there are two stairs and however uh we previously had one elevator we added a second elevator so there are two elevators in the building now uh on the back left here we have our trash compactor room it's fed from a chute from above and it can be accessed both from the lobby and has direct access out to the sidey yard as well um next to that we have our bicycle storage room uh this bicycle the storage room has been uh sized for 57 bicycles and again you can get there directly from the lobby or directly to the outside to access uh the street uh down at the end of the hall we have our fire sprinkler room as this is a fully sprinkler building um and then besides this we have seven apartments on this floor um the the apartments in the building are color coded uh the blue apartments are Studios the light gray apartments are one-bedroom apartments the green apartments are two-bedroom apartments and dark right which you can't see here are our three bedroom apartments so there are seven on this floor and the four in the rear of the building each have their own private yard in the back I'm going to move to the second floor floor um this uh floor has 10 total apartments and again four of them have private roof decks that are located on top of those one-story uh building additions at the ground floor uh also to note here is at the end of the hall there is that trash and recycling room with a shoot that goes down directly to the uh compactor this is the third and fourth floor um this is actually the same as the second floor with the exception of the roof decks being removed at the back so these four Apartments back here will not have roof decks and I'm going to move on to the fifth and sixth floor in a second but I just want to know it's pretty much the same as this floor except for these two units at the bottom right corner where right now we have a one-bedroom and a two-bedroom and if you look at the next sheet those colors change and now we have a studio and this is where our three bedroom apartments are on the fifth and sixth floor the building uh still has rooftop amenities and a rooftop deck um what we have is served by both stairs and both elevators there are a few closets uh two Ada bathrooms uh fitness center and a lounge area uh the interior space is slightly increased from what was previously approved uh the exterior uh roof deck area is 1,336 squ ft and this is actually decreased from what was previously approved and then the green roof area both on this roof and on the roof of the amenity space uh total is 4540 ft which is also increased from what was previously approved looking at the building of elevations the top elevation is what was previously approved and the bottom elevation is what we are proposing so the previously approved building was four stories of red brick and then the top two floor floors were a dark gray fiber cement panel we're proposing a almost entirely brick building uh so the ground floor with two different colors so the ground floor B brick will be uh this black diamond velour shown here on the left we're using two different patterns uh we have these vertical peers in between the window Bays which will have a standard brick pattern then in the window Bays themselves we're using a Sawtooth pattern uh there's a a soldier course separating the first floor from above and then the five floors above are going to be a a smooth red brick um that continues up to the Cornus where we actually have a builtup brick Cornus so as I said it's a almost entirely brick building um going up from there you can see beyond that rooftop amenity space which you won't see from the street uh but that's going to be finished with a white um aluminum panels going back to the building finishes we have uh black aluminum entry doors a black framed aluminum windows there's a black aluminum canopy located above the main uh Lobby entrance uh we also have aluminum grills for our HVAC system they will be paint you can see them here here and then a third row of them here uh these will be painted the same color as the brick uh the previous approval actually had ptacs uh so where a PTAC has one uh grill for every room this actually only has one grill for each apartment so we're reducing the number of grills overall um so we think that's a better system here's the rear elevation um again previously approved above are new approved at the new at the bottom where we are proposing just a white fiber cement siding finish and again you can see the um the new grills for our HVAC system which would be just painted white to match the exist the new siding and then lastly we have the side elevations again the approved are on the left and now the proposed are here on the right so what you can see is we are wrapping the front finishes the two brick finishes around both sides back to where the stair towers are and then from the stair Towers the rest of the way to the back of the building will be the white um fiber siding to match the rear finishes um that actually concludes my presentation thank you for your time we do have the site plan uh just one question Mr Lewis um you are not El planner however these changes they are designed to comply with the bulk standards within the general square6 Redevelopment plan correct yes that is correct thank you uh next up I have uh Brian zarit who is my civil engineer uh does anybody have any questions for Mr Lewis just make sure your mic's on Ed gonna speak on your setb um in terms of compliance or in terms of uh we have a VAR for I looking at this correctly that's no no there's no varing council front y setback reduction in the front yard set back it's uh that's right it was the building was previously set back I think about 8 to 10 feet and now we're reducing that to 3 feet we've reduced the front yard setback from 10 ft or so to 3T but it still meets the requirements still not a variance okay so you there is a change there yes that's what I was trying to get yes there's a change but it still complies with the Zone I missed that part okay so it went how many more feet it's gone to 3 feet I think it was right around 10 feet uh previously I don't have the exact Council perhaps we should talk about what was required what was granted sure I and then what it is Mr Lewis if you can go back to uh the initial site plan right I'm this isn't working how I thought it was going to work I'm sorry how do I get those back up can you see what that says I'm too old for this yeah it is right thank you I just can't see which is which so I'll guess that's not the one I wanted that's not one I wanted oh Jesus here we go I'm sorry I can only see it there I can't see it here it's a little weird and it's also a little slow really it's not on that monitor yeah it's the way this is working I thought I switched it so it would mirror this but it's notes extending it so here you can see uh the approved on the left and they proposed here on the right I can zoom in a little more and give you a closer number so what's the consistency with that uh setback now with the rest of the neighborhood um the buildings I believe to our left uh Wars do we still have enough do we have more sidewalk space still than compared to the rest of the houses that are out of block or are we even with the same sidewalk space as the rest of the houses out of block we have we have the same sidewalk withd as the rest of the block we're not taking away any sidewalk width okay the sidewalk width remains unchanged and it's the same as the rest of the the block but what the setback before you were give it us more space actually yeah the setback had had um bicycle parking in it you can see we had a bunch of bicycle parking in the center and then we just had a planting area where now we just have a planting strip so there's less there's basically less less planting overall okay that's good enough though while not testifying here I can say that the the Redevelopment plan requires that you comply with the predominant setback on the Block I I only brought it up because you have it as a Vance on the well no it's just one of the changes it's not a variance but it's just listed as one of the things we've changed there are no variances of the changes that you're making okay yeah there are no that's why I'm picking this up it was that was my concern all right thank you so Council for the record there was no variance for a front yard setback originally and there is no variant sought as a result of the proposed change for a front yard setback that is correct thank you uh Mr Lewis I do have a question about the aluminum panels on the rooftop in the amenity space uh they White Aluminum yes is it a a matte finish that won't produce a glare yeah that would be the plan to make it definitely we can agree to a at Finish we want it to be kind of inobtrusive yeah I mean white is a glare producer as far concerned exactly we're trying to blend so a matte finish would be great okay okay that's it for me anybody else not really okay sorry you can see uh and with that I have my civil engineer Brian V yes record can Stell your name please my name is uh Brian Zar that's b r i a n z w a r y c as in Charlie Z as in zebra sure and Mr zarich I don't think you have testified in front of this board before would you please mind giving them the benefit of your education and background as well as providing the board uh with your lure and letting them know it's current sure I've testified virtually in front of this board but I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey since 2016 and I have a Bachelor of Science degree in civil engineering from ruter University okay and that license is current tonight it's current yes okay thank you sorry you're qualified uh so on uh display right now is a sheet number 5 of 12 from our site plan it's the grage grading drainage and utility plan which was submitted to the board uh dated August 25th 2022 revised through uh October 23rd 2023 North is generally uh to the right where the county building and parking garage exist Pina Avenue is along the bottom of the sheet uh High Street is uh off to the left and and Summit Avenues uh off off to the top of the sheet uh the site's known as block 10803 uh Lots 23 and 4 and it's located on the Westerly side of Pine Avenue the street address is uh 17 to 23 pan Avenue it's a generally a rectangular parcel containing approximately .2 acres and it's located within Zone 4A of the Journal Square 2060 Redevelopment plan area at the time of the previous approval uh it was in zone 4 as uh is reflected on our Zone table uh PR Avenue is a dead end Street uh dead ends just north of the site and allows for two-way traffic with parking uh on the east side the surrounding area is a mix of uses uh including residential and Commercial hell the site is currently vacant what was previously developed with residential uses the site is primarily pervious at this time and generally slopes from the Northerly Corner Southeast us L toward uh Pine uh an access was previously provided to the residential uses via uh driveways uh building layout changes were addressed by our Architects so my testimony will focus on the storm water management utility lighting and Landscaping modifications uh this storm water management the uh previous design proposed 1,43 Square ft of green roof area and an underground detention system between the front of the building and the right of way line and it discharged to the existing combined store on Pine Avenue the proposed system includes about 4500 squ ft of green roof area and an underground detention tank located in the Westerly corner of the building uh under the uh trash compactor room and uh bike storage room and it uh discharges to the existing combined store on Pine Avenue the new uh green roof on the project is uh greater than three three times the size of the previously proposed green roof for utilities uh water soore gas electric and Telecommunications all new Services out to Pine Avenue were previously proposed and are proposed for the new building locations uh of those utility services have been adjusted to reflect the proposed interior layout uh in coordination with the uh building design team uh I'm going to go to the next uh sheet here here if that's the uh I just have to use it down ear here this uh is sheet number six of 12 uh from our site plans the Landscape and Lighting plan uh which was submitted to the board this uh sheets uh dated August 2 2022 and revised through October 23rd 2023 uh as compared to the uh 2021 uh previously approved architectural plans with in regards to uh Street trees four were Street trees were uh previously uh proposed and approved and four uh Street trees are proposed uh Jersey City forestry standards require one tree for every 25 feet of Frontage which uh in this case would be six trees uh the applicant will make a monetary contribution in lie of installing the two uh additional trees uh for lighting the previous design utiliz building mounted fixtures the new design proposes two decorative fixtures along the curve line and the uh the project itself is uh fully compliant with the Journal Square 2060 Redevelopment plan with no uh deviations uh Mr Zar you've received the memo from City engineering The Memo from traffic dated November 27th 2023 you've reviewed those and uh we can comply with the requested conditions therein that's correct we'll address the comments in those uh letters I have nothing further for Mr Zar okay thank you anybody any questions no no okay thank you sir uh that is our presentation uh I do have Mr Lee Klein here we did submit a traffic report as required there are no on-site parking spaces on this project so unless the board has any questions I have no further testimony okay thank you anybody have questions on uh traffic report okay thank you Council so at this time let's open it up for public comment if anybody's here from the public that wants to comment on this application please come on up anybody from public Mr chair seeing no public I move to close the public portion second okay motion is made and seconded public is closed uh camera you handling this yeah so I'm stepping in for Mr D Silva on this application for staff comments and um I'm going to ask that Mr lean uh confirm whether he's reviewed the staff memo dated uh November actually November 8th of 2023 uh I have and all conditions within are acceptable okay um and in addition to putting on the record that they agreed to the staff recommending conditions staff would just read reiterate that there are no variances or deviations and this does comply with the objectives and goals of the Journal Square 2060 Redevelopment plan and planning staff recommends approval okay thank you Mr chair like to make a motion to approve case p23 D z99 has presented to the board tonight second okay motion is made and seconded for approval Vice chair Dr Gonzalez I uh commissioner gungadin I commissioner Torres I just want to make a statement that um this this project has come to this board many of times many of changes and um know the project has been approved by the board um it's a project I was never faned of and always opposed but that's not what we're here for the changes that they make to me are not that significant and um but I did take a stand that I never did agree on this project in that area um um but with that the project did get approved by the board and with that I vote I for the changes that it want to be made thank you okay commissioner Dr Desai I commissioner Cruz I commissioner stamato I and chairman Langston I motion carries all in favor with conditions okay thank you thank you all right let's move on to item nine is case p202 3-69 it's a preliminary and final major site plan Amendment for 18010 Street 5435 minila AV and 545 minila AV council do you want to call the next case concurrently yes please I was going to ask that okay so we'll also call Item 10 uh case p2023 d70 is a preliminary and final major site plan Amendment for 20410 Street 5435 Manila app and 545 AV and Council uh just for uh the record will be voting separately on these applications we'll hear the presentation together but we'll have two separate votes yes that's fine thank you so uh for the record my name is James mccan from the law firm of conell Foley in Jersey City I'm here on uh case 069 and 070 um I'm going to present the first case 0701 because it is really the case that has the plans that are involved and then I will explain to you case 069 second um this is a notice case Council so I guess we should take care of the housekeeping first off I filed a separate Affidavit of service and publication for each case you did which I did also file with planning several weeks ago do something about this wi-fi [Music] I do have hard copies of both I will need those Council I'm just watching The Circle of Death on my Surface Pro here thank you so chairman I want you to note how much faster this is when I have the paper in front of me and I don't have to wait for the wifi uh chairman I've had the opportunity to review both affidavits of service proof of publication that was submitted electronically I now have the originals in front of me so first with respect to case p2023 d69 uh we're going to Mark those as A1 for purposes of the record with respect to case p2023 d007 we're going to going to Mark those as A1A for purposes of the record thank you Council jurisdiction is proper before the board thank you Mr mccan thank you Council so just a brief introduction on both cases um this board approved both of these cases in 2020 um the the plans that were approved by the board went through resolution compliance with staff and they were signed by Mr chairman and the secretary and the plans that are being presented tonight are the exact same plans with no changes at all um the reason that we're here tonight is that there were some procedural errors made um by the prior legal team um that handled this case the plans themselves are correct they have all the correct information on them but um the underlying documents that were filed with the board applications notices agendas that were published um had some incorrect block and lot information and some incorrect address information the only way I know to fix that is to I corrected all of that information with my current application um and I corrected all that with the current notices and I believe we have an amendment that's properly before you tonight um so uh just a quick overview of what you're approving um and I would need somebody to show me how to put this thing up on your screen okay uh I'm seeing it on the screen behind you all are you seeing it on your screen yeah we have it on our monitor you have it on your monor it is okay and Council approving you're putting the horse before the car or the cart before the horse there he said approving what we're approving tonight we might deny it that would be that would be your your uh your option I imagine in in some ways I'm relying on and trusting the board with this um because I'm really correcting infirmities in the procedure and presenting you with the exact same plans um that were previously approved but I do appreciate what you're saying Mr chairman um so Council if I could just jump in chairman board I did have a opportunity to review this particular or both of these applications and have a uh conversation with Mr mccan specifically to the procedural issues that were presented as a result of what had transpired back in in 2020 and there are times where a corrective resolution could be done by the board in order to correct something that was inaccurate in the resolution but uh out of an abundance of caution uh Mr mccan felt more comfortable coming back to the board on a new application and correcting that resolution through an amendment uh in order to clear up the paperwork and procedurally that is the best way to proceed it's what I like to consider best practices because inevitably somewhere down the road this becomes an issue tied to the real estate that gets caught up whether it be in the finan aspect in the sale aspect in the further construction somewhere down the road something like this winds up getting flagged by somebody in a windowless room somewhere and everybody cannot move forward and then they're scrambling so uh for what it's worth I'm very familiar with what the issue was and how it transpired I believe it was more of a scrier error than anything else but with that Mr mccan uh please proceed so uh just to orient the board to what it is that we're asking tonight if you look on the screen you will see the uh the um site plan that was approved uh by the board in 2020 and you can see in the yellow is the parking garage um that we're going to discuss tonight below it is the actual property the first property the Lincoln property that property is a is a property in uh that has been there for approximately 25 years or so and the there is currently on the yellow or there was at the time of 2020 on the yellow a parking lot that was providing parking for the Lincoln project and um to the right you will see that there is a second building with a second block and lot listed on that plan that is a correct blocking lot as is the blocking lot here and the blocking Lots up here this is the Rosevelt project which which is the second case that's before you tonight and the the relief that's was requested and is being requested by the revelt property is that it's parking which is 60 parking spaces that were were approved in the early 2000s for parking in the Newport mall so what the Rosevelt is asking for is that should you again approve this parking garage on the yellow site that you will allow and authorize the Rosevelt to move at 60 parking spaces from the Newport Mall to this parking deck the parking deck if approved again will then serve um to provide parking for both the Lincoln project which I'm scroll pointing to right now and the Rosevelt project and there will still be two spaces in excess that's the uh that's the proposal tonight um that's what was presented to the board in 2020 um so just one more uh or two more facts about the the projects um both projects fully complied with the parking requirements back when they were approved and they still will comply with all the parking requirements there are no variances or deviations for parking being requested um having said that I'm going to call my first witness I have three Witnesses one is the project architect uh the second one is the civil engineer and the third one is the planner all three gentlemen are the same uh presenters that uh presented in 2020 and they are the ones that prepared these plans um my first witness is Mr Bill Kavanaugh ton the truth the truth or but the truth yes I do sure William w i l l i a m last name Kavanaugh k a v as in Victor A N A GH Mr Kavanaugh good evening we've qualified you in the past uh your license is current tonight yes it is okay thank you sir you're qualified great thank you so um yeah so uh Jimmy did a great great um introduction there in terms of the site so plan plan uh North is North is up um the site is bounded by the 11th Street Viaduct on the south uh you have Manila a on the East Erie Street on the west immediately North are I think two gas stations that include a McDonald's and a Dunkin Donuts and then the 12th Street uh main drive towards the Harem tunnel um the site is very uh narrow it's 70 ft wide by 400t long um about 15% of the perimeter will be exposed on the the ends to the to the Eerie Street and Manila Street um it's an existing surface lot of 94 spaces uh we're proposing to add one level of parking above the existing parking lot uh the existing lot is uh consists of a two-way Drive aisle with 90° parking and so the challenge is how to introduce ramps to get up to the second floor so what the plans propose were are to use a oneway traffic flow with angled parking which Narrows the width of the garage which allows us to add ramps on the North and South uh oh thank you there we go so uh just to walk you through the functional design so you would enter on eie and uh proceed towards the the west and they're angled parking then you could make a turn and access the speed ramp up to the next level which brings you up to here and then you continue the whole length of the garage to the east turn down the second ramp which brings you down and then you can exit out through the garage or you could keep driving in circles until you uh find a parking spot so um site Dimensions functional design so how many total parking spaces are on that plan bu uh 156 and this is the plan that you prepared for the 2020 hearing yes and this is the same plan that we're presenting tonight correct yes okay and the design is exactly the same yes okay all right and uh Council um can you grab that the mic from behind you behind the the one for public comment or if there's another one on the podium oh I'm sorry there's one right there too have to turn it on hello hello hello there it is okay and how many parking spaces are on the lower level Bill 72 and there's 84 spaces on the second level yes okay um now there were two there was a design deviation two design deviations that were presented to the board previously correct yes so one is Drive aisle with right so the the parking geometrics so uh the drive aisle is eight the angle of the stall is 76 degrees uh Jersey City Zoning code I think has 60 degrees then it jumps to 90 and then also the width of the drive a is different so um the width of the drive a according to the code is is 22 and according to your plan there's 20 and 18 feet for Drive ISS well their zoning code doesn't speak to an aisle width for 76 degree angled parking okay so we're we're proposing 18 ft for 76 degree parking which in my experience is consistent with our industry standards for you know 75 degree angle spaces which is almost 76 uh that that's that is a reasonable level of service for um for a parking garage okay meets industry St industry standards yes okay I have no more questions of um Mr cavano just to point out that everything that's being presented to the to the board tonight is on the city web portal has been posted there for some time and these are the same plans that were presented in 2020 okay thank you uh anybody any questions on a quick question on the parking when these Park parking spots because they're angled the way they're angled they're going to be driving into the spot not backing in correct so as they come out they'd have to back up correct no part okay I I I I believe angled parking is easier to pull in and out of versus 90 degrees sometimes it's a two Maneuvers just to get yourself centered in a 90° stall so unless you have somebody trying to back into one of these spaces okay that's it thank you all right anybody else any questions okay thank you Mr Kavanaugh thank you next witness is uh civil engineer Adolf Montana yes I do adol Montana Adolf uh Montana like the state m t Mr Montana good evening we've qualified you as well in the past your license is is current tonight yes it is okay thank you and if you could just uh please turn that mic towards you Mr matani you were the civil engineer in 2020 for the project yes I was and you presented the plans that were pres that were uh approved by the board in 2020 yes I did pred them yes I did okay um now there were a handful of oh would you like to take the board through the site on one of your site on one of your sheets sure um I'm I'm going to set up sheet five the site plan so this is uh sheet C5 entitled the side plan uh last revise uh June 30 2022 uh this is the plants that were um signed by the by the board um stated before this is uh uh the site is approximately 64 Acres it's known as block 8801 uh lot 3 and four uh it's within the commercial strip uh Zone District um it's has manil Avenue to the east Arie Street to the West uh 11th Street viod do on the south and a McDonald's and a gas station on the on the North um the existing condition before the the garage was uh constructed will be will used to be 94 parking spaces on great parking lot um the garage as stated before um has 72 spaces on the lower level 84 spaces on the upper level for a total of 156 uh parking spaces that's an increase of 62 parking spaces from the the existing conditions um the applicant is also proposing to relocate 60 spaces from the mall to to the site um so the total parking spaces today is 162 after the garage constructed will be 165 in terms of the the variances uh in terms of setback the proposed building will be 1.7 ft for the front yard setback on both sides uh where 5 foot is required the side yard setback is uh 1.3 and 1.7 uh where two foot is required and both combine uh is 3 ft where 5 ft is required uh we also seeking um a a variance on the imperious coverage uh which is it'll be 94.9 after construction where 75 is allowable the assisting condition right now is approximately 84.1% uh in terms of the grading we pretty much uh the structure sets on on the existing uh par uh what do you call surface parking lot so the the gradient doesn't really change it be the same the only thing we're doing is on the east side we're doing slight changes to accommodate for uh 488 parkings uh in terms of uh Stone W management where're we're not we're not a major development we only disturbing 64 Acres uh therefore we you know we don't need to do Stonewood management uh we are due collecting the surface uh runoff from the upper level using uh two two uh 12 in HP piping uh that that connects to existing manang holes on Erie Street and Manila Avenue in terms of landscaping we're proposing uh Landscaping on the east side and the west side we're proposing evergreen trees we're also proposing evergreen shrubs and ornamental grasses in terms of lighting uh we're proposing 11 LED area light fixtures mounted at 20 ft High manufactured by Beacon uh on the upper level on the lower level we are proposing 28 LED AAL light fixtures mounted at eight uh 8 ft high and pretty much like like we stated there's no changes to the plan uh the Varian variances were approved back in 2020 um so no other changes thank you I have no questions of Mr Montana okay thank you Mr Montana anybody any questions all right thank you sir thank you next witness is the project planner Mr Brian MC peek what you do the battery went I thought I did it I I think we're okay without the uh wow I do Brian mCP b r i aan MC p a k uh Mr MC Peak is your license current yes my license is current you're licensed in the state of New Jersey correct and you testified before this board in 2020 yes on these cases yes okay okay thank you sir you're qualified thank you and you've also viewed the plans that were presented to the board tonight again yes I have okay and um Mr mCP would you walk the board through the uh parking deviation and the variances that are being requested tonight uh absolutely uh so obviously the board's heard the the presentation of the professionals description of the project site and the project this evening um the deviations at hand I believe have been identified as uh two front yard deviations one on either Frontage uh where 1.7 ft is proposed whereas the ordinance requirement is 5 feet there's a side yard deviation uh where 1.3 feet is proposed where 2 feet is required uh and uh both sides combine is required to be 3 feet excuse me is proposed to be 3 feet where 5T is required in addition there is an impervious cover uh variance um believe it's stated that it's 94.9% where uh 75% is is required um those deviations uh as a planner I would view those as uh recognizable by the board under uh the statute at 40 colon 55d uh 70 C2 uh where the purposes of the ACT to to summarize or or or paraphrase purpose of the ACT would be Advanced by the benefits of the deviations uh and the U benefits of the Devi ations would substantially outweigh any detriments uh in addition there's a couple of one or two design waivers based on the discussion earlier by Mr Kavanaugh uh certainly there's a 76 uh uh degree angled parking proposed where there's a limit uh the ordinance provides for 60 or 90 um that also results in a aisle width uh that may or may not be a deviation but considering those two as as designed exceptions uh under the statute 40 colon 55d hyen 51 point or 51b uh uh the statutory requirement there is that the deviations or the exceptions uh be reasonable and within the within the general purpose and intent of the standards in the ordinance um to revisit or discuss uh my planning testimony regarding these uh these uh variances in particular first of all of course I've visited the site I've again visited the site um as it's been testified to we have a situation where we have a relatively small parcel it's tucked in uh behind a commercial strip on uh 12th Avenue 12th Street excuse me uh where there's a couple fast food restaurants and a couple gas stations and uh to our South is the 11th Street Viaduct basically uh the site is virtually invisible uh from the standpoint point of its view from public rights of way uh for the general traveler or the person passing through the area um uh updating my review of so turning to the deviations or the variances under uh 7c 2 uh of course I've updated my uh review of the master plan uh uh because the master plan has changed uh in the intervening period um from the statutory uh framework uh believe it uh purpose G is most principally advanced that is to provide sufficient place or sufficient space uh for a variety of uses and keeping with the needs of of uh uh the residents of the state of New Jersey obviously uh uh my testimony previously and again tonight is that uh relocating the parking into this area um in this way is uh advances that purpose because we are creating a a uh a more cohesive uh relationship between the parking uh for these two existing uses um and rationalizing uh generally the uh the arrangement of these uses with uh sufficient space in those in this location um from the master plan standpoint uh the old master plan um and the new Master Plan do Advance uh some things uh reasonably the same and some things very differently uh Park is an interesting one um I think the master plan still supports what the old master plan spoke of of addressing traffic congestion acknowledging parking constraints in residential and Commercial neighborhoods and districts throughout the city and identifying strategies for managing that parking demand um and enhancing P The Pedestrian environment uh moreover uh the current land use element speaks to on page 89 of the fact that while parking is essential for many residents it must be provided in a way that minimizes impact on the streetcape and that recognizes the inefficiency of allocating valuable land to parking and preventing it from being used for more Community oriented uses as I stated about the site itself uh my opinion um this site is unintrusive it really doesn't provide in and of itself uh for a lot of community oriented uses um and I think it Frank does provide a very efficient use of land uh by relocating this parking closer to the uh to the users of uh to where the users of the uh the parking reside um turning to the briefly to the Redevelopment plan it uh it continues to be essentially the same so my uh observations regarding the way the parking this these variances uh relate to the uh local Redevelopment plan uh stand uh uh unaffected there um and generally I think as a planner this this project continues to advance the purposes of planning um and so I think we've met the positive criteria under the or under the statute from a detriment standpoint um I think my testimony previously was that there essentially were no detriments um and I continue to feel that uh uh this project uh advances those uh those purposes of planning with really uh little or no um detrimental uh effect upon anybody um uh local users or the general public uh so I I think the statutory criteria the negative criteria rather uh continue to be met with regard to touch upon this design exception just briefly as Mr Kavanaugh noted originally and again tonight the design of this facility is keeping with industry standards uh so uh on that basis I find that the uh the The Proposal is reasonable and within the general purpose and intent of the standard in the ordinance um I think uh just to summarize from there considering all of this it's my testimony that uh the board is well within their rights to again approve this project under the statutory authority of 40 55d hyphen 70 C2 as well as the the design exception uh under that provision of the statute as well thank you no further questions for Mr M okay thank you appreciate it anybody any questions no all right thank you sir thank you uh that concludes our presentation okay thank you council is anybody here from the public that wants to comment on this application if so come on up saying no public I move to close the public second okay motion is made and seconded public is closed um mat are you handing I have a question for sure sure go ahead councelor you stated in the beginning that um the people from the Roosevelt wanted to move to the parking spaces that are going to be at the AC course for the liquor now they requested to move over there no um I I think I think the Genesis for this for this change originally was that um that it's parking in the Newport Mall which is the required parking for the Roosevelt up until then it's a little bit more dangerous to cross Maron Boulevard the mall is um an unrelated property that has been housing the parking for all these years and I think the owner of the project just thought it already owns the parking lot and the parking lot is closer to the Roosevelt and it's an easier walk across the street so it makes a lot of sense if this board would approve it that was that's the next move the parking into this into this deck and that way it owns it owns the deck and it can ensure that the parking will be there forever the mall is owned by a different entity and nobody really knows what's happening to malls these days they can they could change over time yeah I I I just brought that up because I remember back in 2020 that we uh that was a concern of I was let me speak for myself for me the distance that they had to walk from the Rosell into the park and Air so basically this is a closer walk for them it's a closer walk yes it's a safer walk also there's I think they question C up thank you all right thank you Eddie uh Matt are you handling this this cam uh I am yeah uh thank you chairman uh I I reviewed the materials uh made part of this application uh and supervised uh Miss uh Jan Ru Wang as she prepared uh her Memo dated February 888 2024 um they sumis the prior application and and put a new testimony on the record uh to correct uh the prior errors um should the board make a motion to approve this application there are uh six conditions that we are recommended in the memo um one being that all the conditions from the prior approvals remain in full force and effect uh we just asked if the applicant has reviewed that and if they agree to those conditions on the record so yes i' I've reviewed the staff memo um we agree to are you asking for all the US to agree to all the conditions Matt uh yes yes okay just to point out though that there's one condition that talks about uh review agent reports effectively the applicant has already complied with that because it went through res resolution compliance in 2020 and in fact the chairman and secretary have signed the plans that we're asking for approval tonight so we've we've done that but the rest of the the rest of the conditions we agree to okay great Matt sure okay all right I'll entertain a motion then Mr chair I'm going to make two motions I'm going to start with one I I move to approve uh case p2023 d70 as presented to our board here tonight second okay motion made and seconded for approval good okay on uh case p2- um sorry P2 23- 0069 Vice chair Dr Gonzalez 70 sorry 70 was it 71st yes oh my gosh sorry apologize uh that's the right Vice chair Dr Gonzalez uh I I like the changes I do I appreciate you coming back so I vot I commissioner Gan I commissioner Torres I like the safety part of that change it was always not comfortable the last time to walk towards Newport so with that I vote I commissioner Stato I vote I commissioner Cruz I vote I commissioner Dr Desai I and chairman Lon I motion carries all in favor 4 P2 23- 0070 and Mr i' like to make a second motion to approve case p2023 d69 as presented to our board here tonight second okay motion made and second of approval Vice chair Dr Gonzalez I commissioner gadan I commissioner Torres I commissioner Stato I Cruz I commissioner Dr Des I and chairman lexon motion carries all in favor okay thank you thank you always appreciate your time okay we're going to take a 10-minute break everybody uh it is 6:51 we'll be back at 7:01 we'll call Item 11 on the agenda is case p23 d020 uh as a preliminary and final major site plan with variances for 344 Second Street good evening Council good evening everyone uh Michael Higgins of castano quigly cherami uh on behalf of the applicant here um this is for 344 Second Street I I guess first I'd like to take a moment to confirm receipt of our uh notices this was while back we carried it with preservation of notice good evening council ad received the Affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application at 3442 Street here in the city I've had the opportunity to review it it does appear to be in order we can mark it as A1 for purposes of the record record thank you Council thank you um okay so this is 344 Second Street it's a 2,144 foot lot uh right on Second Street it's between Kohl's and Monmouth um right about where Second Street intersects with uh nework Avenue um it's NC zoning and what we're proposing to do is to demolish the existing four-story 4unit building on that property and construct a five-story uh mixed use building it's going to have uh ground FL floor commercial space and then seven uh dwelling units on the upper floors uh to do this we need some relief from this board that includes preliminary and final major site plan approval um and we need a couple of C variances for uh rear yard setback um and I'd note with regards to that there's an Alleyway in the rear of the property as you see on many blocks in Jersey City um this I I believe argument will be uh that helps provide sufficient light and air to the adjacent properties um I'd also note that uh the according to the tax assessor half of that Alleyway is considered uh part of the applicant's property and it's therefore somewhat of a question whether we need that variance to begin with but we did notice for it and are prepared to testify to it uh to be somewhat conservative um and the second variance that we need is for rooftop bulkhead coverage um that's primarily for uh adaa accessibility to the roof deck as our architect will testify to in more detail so uh without further Ado I'd like to have our architect Chris botch swor intim ton the truth the truth I do name is Christopher botch b c h r i s d o p h e r b o t s c and Mr botch good evening we've qualified you in the past I believe right um no no okay uh if you could just go over your qualifications sure uh I have a ba in architecture uh from New York Institute of Technology uh I've been in the industry for 25 years uh I've been licensed since 2017 I am licensed in New York and New Jersey and is that licensed in New Jersey current tonight yes it is okay thank you Sirah you're qualified okay Chris could just walk the board through the plans briefly okay uh first page has all of our zoning information as well as our floor area calculations um we are let me just shoot in here to our floor areas um each floor is just just over, 1900 Square F feet uh save for the first floor which we have insets to account for the doors being able to swing out of the building um we do consist of seven total units we have six one-bedroom units and we have one two-bedroom unit in the in a project um we do also have a full basement underneath the property uh here is a side-by-side comparison of the existing building to the proposed building your existing building is on the left uh the existing building also has a does have a uh basement uh the new building will expand that basement space and it will add some commercial storage up in the front as well as a fire sprinkler room to be able to fully sprinkler the building we will also have a a commercial refu enclosure in the basement which will contain uh 48 48 gallon uh wheeled containers um then moving further back we have some uh chain um chain storage areas one for each storage unit uh one for each uh apartment uh we also have an enclosed um a refuse room which will have four uh sorry five 48 gallon wheeled containers for refu to be removed we will be maintaining two means of eress out of the basement as well as elevator access moving one floor up to the commercial space we will have about just over 1,200 foot of commercial space the building has a 10-ft setback at the rear so that space Oh sorry about that that space will have a uh a fence with a panic panic bait uh Panic gate on it for to allow egress out the rear so we will maintain two means of egress from the upper floors as well as from the main floor out into the Main Street there will be a raid fire caror that will provide access from both egress stairs from the basement to the uh to the outside the stair from upstairs on the upper floors will direct will be will egress directly out to the rear and the front will come into it a small uh Lobby space in the carer and then ER straight out the upper floors uh upper floors are fairly similar uh floors two three and four are all the same they will have a main living space at the against the outside wall as well as a one-bedroom they have a galley Style Kitchen along with a fully ADA Compliant bathroom as well as a washer and dryer for inunit use front the front unit is a little narrower but pretty much a mirror of the the same each unit will also have a small Den or home office space towards the back of the unit these are the this is the fourth floor which again is the same as the two and three the fifth floor up on top will be set back uh 10 foot from the street line it will have its own outside space and a small piece of green roof that space will have locked off access from the elevator for direct access for the tenant the um it will have the bedroom and um master bedroom and a regular bedroom at the at the rear along with a walk-in closet and a ADA Bathroom as well as a walk-in closet for the secondary bathroom secondary bedroom and as well as a full ADA Compliant bathroom servicing the rest of the unit this this unit will also have a small Den space which will be closer to the front of the unit with sliding doors into the main living space uh Up on the Roof we have provided two means of egress so each stair goes all the way up to the roof to provide access we've also provided a a vestibule at the roof along with the elevator providing handicap access to the roof area Up on the Roof we have multiple individual uh green uh private spaces for patios these will be individual per unit um we have individualized them with small uh Dividing Walls we have a taller dividing wall in between uh space to space and a shorter retaining wall across the front of the walkway to give some kind of uh privacy but not be obtrusive this will also have green roof at the rear as well as green roof in the front and then a smaller green roof portion as you come out the elevator most of the green roof up here will be more of the um extensiv tied which is more 2 to six in a lot of uh lightweight uh uses mosses grasses sedums um the main area in the center which is a little more decorative will be more of a semi-intensive which is about a 5 to seven it goes up to the same kind of grasses as well as it'll go up to some small shrubs um also on here is the details of the bike parking which we have in located also in the basement we are only required to have four um the way these Nest together we make Provisions for 18 bicycles in the basement moving to the facade the facade uh the intent is to use a thin brick system um that way we can use um a brick to more match some of the other buildings in the in the neighborhood um we don't want to use anything too new we'd like to use Sy that's got a little bit more character to it um to match in with what we have uh to add a little bit more of the Contemporary look we we have a more contemporary storefront style window um which will have small operable panels and provide a significant amount of light into the space the lower area of the commercial will have some full height uh extruded aluminum storefront as well as a dark signage band across the top of that space uh here also you can still see the uh proposed along with the existing to the right um as you can see here you have the but the uh rooftop stairs which is part of the relief we're asking for by having these stairs both stairs go all the way up to provide the two means for the small roof spaces moving to the rear the rear will be very similar except it'll be a little bit wider so you see on the right hand side it'll be the same finishes but we have four Windows instead of three to match the Cadence either side we'll be doing uh a stucco type uh uh finish so for in the event that there's something built next door we don't have to deal with any kind of issues with that we will have uh we will use a color we'll probably match the brick um so everything can be uniform in look and color and tone that's about all I have okay uh thank you Chris um if the board prefers he we can address architectural questions now or we could reserve please yeah let's get questions out um Mr botch if you could go back to uh I didn't catch the sheet number I'm trying to bring it up right now um the partitions on the roof sure um concerned about the higher privacy partitions how are they an aned into the Flor they will be anchored by uh aluminum po post that's anchored into the floor they are only going up to 5 foot on the highest side so they won't be totally private but they'll have a greater level of privacy those will all be anchored down into the roof structure okay so they actually go to the roof structure not just the correct the um rais deck I should say I guess and the decking that we're using up there is it's raised up on pylons MH so when it drops in almost like a tile okay understood so that way we can maintain water mitigation underneath and sure okay that was my only question anybody else any questions yes I have question the um same thing on the same page your roof top uh spaces mhm you have seven units six spaces how are you the the unit five has its own space in the front of the building UniFi has correct that's the one on top you're right I saw that yes thank you okay anybody else all right thank you sir thank you very much okay um I also have our engineer present but I think we'll reserve the right unless the board has questions specific to uh engineering civil engineering um so my next witness is Charles height our professional planner uh Charles has presented before this board many times um Charles is your license still let's get him sworn in first I do yes first name Charles last name height h y DT Mr height good evening we've qualified you before your license is current tonight still current yes okay thank you sir you're qualified um I don't know if I can easily get to a better visual um yeah just the ground FL plans PL here one moment that works that works yeah okay um so this is just a the sheet from our uh civil set c301 um just going to scroll here for the benefit of the board so I'm just going to fill in a couple details with respect to the requested relief we are looking at a um minimum rear yard setback um 15 FTS required uh approximately it's it's technically calculated at 15% of lot depth which is 14 .47 ft what's being proposed is 10 ft which is 10.4 ft um so we are still providing a rear yard um what was referenced earlier in the introduction is the fact that um this SL is this lot is undersized in terms of lot depth 97 ft is what's existing today where typically in the NC District you have a lot depth of 100 so that accounts for three of that five foot differential um what also is important to recognize that we do benefit from an alley way that does run between Kohl's and Mammoth that Alleyway is 10 ft in width so if you take it to the center point line that's an additional 5T that benefits uh the rear yard or interior of the block so um if we were measuring to the center line we would be in excess of the required rear yard um but be it that as it may from a conservative standpoint to the property line we are proposing 10 ft where 15 FTS 14.4 7 FTS required uh a couple other metrics on that that we typically calculate is on a typical lot your building footprint is um again 25 by 100 your building footprint can be approximately 2,125 Square ft what's being proposed is still consistent albe it UND size for the uh an undersized lot it's 1,911 Square F feet as was mentioned uh by Mr Bosch um we do propose appropriate bedroom mix and and square footages so the six bedroom units range from 600 44 square ft to 720 which are pretty standard for the city and we do have a two-bedroom uh unit which is is has a nice size to it 1,350 Square ft um so again not trying to increase the unit count increase the building footprint by increasing or decreasing unit sizes um one uh um one uh a couple additional points on the uh maximum rooftop of perance coverage uh again we are referencing an undersized lot where not only is it 97 ft deep it's also 21 ft wide um in this instance the uh rooftop apperance coverage is again provided by a maximum percentage um so it adversely or um uh it adversely affects undersized properties where a maximum of 20% uh is permitted what's being proposed tonight is 34.4% um and that is really only calculated of the um staircases the elevator and the vestibule there's no other interior en closed spaces on the rooftop um as you saw from the rooftop plan we're looking at uh common rooftop spaces all be a partitioned uh as well as the green roof spaces so uh again it's the minimum needed to accommodate Ada access um and that's really the design end of it um with respect to uh furthering purposes of the land use law I do think that this advances purpose a to provide appropriate development uh and to promote public health and general welfare in the state of New Jersey uh purpose C to provide adequate light air and open space again uh referencing that internal condition of the block as a whole there's adequate light and air into the rear of the properties um and that that is a vehicular access um albe it not improved Vehicles do uh travel down there so it's not that uh very passive protected rear yard that other blocks might have that don't have an Alleyway so it's a little bit more of an active interior to the block and then lastly um to provide for a desirable visual environment through Creative Design techniques um and good Civic design I do think uh introducing a commercial ground floor unit along the NC District um making it a little bit more of a of a modern uh feel on the ground floor with the windows uh as well as the traditional brick above uh fits within that um design intent of the land use law um with respect to the negative criteria um I do uh think that this is consistent with the the zoning and the master plan so the NC district is uh the purpose is to recognize the existence of and importance of neighborhood business districts and provide ground floor commercial and mixed use buildings to promote walkability this hits that purpose right on the uh on the face Val of it um with respect to the master plan um we are meeting certain objectives uh strengthening strengthening neighborhood oriented commercial areas again reinforcing that mixed use ground floor um component ensuring the city's available housing is balanced and meets the needs of all current and future city residents again appropriate sized units uh mix of units and then um to promote the development of a diversified economy obviously with the mixed use building um with respect to any impairment of or detriment to the public good or general welfare um we did do uh a visual impact assessment uh again the whole rationale is that given the alleyway there's less of an impact as if it were on a conforming lot because of the greater separation interior to the block so um we didn't find any substantial impact with the additional rear yard um given everything else is consistent and with respect to the um rooftop bulkheads and stair the staircases elevator they're located centrally in the whole orientation of the the rooftop set back from the front set back from the rear so there's no uh no detriment with respect to the location and uh square footage of of those elements on the rooftop that's my direct testimony I'd be happy to answer any questions okay thank you Mr height um I have no questions from Mr hey anybody else thank you Charles thank you okay thank you Council is that your presentation that does conclude uh all of our direct testimony I just note that the comments from the engineering memo and the uh staff memo are acceptable to the applicant excellent okay thank you thank you go ahead have a question I thought he said he had an engineer that was going to speak on this or no they didn't have nobody just just a planner if we want the testimony if we want the testimony we can have it I have our engineer present if uh if there's any civil related questions I can I can call them up I got a couple of safety questions and I know they are going to be uh basically in every development we they're going to be it's that is not jurisdiction but um I do have a concern my concern is based on the adjacent properties uh they uh the adjacent properties to that building um and I I know the people that live there were like third Generations of people that lived in that neighborhood okay um wouldn't be able to afford any mishap happened to their property because of the construction of that building I mean um especially the one to the left okay I think you will put that family out of uh if they're still there too I I mean I'm going I'm there every I grew up on that block so I I was yeah Ju Just for just for the record when when we do the excavation and we do the underground work it will be engineered to make sure that we provide all the temporary Shoring necess needed to go through the process I've seen a very big developer on Third Street across street from St Mary's lose two buildings there and he does high-rise work uh so that's my concern you know just because I understand we all I I work in a construction trade we all go in there with the intent of always nothing's going to go wrong um but you're taking out the footage of the existant building and put your new footage no the the the the existing footage will remain and we're going to add on to them and underpin as as needed okay so you're not going to try to remove the old footage at all okay that's the that's what becomes an issue correct okay um have you spoken to their neighbors to the left and the right from you that uh me personally I have not we have not reached out directly to the not reached out to nobody there the buildings are like squeezed together and you're not you didn't think of a good idea to talk to them it could be I'm pretty sure they got a notice so uh I could say we've noticed within 200 feet as always also we we've met with VNA the local community group as well I mean there's a young man there that lost his legs basically and uh work construction all his life MH um he can't renovate that house and rebuilt it again his family but they've been there forever you know no um I would uh I I appreciate uh Ono record though every building that we do in judgy City goes with the intent of being safe and done correctly um I wish you just follow that passage because that is a tight it's tight there uh with the footage of the other building and the people that live there of u a put to that Community they've been there for years they've been there for years so uh it's 100% Our intention to do it as safely as you you'll have good neighbors if you speak to them they they they're good people all right that's all I say thank you all right thank you Eddie all right anybody else okay thank you Council so at this time let's open it up for public comment if anybody's here on this application that wants to speak now's your time Mr CH I see no public I move to close second okay motion is made and seconded public is closed uh cam uh no this is Matt I'm sorry no problem uh uh in reviewing this application um I can confirm that uh We've provided testimony on the record we being City Planning staff that these properties and uh in this area with alleys uh do in fact uh under the direction of the tax assessor doe that that um 100t depth rather than 95 ft uh and uh as uh Mr Higgins put on the record out of U out of uh being Ultra conservative in their presentation uh and their notice that they're asking for this reard variance uh staff agrees with uh the the testimony put on the record regarding their pertinence coverage on uh this rather uh small lot size um the part of the coverage is also uh an outcome of them putting more mechanics on the uh and mechanical on the roof um this property or project has designed uh doesn't have U Pacs um so they are looking for uh to other spaces like the roof for for uh the handling of of the and location of those um in the review of this application staff did put together a staff memo dated November 22nd 2023 um since this uh memo was produced the uh applicant received comments regarding their facade uh and the changes were made and those were what were presented here tonight uh to their their front and rear facade um but the staff recommended conditions in the memo still stand um and staff would recommend if the the board makes a motion to approve that the applicant agreed to those conditions and we put those conditions on the record and again you the applicant agrees to those conditions okay thank you uh with that staff recommends approval okay thank you madam Mr J I'd like to make a motion to approve case p23 d020 as presented to our board tonight do I have a second second okay motion made and seconded for approval okay Vice chair Dr Gonzalez I uh commissioner gangadin yeah um I think the variants um are minor and there's no detriment um and it's also in line with the goals and objective of the master plan my vote is I commissioner Torres yeah just uh the other thing I want to speak on is the uh thing on that Alleyway um I'm just hoping that all the Alleyways that we have in Jersey City in the downtown area always stay the way they are never get changed um you know it's a very big part of that downtown area and um with the safety aspect ECT being taken care of I uh I vote I commissioner Stato I vote I commissioner Cruz I vote I commissioner Dr Desai I chairman Lon um yeah I do agree with uh commissioner gangen I I think this meets the goals and objectives of the master plan and the intent uh so my vote is I tonight motion carries all in favor on a motion approve thank you everybody let's move on to item 12 is case p2370 is a minor site plan with SE variances for 355 to 357 sip a um good evening everyone I'm doing this one as well uh Michael Higgins of castano quickly and cheramy on behalf of the applicant um 3573 355-357 sip this is a irregularly shaped uh corner lot um right at the intersection of Sip and Emerson Avenues um what the applicant's proposing to do here is to demolish the existing two family dwelling and garage structure on the property uh and construct a single family home this is in the R1 Zone um for this we need preliminary and final site plan approval with a few variances I looked over the agenda and I saw there were only two listed there's actually three here we have a variance for um front yard setback for bulkhead setback and then a DI Minimus Building height setback that was missed of 42 ft um so uh with that um our first witness is our architect of art Patel council did you say rear yard setback or front it's uh front yard excuse me um we have rear combined front and rear yard set back so rear yard set back okay I misspoke Council before we swear in the witness this is a notice case I am interceding your Affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application 355-357 AV it does appear to be in order we're going to mark it for A1 for the record chairman and Council we are collecting The Originals the night of the hearing so moving forward I'm going to need you to actually bring the originals with you now that we're back in public understood thank you can do that okay um y any testim tonight the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes for the record can you state spell your name please uh avard Patel a a v a r t p a t l Mr Patel good evening uh We've qualified you in the past I don't think in person but we've qualified you online correct yes okay and is your license Uh current tonight yes it is okay thank you sir are you qualified thank you okay if you don't mind just walking the board through the uh plans that you prepared sure um as you can see the the property is located at the corner of the Emerson and uh and Sip Avenue um the lot is as Michael mentioned it's a irregular lot especially along the front uh the the front yard is or front property line is at an angle um I'm going to go to the first floor plan or the site plan uh to begin with uh as you can see on the uh the left side it's the existing structural demolition plan and uh on the right side's the proposed uh um development uh it's a single family home um going to go to the next slide which is uh actually let me just kind of uh little bit uh here um the uh the the front of the house along uh Sip Avenue is uh is uh basically the it's orthogonal to um Amerson Avenue uh and uh uh uh the setb along the front line varies you know on the left side it's it's a little more and on the right side it's it's less because of the angle of the the front property line um the the neighboring property has uh existing steps going up to the uh second level and we have situated a building in a way where where um that left front left corner is is uh basically almost towards the end of the step so it doesn't uh block any uh any views or or you know for safety purposes looking into the uh intersection at the uh Emerson and Sip Avenue um going to um again this is the uh another iteration of the site plan which shows a little uh larger uh or blow up of of the site uh um go to the floor plans uh all right so uh the one on the left side is the uh the basement plan which is uh uh mainly the utility and service spaces um this house is proposed with the elevator so you see a elevator pit at the at the basement level and a stair uh just to uh to access the services um on the right side it's the first floor plan um am I going too fast no okay um the first floor has uh um one front to back you know the front side has the the family living space uh the central entry Flor in the middle and on the left side there's a uh there's a um a b a bedroom with a with the attached bath um dining and uh family areas in the located in the middle um there's a a small office with the access from uh um from the rear yard or or the side entry um and then um a small pantry service kitchen here um elevator and then uh a powder room is located by the by the dining area uh moving on to the second floor um this level has a u you know a larger living and and a dining space as well as a you know private like a media room uh and then uh one study and and a um bedroom two bedrooms with the with one with the attached bath one with the with a hall bath um moving on to the third level which is uh primarily all the the bedroom spaces um we have uh five bedrooms at this level with uh uh with three being or two being um uh uh we call it a master because the U the the family size but you know the two masters with the with the attached bath and a and a walking closet um two smaller uh bedrooms one with the attach and then the other one would be using the the hall bath um going to the roof level uh there's a um accessible roof proposed U um most of the roof on the perimeter is a uh is a slope roof uh and then the uh the area in the middle is more like like a um um so the roof around the perimeter acts as a privacy screen and then the center area which is flat uh which would be uh accessible occupied roof um there's one staircase going to the roof level it's a pretty small area and where one staircase uh will be will be enough to service this this um for a single family use um going to go to the front elevation as you can see the elevation is uh uh primarily uh the the break facad with uh with the uh some can't liver base uh would would be uh you know uh typical traditional trim work uh around the windows um asphalt single sh exciting uh there is a a like a covered balcony proposed the the top right hand corner as you can see um on the third level uh which would be access from that uh U Master uh bedroom space uh looking at the uh Emerson um Avenue elevation again similar uh uh type of treatment um as you can see the the balcony which is at the corner of the building um from the master and then the uh the side entrance to that office space um again this facad would be primarily uh brick as well um this is the uh rear elevation um we're going to wrap the brick around the uh around the corner and then um uh rest of the the facade beyond that line would be um uh would be one sighing um this is the interior side elevation I would call it uh along the neighbor's property and that would be uh sighting as well um the are a couple of iterations showing the uh the Sid lines especially in regards to the the bulkhead um from uh um SE Avenue as well as the Emerson Avenue side um I'm going to go back to the first floor plan showing where okay as you can see uh towards the back of the house uh uh we're proposing a small deck uh this deck would be like just a one step above the about the grade so uh one or two steps so as you can see the wraparound uh steps uh and then um deck would be located attached to the house uh there is a garbage enclosure proposed uh uh next to that which would be tucked behind this uh this bump out uh um towards the back uh it would be screened uh with with Gates guess that's uh that's about it for my direct testimony okay uh thank you aart I don't have any more questions for Mr Patel um thank you Mr Patel uh just a couple questions I I maybe I missed it how many bedrooms are we talking about here I think it's uh eight and toal eight bedrooms that's a lot of bedrooms okay um can we go to the backyard plan sure okay could you zoom in there for us thank you perfect is there any kind of fencing between the parking and the grass uh no there is no fencing okay so what prevents anybody from parking on the grass um Mr chair if I I suppose if that's a concern we may be able to address that with a condition of approval yeah I think we'd want a condition of approval that there's uh some kind of decorative fencing um cam this is yours what do you think about a a height size do you want to work with the applicant yeah and even a concrete curb would suffice and be perhaps concrete curbs can be knocked out very easily uh Bard on on board fence I think that would be the best board on board fence maybe not six feet tall I don't know if it has to be that extreme but we will figure out yeah yeah I think I'd be happy with four that's uh rear yard Corner Rock condition I think you got two fronts it's a corner lot chairman okay okay we'll do four feet yeah be happy with four with the material that's specified in our local ordinance on design standards for the R1 okay thank you Council um those are my only questions anybody else any questions yeah I have a question Sor go ahead I have a question what is the size of the lot and how many parkings you have in there um you want to cover that just a second it's 4,254 ft um so the lot is uh 4,254 Square ft uh there is an existing garage uh at the back of the house which uh we are demolishing uh and then uh two uh surface barking would be provided uh spot of the proposed design okay yeah I have a quick question on the office you I think you said the office had a separate entrance uh that is correct it's a not a separate entrance it's a side entry okay uh let me just go to the first floor plan well it has direct access to the outside right uh yes okay that's that was my question okay anybody else any questions okay thank you Mr Patel appreciate it thank you okay my uh last witness is Charles height again um he was already sworn in and Charles your license Still Remains current yes he lost it in the inter no no sorry okay okay so Mr hey uh just for the record you have been uh qualified sworn in and are still on the road tonight recognized thank you thank you all right good evening again board members um so we are dealing with the uh front rear yard calculation for the rear yard requirement uh I'll quickly run through a few numbers that's the the main um setback variants we're looking at tonight um we are in the R1 District standards so we are uh at the timing of this application um going forward with those requirements um from a front yard standpoint it's a minimum of 2.58 Ft when you factor in the rear yard requirement uh rear yard setback that's being proposed 27.2 six ft you you come to a a combined total of 32.4 2 ft uh that's short of the required 35 front rear yard combined requirement um so again uh as was uh discussed in the architectural presentation I just will uh get to the front cover um there's a few additional factors I just wanted to speak to in terms of um consistency with the uh maybe yeah I don't know where we went on the cover sheet if you could looks like it there you go uh not the table oh the yep a lot of good good information down at the bottom right so I could take over so uh I have to thank Mrs uh Mrs bage so um she's very Thor in her plans and uh I'm going to be referencing her cover sheet here um this is the existing front uh front yard along Sip Avenue you can see it's a corner property um we are orienting the proposed structure along Sip Avenue it will be quite consistent with the adjacent three-story structures to the uh east of the subject property that also run along Sip Avenue uh along the hang on along the Emerson Street Frontage sorry oh wow I am not used to this mouse okay all right can see on there we go okay gotta you know this mouse is Hightech where's okay Emerson Street Frontage uh Emerson Avenue Frontage uh you can see we do have an existing structure um one of the questions about existing uh curb cuts and driveway AIS on the right here we do have a detached detached garage that we will be removing and that actually increases substantially the light and air to the adjacent property along Emerson Avenue um we are maintaining the curb cut uh and the two off street parking spaces uh so there will be no impact um we are not introducing a curb cut along siip Avenue uh there is none today um so that will be in main maintaining in an appropriate loc uh in an appropriate design there um with respect to the front yard uh that really does create a little bit of our uniqueness to the site you can see the um the front yard along Sip Avenue runs at an angle most of the other properties along Sip Avenue all are also affected by the same taper um to the this end of the block where one of the sides is substantially larger in terms of front yard the other is substantially smaller um we did go through the calculation um the adjacent stepback is 2' 7 in which is what we are proposing uh at minimum on on our proposed uh property at the corner here um and that's really what how we started dictating the location and orientation of the building so this is a helpful diagram uh again on the cover sheet of the architectural plans um part of the overall design you spoke to to accommodate the single family home um we're removing the uh non-conforming detached garage structure uh creating an increase in in light and air to um not only the proposed structure but also the existing structure along Emerson Avenue um those all in my opinion do amount to um a benefit to the overall design but we are also working with a unique uh shape of the property uh one thing that we did uh wanted to clarify uh in terms of uh the overall calculation of Building height what's permitted in the R1 is a maximum of 35 ft uh we do have to factor factor an a average grade uh upon working with the plans we did calculate that that calculation landed us at 35.42 FT uh that's a total of 5 in inches in excess of what would be permitted for a single family home in the R1 uh it is a technical variance um I do agree that it would be diminus in this case because of the overall design we're not introducing another story that's not permitted or anything like that um it's really just about uh where the placement of the um lower level is in respect to the average grade on the property given the topography so I do think it's again a C1 test where there's a uniqueness to the Topography of the property as it slopes across the fronted the Sip Avenue Frontage um and there's no detriment in terms of the requested relief in terms of uh the last variants we're requesting with respect to Rooftop or perent setback um we are taking a measurement from uh Emerson Avenue we do comply with the Sip Avenue setback with respect to Emerson Avenue we're at 19 .17 ft uh what's required uh obviously it's based off the proposed height of the perance is 9.75 Ft uh so again we're less than one foot uh out of compliance with this setback uh and again it's along the Emerson Street Emerson Avenue Frontage um which we do propose um a Stairway bulkhead um uh to the roof as well as the the overall um overall for the for the overall design um with respect to special reasons to uh further the grant of these variances um I do think that we are aimed we are meeting purpose a to provide to to guide appropriate use of the property and development that promotes General Welfare uh purpose c as I spoke to we're actually increasing the light and air not only to this subject property but also to the adjacent property that's purpose C and we're proposing promoting a desirable visual environment through creative Des design techniques uh which is purpose ey and I do think that uh is consistent with the adjacent context along this this uh streetscape along Sip Avenue with respect to the negative criteria I don't believe there's any substantial detriment to the uh zoning ordinance again we're a permitted use um which we're meeting the intent of the R1 District um we are removing a residential use but proposing a new residential use it's it's a compatible infill development and it it obviously is reinforcing the residential neighbor uh residential neighborhood in the R1 District um with respect to any substantial detriment to the public good or welfare uh again not withstanding the variance needed um 35 ft doesn't warrant the evaluation of Shadow impacts although we're compliant on all other bulk standards for the property with respect to sidey guard setbacks um and as I mentioned I think we actually are are making an improvement here with removing that detached ground uh one story garage um with that I complete my uh my direct testimony be happy to answer any questions the board might have okay thank you Mr height anybody any questions okay thank you sir we appreciate it Mr Higgins that does conclude um our testimony this evening um I just note again uh that the condition stated in the staff memo are acceptable to the applicant with the additional condition that we've mentioned related to the four-foot fence okay adj to the parking okay thank you so at this time let's open it up for public comment if anybody's here from the public that wants to comment on this application please come on up to the mic Mr chair signal public I move to close second okay motion is made and seconded public is closed cam do you have anything you want to add um okay so um firstly I just wanted to thank the applicant for agreeing to the conditions and adding the condition for the fence to prevent any uh parking on the grass in the rear um I just thought maybe it's worth noting that the rear yard setback variance would not be a rear rear yard setback variance under our new zoning in the R1 um and that uh planning staff does agree with the professional planning testimony provided by Mr height regarding um the SE variances and justifying them under the C1 and C2 criteria um staff also finds that they will not have any detrimental impact to air light and space or detriment to the zoned plan um and uh this is an extremely um unique application um often times internally we discuss about how unit sizes are not conducive of you know making families in Jersey City and this is uh you could have a big family in this house so that's uh that's nice to see for a change um so yeah it it's it's very unique and um planning staff thinks this certainly feels a void in the housing stock and um achieves uh unique objectives and goals of the master plan and um with that planning staff recommends approval okay thank you Kim okay Mr i' like to make a motion to approve case p23 d70 with the added condition of the fence uh as presented to our board here tonight second okay motion made and seconded for approval um Vice chair Dr gals yeah I I think the variances are Dem Minimus uh and it meets the the intent of the R1 District um I do I'm happy that we're removing that that uh that garage I think it will be increased light there there so I I commissioner gangan yeah I conclude with um commissioner um Dr Gonzalez no detriment um in regards to the variances and in line with our goals and um objective our master plan definitely a great addition to the neighborhood very very unique love it I commissioner Torres yeah very nice job with that I like the interior and know what the secretary said you know um larger homes like that uh more family oriented and uh I come from a large family I know what that is to have your own bedroom well basically it wasn't easy um but I hope there's a lot of love in that house with the family big family be great and uh by v i commissioner Dr Desai yeah it's a nice project and I really liked it with big big family as do Mr Tores said and uh it looks really good and I vot I commissioner Cruz I vote I commissioner stano I vote I and chairman LST yeah I agree I think the the variances uh are di Minimus it meets the goals and objectives of the master plan I mean it it's definitely different housing stock that we have I believe never seen so um yeah I'm going to vote I it's a good project motion carries all in favor with conditions okay thank you Council thank you all right let's move on to item 13 is case p23 d92 is a preliminary and final major site plan for 612 to 616 communa Avenue see if I can get this right this time there we go much better okay uh for the record Charles Harrington of Connell Foley on behalf of the applicant uh I guess uh before I began procedurally we did provide for um did provide notice um for the application even though there are no deviations being requested I ask they to be reviewed and marked into the record I have a paper copy any event you need a copy uh I have copies I might have that in my file told I'm supposed to turn this mic on when I talk Mr Harrington I mean seriously this Circle of Death on the surface is killed me Chris just keep hitting itot on your phone you guys are asking a lot where I'm all right it's here yoga good all these like colon I I only have the copies with me I'm not sure if the originals were submitted to planning or not all right so I have the electronic copy it's okay uh on my screen so I've had the opportunity to review it even before this evening because you were kind enough to send the electronic copy uh Mr chairman it does appear to be in order we can mark it as A1 for purposes of the record Mr Harrington I just asked that we double check with planning and make sure we get the originals into the file and I think best practice moving forward now that we're all back in purpose is that we bring the originals the night of the hearing we make sure that we uh we collect those thank understood all right thank you Council okay so I'll give an overview of of um the project uh this property uh is located in the Jackson Hill Redevelopment plan area it's a through lot uh that fronts on Communipaw Avenue and Harrison Avenue so um it uh you know has you know a little of both you have the kind of the residential on Harrison and and your commercial on on commun although that Port portion of Harrison is is somewhat industrial um uh if you if you ever you know go up that area uh the property is an oversized lot it's uh it's 12,250 2 square ft um what we're proposing um is a six-story building with 59 residential uh units U five of which will be uh affordable units in that one will be a moderate income unit and four will be work force uh the uh uh the reason being is that one uh one unit is required to be affordable because of the sixth floor as part of this project uh and that's the moderate income unit uh the applicant is also although not required proposing the four additional Workforce units as part of the project and part of that is is it's through an agreement with the Jersey City Redevelopment agency um as the the applicant is has been designated as the redeveloper uh by the Jersey City Redevelopment agency and he's in as part of that agreement he would be purchasing uh the property from the jcra so this is something that has been presented and vetted you know to the to the the JC um it also is providing for 27 parking spaces and as Mr Lewis will take you through the entrance uh to the parking area would be from Harrison Avenue and not Communipaw uh because that is the you the less uh busier Street if you will um and I think I and there's retail also on the ground floor I don't know if I that's that's going to be fronting on communal paw so um it will be an infill this is a you know a lot that has been vacant for some time uh and it's something that my client is uh hoping to if approved to to move forward you know as soon as possible and again we're not asking for any deviations or variances so it would be an as of right presentation that we're we're presenting tonight and that's that's also as a result of working with the the planning staff uh for some time so with that said I have um our architect is Jeffrey Lewis um to present the application uh I also have our traffic engineer here uh any the event uh there are any questions for Mr Lee Klein okay thank you Council and Mr Lewis if you could just confirm for the record you've already been sworn in tonight you have been qualified and are still under oath yes I remain under oath and qualified okay thank you sir thank you okay so just to um add on to that uh summary uh this is a through lot as was mentioned with frontages on commun communa and Harrison Avenues we are proposing a new six-story building with below grade parking for 27 cars uh the retail on the ground floor faces Communipaw and it is 1,585 square ft and we have a total of 59 residential units and the breakdown of those are six Studios which average 543 ft 44 one-bedroom apartments that average 821 squ ft8 two bedroom units that average 1,822 ft and there's one three-bedroom apartment which is is 1,252 Ft okay so jumping right into it I want to look at the site plan here as I mentioned we do have two street frontages communa is at the bottom and Harrison Avenue is shown at the top um each of these frontages are getting new concrete curves as well as new concrete sidewalks we are proposing a total of six new Street trees three of them on each of the streets um on Communipaw Avenue we are actually setting back our building so that we can widen the sidewalk on Communipaw to the re required uh 15 ft right now it's a pretty narrow sidewalk so we're going to be widening that to 15 ft um the building itself is built while we are set back from the front property line we are built side line side Lot line to side Lot line um on the communa Avenue elevation or Street Frontage we access the main lobby to the building as well as the commercial space uh in the center of the lot we have two light Wells that serve the residential units and serve as a patio for the ground floor units and then on the Harrison Avenue Frontage we have a second uh residential entrance and then the Garage entrance here we're just showing that we are providing lighting along both Street frontages as well as in the light Wells here we showing the seller plan on the left and the first floor plan to the right I'm going to start in the Celler uh at Harrison Avenue where cars would come into a 10ft curb cut through the garage and down this 18t wide uh ramp to the base to the Celler level here we have 27 total parking spaces uh five of which are tandem parking spaces uh we also have 36 bicycle parking spaces 30 of them are at the end of the drive aisle and then there's an addition six bicycle parking spaces near the elevators um we also have our trash compactor room located on this level so it's um act a shoot from above would bring all the trash down and then it's easy to bring it right out to the street when it needs to get picked up um we also at the front near communa Avenue have our main lobby for this level there's the main stair here as well as two elevators all of our meters uh Gas and Electric as well as our sprinkler room as this will be a fully sprinkler building and then in the front here we have our storm water detention tank uh we do have a storm water management system here this is where the water will be stored and then lastly there is a second exit stair all the way at the end of the aisle which brings you up to the first floor and then out of the building that's this is where that stair comes up just to follow that out and leaves the building here or enters into the main building here uh but going to the front of communa Avenue on the ground floor it's where I really want to start uh looking to the right we do have a Transformer room that we need for pscg after that is that retail space as I mentioned it's 1,585 sare ft it also has its own ADA Bathroom in it next we have a fitness room for the building residence this is 423 ft and again has an ada8 bathroom and then lastly here we do have the main lobby which accesses uh a parcel room the main stair and the two elevators um besides that everything else on this floor would be residential um as everything else in the building actually would be residential I do want to mention first that all the apartments are Ada adaptable they all have washer dryers in the apartments and they are all uh have forced hot air for heat and air conditioning on this floor there are five Apartments three of them are facing Harrison Avenue two one-bedrooms and then a two-bedroom which has the second bedroom facing that light well and then in the center of the building there are two apartments this is a two-bedroom apartment and this is our single three-bedroom apartment and both of these apartments open out to those light Wells which are serving as patios for those apartments they're each uh 447 squ ft of private patio space moving on to the second and third floor plan these floor plans are actually both uh the same there are 12 units on each of the floor um excuse me 12 units per floor uh there are four facing commun on the front each of these has their own balcony three of them are inset full balconies and one is a Juliet balcony there are also four units facing Harrison Avenue two of them have balconies and two do not and then there are four studio four apartments in the center uh three Studios and a one bedroom and these each have balconies facing uh the side in the light well um again of course there are two stairs and two elevators connected with a a common hallway and then also there is a small trash and recycling room with that shoot down to the compactor room to the left here we have floors four five and six they are all the same as each other there are 10 units per floor uh both frontages of the building remain the same so the same four Apartments facing Harrison Avenue and facing communa Avenue the changes in the center of the building where we previously had four apartments and now we just have two uh two-bedroom apartments uh each of those again has their own single balcony uh looking to the right at the roof deck uh this roof deck is served by both stairs and both elevators uh we have a 600t amenity space that has a closet and uh ADA Bathroom this opens out to our uh roof deck which is a 3,478 ft roof deck which is set back over 20 ft from both Street frontages and we're using that space for our air conditioning condensers this is our proposed front elevation well this is the Communipaw Avenue elevation our main building material at the lower two levels is a light gray cast stone Above That cast stone we're doing a red smooth brick for the upper levels as our main finish and then at the insets of the balcony we are using a light gray fiber cement siding we're also using that same fiber cement siding uh to provide accents for the windows here on the left and you'll see this come up again um after that we have uh black aluminum frame Windows black aluminum frames for the doors and black aluminum railings at the balconies uh and you can see on the ground floor we do have a large glass openings facing communa a for the residential space as well as the commercial space however it does get a little opaque at the end here where we have the Transformer vault um oh we do have that rooftop amenity space it is set back so you're not going to really see it from the street however it's finished with um an off-white stucco finish that'll be a smooth stucco here we're showing the Harrison Avenue elevation again it's the same finishes where the bottom two floors are the light cast light gray cast stone red brick above as well as the fiber cement uh siding at the balcony infill as well as accents for the windows here on the left side um I also do want to note we have a 10-ft wide garage door this is a grooved metal panel garage door again to access that basement parking this is the left side elevation uh you could see the two sides that are on the property line and then the inset light well on the center where all the windows are and all of this would be finished in a a gray fiber SP siding and again this is the same on the left side elevation where the entire elevation is finished in Gray Fiers siding um that would include that would conclude my presentation if anyone has any questions I'm happy to answer them thanks okay thank you Mr Lo and uh two for two with no PTAC units tonight I say always good to get rid of them right no I'm happy to see that that's good um headed we should be headed that way um the the only question I really have is the area of Refuge is in front of the elevators all the way at the end of that hallway you're asking me building code questions huh sure why not we mix it up here uh yes our area of Refuge would be would be in the uh area where the the elevators are okay okay that's it for me Mr Le anybody else chair I just have one question go ahead there's 27 parking spaces yes how will the parking spaces be assigned since there is 59 units I assume it would be first come first serve and they'd be rented out separately but I don't know the answer to that yeah no I I believe it would be first come first serve um there's only five required um so we are providing well in excess of of what's required but um it would be an ownership decision but most likely first come first serve but assigned probably and assign yeah assigned and on that parking you were I'm sorry to take your I don't know sorry since since she was on the parking you you said it was tandem parking and if you go back to your Park parking diagram um yes how how's that going to work with those five in the front those those five would most likely the two the two spots would go to one apartment got you and they yeah okay that's how it's usually done or one of the bigger perhaps the three bedrooms and the two bedrooms most likely that's my question okay anybody else yes um go ahead so you're saying those five five parking spots will be given to basically same apartment that's usually how it would be done yes such a large building like this because to The Exchange your keys is not going to it's crazy it's definitely not going to work on this one I agree okay so that gives you basically five less parking spaces really so so 22 of the apartments would be able to have their own parking space okay there say we went with Tandon Park and the uh the balcony's in the front of the building uh commuter port side is there any chance of doing some type of safety uh at the bottom you have a four or five inch opening between your grills and if you notice uh with me that's kind of uh always been an issue yes okay we can definitely add add a mesh or something at the the bottom make sure nothing go through I don't I don't recommend putting a drain there because then you make a bathtub right and then you don't want that against the building now so going with the balconies though on your left side elevation and your right side elevation um I I like what you did with that the LI in you know the well the light well there but um the first floor first floor yes where the windows are there's no access to that I'm sorry that's drawn it's shown as a window that I have to I'll fix that there should be a door out to that space for sure yeah there that's going to be used as a Terrace for that apartment so there should be be used as a Terrace for that apartment correct so there should be doors there that has to be changed um and is that type of drainage system there for that because of the yes that will have to connect to the drainage system which will go to the storm water management system and the same thing with the balconies anybody drops anything down and then there's children playing down there we can do we can do it on all the B we're going to wind up on the okay last thing with that is I like the concept but the I was over there today um the second floor first floor when they come outside they have a wall of the building in front of them right two buildings on the side there's well there's a empty lot next to us to the right okay and to the left there's a small one story section and then it's three yeah it's a one story building have that they'll have that space so they're going to know that there's a chance one day that somebody might want to build a building and cover all their Windows well yes but they do have it's a pretty big light light well but yes it's a very big light well anyone could of course anyone could knock down with was it was a sad day at this board where we had to tell a a building that there was somebody going to build in front of their kitchen patio yes and we couldn't I remember that and we couldn't say no to the project it wasn't it wasn't a good day for this board member um to say that um 20 years from now well even even so I do believe this light well is large enough where large enough it's like 14 by 25 or so it's very big is there a way that when somebody rents a unit there or I don't know if you're selling or meting that they would know that there's a possibility that one day somebody could build something in front of their their view is that I mean CU it is a selling point I'll tell you the shoot right now the one over faing New York City side sit out there with a cup of coffee you're good you know right I not be like that every day if if you were going to do this as a condo uh building which I don't think that's the plan here you would have to provide for that in the public offering statement you would want to do that so that somebody doesn't make make that objection rental rental you don't have to tell them anything you don't but I think you know I I think a prospective tenant uh would understand that that's a opport that's a potential development there and that you know our client would probably tell tell them that because that has that area of communa paw has been built up it went you know started on on the corner of commun paw in Bergen and then has slowly Gone Gone to to the east so I think there might be plans for the building uh the property adjacent to it already well you know it's just that when we built on a side yeah and everybody thinks I'm going to have that forever right and that is not the case and then this board can't say no you're not we have to tell them you're not going to have that forever it's not really a yeah they come a good position to be view yeah it doesn't make for good neighbors all right that's all I have thank you all right thanks Eddie I didn't want to steal your thunder on that that balcony thing I I saw it I knew I was I we talked about it I was going a skip it but when I saw parking when I threw a 10 Park with the balconies it's like no if you skipped it I would have brought it up there okay anybody else Al right there okay thank you Mr Los thank you so that completes our presentation as I said earlier I have our traffic engineer here as well in the event of any questions but there are no variances so there's no planning testimony tonight okay thank you Council I do have um one condition for you and it's it's a common thing with uh affordable units you have five affordable units um just that those units will contain the same F finish there'll be no difference whatsoever between those units and the market rate units absolutely and we would be uh entering into a an affordable housing agreement with the division of affordable housing and that's in their agreement as well correct yes I believe that's one of the conditions from Mr Ward uh in his report and any event uh it's voted on to be approved we would agree with those conditions okay okay understood thank you all right uh at this point is there anybody here from public that wants to comment on this application please come on up truuth I do Charlene Burke c h a r l n e b u r ke e and it's 56 Duncan Avenue Miss bur good evening always a pleasure we have three minutes for you good to see you in person so good to see you thank you um good evening everyone um May I just ask what are the streets this is between on communicore and Harrison so it's between what I'm sorry uh B Bergen Avenue I believe and uh monello between Bergen and Montello okay uh thank you um a couple of things just noted one I'm I would like to see a package room in the entry area the lobby area because of all the deliveries and unfortunately a lot of these buildings are victimized by thefts and it tends to be once they get in they go through everything so a package room I would like to recommend for that entry just for safety for the residents um I appreciate the comment about covering up those those uh um Alleyways or you know the spaces because eventually that will happen to the one level building um really that was only the the only thing I wanted to mention about the package room because of the issues that are taking place all over Jersey City oh and one other thing about the part B bicycle parking how does that how does that protect the upper levels particularly with um electric bikes are there covering or fire rating so that it protects the I know there's a lot of battery issues so Mr Lewis can address those uh Miss B before let me just is there anything else before yes one other thing how many Ada apartments are in in here I know you have first floor Apartments so are they ADA Compliant and how many are they so every apartment in the building is sorry thank you every apartment in the building is Ada adaptable so all the apartments are ADA Compliant um we do actually have a parcel room on the first floor right here at the front next to the lobby so it's right when you come in right to the left this is our parcel room okay it's about 8 by 12 or so so it's a nice size so we have that already that is a good suggestion and as far as the separation between the the basement parking and the first level we do we are required to have a fire rating between any garage and living space so there will be a two-hour rated ceiling there well the concern is just about the bicycles because they will well cars cars are just as bad trust me but but they are we do have a 2-hour fire rated ceiling which is good very strong okay thank you so miss Burke just for um an FYI the the bike battery problem is Big it's yeah it's um they're they're going through fire codes right now and there's there's no fire suppression system that will extinguish totally a a bike battery fire of you know a decent size so it's you know it it's being looked at at the state level at this point and something will come out eventually but it's just it's not there yet we can't require it yet but it'll happen it'll eventually happen thank you okay anybody else from public Mr CH I'd like to your mic close the public I move to close second okay motion is made and seconded public is closed matth you have anything you want to add uh this project uh as proposed has no variances um they are as testified providing the requisite portable unit uh in addition to doing some Workforce housing uh income restricted units as well uh this is in the Jackson Hill Redevelopment plan uh which uh which was adopted several years ago this is a project that exemplifies what we're looking to see in this Redevelopment plan uh staff recommends approval okay thank you Matt Mr CH i' like to make a motion at this time to approve case p23 092 as presented to our board here tonight second okay motion is made and seconded for approval Vice chair Dr Gonzalez did you want to say something I'm sorry we agreed to yeah I'm assuming that the conditions in Mr Ward's report and as noted by the chairman are are part of the resolution yes sorry um yeah I like the project I I think taking a lot and building this is going to be good there um so I vote I uh commissioner gangen yeah I like this project especially that there's five um affordable units as well this is a rightaway project so my vot is yes uh commissioner Torres yeah I also passed by there today and I was um with the affordable units um there's certain things I already put on a record that I don't like but with the affordable units and a lot that's been empty for so long and just not really going on there um I really like the project so I vote I Comm Cruz I vote I I'm sorry commissioner Stato I vote I I like the project I like the location um I like the points that were raised by Mrs Burke um I just think that we should look at you know in the future concentrate excuse me electric cars and the electric bikes that's one concern that that's been brought up um in my case um that we had to deal with but anyway um definitely for the project commissioner Dr Desai yeah the that was a good question about the uh that was a good question about it's not light is on yeah ising is it working now okay okay that was a good question about the ebikes and everything so many fires are going on especially in New York and they are going to pass something in New Jersey also I just heard today uh so there should be a future uh concern about all the apartments what they are going to do but I vote I and chairman linkston um first of all commissioner Tores did you go to work today you just drive around all day look sounds like it um anyway I think it's a good project it's as of right I appreciate the uh the affordable units you know not being required but being built into the project um so my vote is an easy ey motion carries uh with conditions uh as stated on the record and in the staff report okay than thank you um thank you thank you guys uh so the time is 8:34 Mike we usually take a break at 9: take the no I think we should maybe take the break now and just go through the rest of the night finish uh finish everything with no breaks uh so we'll be back at uh 8:40 everybody um 10 minutes six minutes everybody please and let's call case P22 -140 is a preliminary and final major site plan for 152 Ogden Street uh this was carried from February 6 with preservation of notices and testimony taken on January 23rd and uh if I'm not mistaken we are in public comment right now so if anybody else from the public wishes to speak please come on up to the microphone can we just do some housekeeping first I think we do have some Commissioners here that at the last in the meantime youf don't be a stranger you can come up mik um hold on hold on everybody me one step back uh no no you're fine you're fine we just have to clear up the uh deal withing thing real quick voting members please Matt uh the voting me uh the members at the last meeting were uh chairman linkston uh Vice chair Dr Gonzalez uh commissioner Torres commissioner gangen commissioner Cruz I already read you read the transcript I read the transcript okay okay so Dr Desai you are eligible and commissioner stamato yes I've read the transcript okay very good you are also eligible then to vote on the application with that chairman I think it's only appropriate uh Mr Harrington do you want to put your representation on the record please yes yes again for uh Charles Harrington of conell Foley um on behalf of the applicant thank you Mr Harrington and Miss haanas Cynthia haanas on behalf of Riverview neighborhood association and I also wanted to mention testimony was taken on November 28th in addition to January 25th correct thank you okay with that said public comments open yes thank you councilman good evening um we usually have a three-minute comment period uh elected officials are council members we always afford extra time but I'll try and respect your time reason reasonable um thank you hello everyone um you know my name is councilman Yousef J I represent Ward D that is comprised of the Heights and now downtown esteemed members of the planning board and members of the community uh I am here today to discuss 152 Ogden Avenue and for a long time I actually never really spoke at the planning board meetings because I respect you as a separate organ of government and I know that it is a volunteer role and I really appreciate the public service that you do for our community I listen in you know and I had to come today to add my voice to the chorus of voices here in the community behind me um it is my understanding that this is an as of right application and I understand that the planning board has to do what they're legally obligated to do but I do think that there are some loose ends that myself and the community are really concerned about regarding this development I am not anti-development I don't think the residents here are anti-development or anti-progress uh but it has to be done consistent with our values as a community it has to be done consistent with uh the concerns the history uh the laws and the community and I'm here to voice my concerns on on behalf of the community um they are environmental and legal in nature and the JC Heights Community has uh had major issues regarding water and sewage and while the MUA is undergoing a massive revamp of our sewage system right now it's combined and they're trying to separate them uh separate it from uh being combined to storm water and then separate from the sewage um having this uh development is going to put further stress on our system and it is a major development and should be classified as such and the system is all already overburdened it's interconnected and it's similar to like if you have a blood clot in your leg and it travels to your brain like if you have so much stress in one area of the heights like that leads to flooding in other areas of the Heights and what we have done and I want to show evidence of that is we have put a rain Garden across the street from that development I had no idea this was over a year of planning it's like it took two years of planning to do on wood place and dogden Avenue you know we put a uh it actually a native plant garden and we increased the curb bump out because we want to make sure that you know not only are we educating people about native plants but we're trying to retain more of that water the heights has strategic importance across Jersey City um it is 100 ft above sea level and essentially when we have one of those really large storms the heights although it does flood like we we don't flood like Hoboken or downtown Jersey City that's why we have OEM the office of emergency management up on Summit Avenue that's why Christ Hospital was the only hospital that was operational during Hurricane Sandy so the heights is a really critical part of our city infrastructure when it comes to these once in a you know generation storms once every hundred years or 50 years now they're happening once every uh five years so we do have storm water issues in the Heights and I understand it is currently a surface lot and to add any more residents to that uh would require a larger water retention system uh than what is currently being proposed right now it's only being proposed as a minor uh development so it have to only conform to you know those water retention standards but it is a major development I call upon the developer the MUA and the planning board to make sure that this development is done in accordance with the laws set forth for major developments which require larger water retention than what is currently being proposed in fact I already spoke about the the native plant garden um the community is also concerned with the development being so close to the cliff um due to issues of soil erosion uh climate change um this would be very catastrophic if you know the the building were to fall fall over the cliff in fact if you travel down Patterson Plank Road you can see cracks in the in the cliff and that is one of the things that keeps me up up at night is you know are we going to make sure that that retaining wall and also the area by the cliff the whole Integrity of the entire Cliff is at stake um and I don't want homes to collapse there so if there's a way to mitigate that or put it further from the cliff that would be uh fantastic as a representative for Ward D representing this area I I ask you to mitigate these concerns have the developer work in good faith with the community and um if they cannot address these legal environmental concerns uh to deny this application and just because you can build something doesn't mean that you should build something I mean anything that is built there would be better than what is currently a surface lot right but we need to be responsible with our development and the the decision you make today will reverberate for a really long time so I ask you to apply the major development standards for the water retention purposes and uh the community is near unanimous in their opposition to this um so I really hope that the planning board does uh does US Justice by either delaying or denying this application um thank you so much and I appreciate your time I appreciate your community service I respect the decision that you make ultimately and I thank you for giving me this platform thank you thank you councilman Yousef let's not stop at that one bio swell all right let's make more happen please anybody else come on up yes I do uh Mark Milner Mark with a k m i l t n e r I'm at 154 Ogden good evening sir are you a member of the RNA no I am not okay thank you and we have three minutes for you then thank you thanks for the time thank you um yeah mean water retention right there am I allowed to ask a quick question of the board or no not really then I won't it just has to do with water retention and is it a major project in your opinion that's we're so let me pause your time so our opinion is whatever the law is it's it can't be based on opinion it's based on law so that would be my answer to that question if it was asked and don't worry we'll explore we'll explore it still thank you thank you very much okay this isn't going to be as glamorous as some people who can present but I'll do my best uh the proposed development at 152 Ogden threatens not only established character of this treat but also in some visceral way the real identity of our community uh 154 Ogden that's where I live uh known as Pullman's Hall and a Cornerstone of our neighborhood for 150 years uh risks being overshadowed and diminished by the sheer scale of the proposed building we urge the developer to reconsider the sheer height and mass reflected in the plan and to ensure Pullman's Hall remains a celebrated um landmark preserving cultural neighborhoods like ours lies at the heart of New Jersey's Heritage where am I going with this the existing historic preservation law is that peod um I want to make sure I get everything right offers a framework but tighter regulations are essential to ensure new developments respect our Collective history and Community identity despite the project at 152 Ogden's uh claim of as of right is that the term um it disregards several key principles outlined in Jersey City's residential design standards the initial zoning map granting R2 uh designation on this lot amidst a predominantly R1 Ogden Avenue should really be scrutinized but that's not on the people that are wanting to build that's more like on our city us we should probably scrutinize that more the proposed 95 ft structure even with a partial UH 60 fo setback dwarfs surrounding buildings and clashes fundamentally with the neighborhood's character not to mention stealing practically all of everyone's afternoon sunshine this directly contradicts residential design standard Point C emphasizing compatible Mass scale height and proportions to existing Street Scapes notching the building back around 30 ft where it faces the street before rising up to its full 8 story height does doesn't seem to do much at all opinion uh in the end those two additional stories will have noticeably negative impact on the birds and trees and daylight as well all this not to mention the general neighborhood look itself additionally point B mandates this is of the same I don't know if it's an ordinance uh mandates uh roof lines adhering to block or neighborhood patterns which this design clearly fails to achieve the current proposal not only disregards established design principles but also threatens the unique charm and character of Ogden Avenue a thorough re-evaluation of the zoning designation and a significant redesign adhering to the residential design standards are crucial to protect the community's architectural Heritage and future in my opinion and many others thank you sir that was your three minutes thanks I appreciate it please come on up don't be shy everybody just come on right up hi of course yes I do yes please okay Diana sento s a r m i n t o4 Ogden Avenue Apartment 3F good evening ma'am are you a member of the RNA no sorry I'm not okay surprised you should be if you live on Ogden there right I think wouldn't have to be should I have been an owner and Resident of4 Ogden Avenue in a beautiful and historic 150 year old building on a quaint little Street for over 30 years on a very personal note the proposed toing modern structure will sit directly across from my living room windows now I know you can't just take that into consideration I know you've seen a thousand photographs but this is what I look at right now which will be gone um my sorry and will absolutely result in my losing natural light and view from my home on a general note it just doesn't fit our little street I'm concerned construction itself will disrupt our peace and surely affect our quality of life I'm worried about the added congestion and traffic to our quiet little street but I will close with this all the logical vital points raised by my eloquent neighbor Mark and the gentleman goes for me too thank you can I see that picture to see no it's not evid okay Tru truth I do uh it's Mana m o n y a mccardy MCC a r t y and my address is 411 Fairmount Avenue Jersey City okay good evening ma'am obviously you're not a an RNA member but I was for about 15 years okay so anyway I kind of have three minutes for you okay thank you um I have a foot in both worlds kind of so um and I know you've heard the concerns of um the residence and that of the engineer of the last meeting and I endorse those concerns especially those of safety um I moved to ogon Avenue my husband and I in 2001 so that was the year that this was codified by the city council um and I lived next door to the collapse where you've seen the photograph of that dramatic collapse so it's very real and when the the large project was being done the book binder below us was being done everybody had to empty their basements there were lots of before pictures of what was there because they didn't know what was going to happen and they you know as you know they put up all of that um the screening you know that heavy duty screening against the cliff there I hope you know what I'm talking about I'm sure you do so anyway so these concerns are very real and and I think they're not entirely predictable so um but that's more than I wanted to say hold on one second um so um so as I said I'm I'm not an immediate neighbor but I was and um but I'm here as a Jersey City resident and I'm here because the Palisade Cliffs are a unique Geographic asset to our area much like how Liberty State Park is a unique asset to our area our state and Beyond um you only have to visit Riverview Park to understand the impact of the cliffs whose views Echo those of the same cliffs in Hamilton Park up in we hawk and and also beyond the the views are unique and breathtaking such natural assets are ours to enjoy locally but also ours to protect 23 years ago the Jersey City city council did just that by endorsing and passing the palisay protection overlay District also known as the peep pod and at that time I did love on onton Avenue and I was there for 15 more years um and I was a member of RNA uh I was and I am still close friends with one of the main authors of the peep pod I know what his and the city council's concern and intent was when they added the pepon to the Jersey City zoning map uh many legal instruments can be picked at watered down and ultimately be made fully ineffective by folks with a different agenda um but I know that you as a board are not permitted to legislate zoning and that um and that might cause um you some personal conflict sometimes I hear that too but I understand that is your role to adhere adhere to zoning so like others I understand that uh but with your decision tonight you can uphold the existing zoning and prevent the precedent that will over time undo the intent of concerned citizens across the city and it's intent that our city council voted to codify 23 years ago so thank you thank you we appreciate your [Applause] time yes Sam pesson P 580 Jersey Avenue Apartment 3L Mr pesson good even even you're not a an RNA member correct correct okay thank you we have three minutes for you sir I'm speaking for myself but I'm president of the friends of Liberty Park I grew up in Greenville but my roots are in the Heights when my grandparents came from Russia they raise their family on Palisade Avenue I'm named after my Uncle Sam the Heights assemblyman in the 1930s on mayor hag's ticket my father moris is the father of Liberty Park he envisioned turning the abandoned water front into a free park and led the movement along with Ted Conrad and Orby zap to create the park and fought battles against privatization Ted Conrad the famous architectural model builder and historic preservation Legend Save the Lowe's theater and the Brennan Courthouse from Demolition Ted lived at 248 Ogden Avenue built in 1760 and the former home of New Jersey fifth Governor Aaron Ogden I'm sure that Ted conr would oppose this project this application if approved would have negative environmental impacts that would affect not only the direct Neighbors in the heights but those of us who are concerned about protecting natural resources like the palates cliff and the Hudson River Watershed while this is one lot approving an application that does not follow Jersey City's stringent storm water Control Ordinance which set a very very bad precedent and allowing developers to build so close to the Cliff's Edge can cause harm to the Palisade Cliffs a geological wonder by increasing the chance for rock slides and erosion the proposed a story building is out of scale and does not fit the character of Ogden Avenue you should trust the expertise of greatly respected Princeton Hydro who had given you testimony in deciding to oppose this project princ and hydro has been working with the D and Army Corps to plan Liberty Park's spectacular 165 acre interior nature habitats which includes freshwater and saltwater Wetlands I strongly support the Neighbors in the Heights including the 40-year-old inspiring dedicated Riverview neighborhood association and I urge this board to vote to deny it please please listen to the community as councilman Cay so passionately stated and please prioritize the public interest thank you hi good evening Chelsea pleas oh sorry I do sure Chelsea c h e LS EA last name pleaser p l s n i t z r I live at 33 Griffith Street um very close to Ogden um I am not a member of RNA thank you and uh we have three minutes for you yeah sure I'll be quick um so I'm also here representing a newly formed group of JC Heights parents and moms uh that this time is really difficult to meet in person but um you know this building does not fit the character of the neighborhood I'm very concerned about that it just if you walk down the block there's quaint homes this is not that um personally um living at 33 Griffith two times now we've experienced storm water coming up and we are on the third floor um coming up through our bathrooms and damaging floors and things like that uh behind our unit uh is the lumber house so that was new development and we have new construction across the street that's been a disaster um and we've had um our sewers back up from that as well there's no way to prove it but it's happened um and it was an expensive project so I'm particularly concerned about that um and the system not being able to support a building like that uh and then also the degradation of the Palisades cliffs which is has been Z by everyone else so that's all I have for you tonight thank you all right thank you we appreciate it Tru the truuth I do it's Elvin dominici elv n DOI and ICI one Congress tree and the Heights I'm not a member okay thank you however I do support the NRA with what they're trying to do uh good evening uh Commissioners I truly appreciate the work that you do uh I understand that you need to uh take the facts and the different situations with this project but as a person that live in the neighborhood that have to commute uh to the park in in the area with my kids and my family uh is highly concerning to know that this property is going to be way above the three or four units that is allowing this Zing even though I guess the AR to change it but something that is complete out of the structure like the lady was saying the other people that were talking here so my main concern here is to make sure that this is a safety issue make sure that the building is not too close to the cliff because I also commute on pison Plant Road so I also taking a risk me and my family to to be in an accident because of the location of this property and when you see a community coming together uh raising their voices United because they highly concern about the property um I think uh our job your job as a public servant is to take the facts but also listen to the community because here there is something that a group of people from Jersey City who are taxpayers who are very concerned with our community they want to make sure that their families the kids and everybody is safe what I can say about me and the situ in the property that I live in I live in one Congress is very close to the corner between Congress and Ogden and we have a retaining wall now we have an issue where the owners have to come up with money we're working on it in order to repair the wall because it's also a risk of collapsing what I'm saying is regardless of the situation uh we got to make sure that our neighborhood is safe so we avoid to having an accident or losing a life in the future let's put that first thank you [Applause] yes yes Abigail schmelzer uh last name s m is in Mary e l z is in zebra e r uh and I live at 140 Ogden Avenue and I'm not a member of the RNA sorry I'm sick so that's okay um we have three minutes for you okay great thanks um so I've lived next to the proposed project site for the past eight years um and I adore my community in the neighborhood and am happy to call it my home um I Echo a lot of the concerns and challenges that have been raised by a lot of previous public testimony but also uh a lot of the folks who have spoken tonight um I do want to reiterate what many others have that my number one concern of this project is safety um especially for those of us who live so close to this building site so I'm I'm right next door um the driveway will be buding right up against my driveway um and so yeah I think a couple things to that point the intersection right there at Ogden and wood is already extremely congested um just today actually I noticed um somebody illegally parked blocking the crosswalk um and that would actually be right I guess blocking the the proposed driveway and then also like budding into our driveway as well um I think that for such a large scale project that's unprecedented I'm looking for safety precautions um I'm very concerned about the instability of about any instability in the cliff um and any unforeseen damage that may come from a project like this I think the second major issue for me is the the rainwater the storm I don't know the right terms so sorry um the storm water plans for this development um it was less than two years ago I want to say that there was a major storm and we had backed up water it was just falling too fast for the systems to um process it I guess sorry um so we had W rainwater backing up and it was actually um coming into the basement for both of the bottom units at 140 Ogden again that's right next door um so although we live on a cliff we're not immune to flooding and water issues and so I really I I ask that this be considered a major project um and that the storm water plans be handled appropriately um I ask that the board please deny this application at this time thank you for hearing me out and thank you to the councilman for speaking on behalf of those who couldn't be here tonight thank you we appreciate it I do Lynn Mullins 356 Webster good evening uh are you a member of RNA no okay thank you we have three minutes for you did you know that the Palisades are a national and natural landmark and the most dramatic geologic feature in the New York area most of us don't think much about what history our houses are built on the bosel cliffs that we are talking about tonight is roughly 200 million years old are Palisades appear on the first European map of the new world drawn in 1541 in November of 1776 George Washington stood on the Palisades and watched as the British captured Fort Washington across the Hudson only the Hudson River and the Steep Cliffs stood between the British and what was left of his continental army many of the houses surrounding this plot are history themselves 150 to 200 years old neighbors live in two and three story dwellings made mostly of brick and wood Once Upon a Time men walked to local factory jobs and women climbed Stone steps wearing long Victorian dresses planning for Jersey City's future includes considering the past erasing our past for monetary gain of development is not always good planning this proposed building would dwarf the two adjacent buildings that are over a hundred years old towering over Hoboken this massive glass structure would be in the the flight path of thousands of birds who migrate through and reside along the Hudson New Jersey has no legislation requiring bird safe glass leaving that higher priced option up to the developer from what we have seen so far this project cares little for adapting to the neighborhood or to our natural habitat tonight's hearing has been delayed several times due to a lack of geological testing information to imagine considering an eight-story building on a sloping cliff without first making sure that the cliff can handle it sounds like shoddy business in May 2012 a 10,000 ton rockfall occurred just south of the New York line and left a 520t scar on the Palisades North Bergen has had two Rock slides in December this sloping ancient Cliff can't handle this massive structure this building is too big for the precarious lot and it doesn't fit in with the neighborhood please deny this application I oppose it for safety reasons and its disregard of residential design standards 345.8 2 thanks thank [Applause] youth Tru truth yes pleas yes Lauren Morris last name m o r s e and I'm at 63 Sherman Place I'm formerly of 121 Ogden as well and I'm not a member of the RNA okay thank you and we have three minutes for you absolutely thank you all for your time and attention we really appreciate it um I would like to say that as a former resident of Ogden ab and someone who is still living in the heights I volunteer a lot at locations near the proposed development like the rain Garden the councilman mentioned earlier Ogden's and community garden and we do get wild life like hummingbirds through there and really incredible place to take our youth and to build community so in addition to my concerns about window strikes as the prior speaker noted I would really just encourage you to please deny this application because this development is unsafe approving it simply puts our neighborhood homes and lives at risks it's too close to the cliff it's risking erosion and collapse that would destabilize a whole area and you can get cascading effects like that and once it starts it might not be controllable this development simply does not meet the standards to address flooding New Jersey is one of the fastest warming states in the country and our rainfall is expected to increase from about 52 in a year to 62 in a year and that total is likely to be even greater in northern New Jersey that accumulated volume of water coming in more and more intense storm events many of which we have already experienced um must be dealt with and we have a way to deal with that we have this floodwater ordinance this development however by not being held accountable to the major development storm water management plan which I hope it will be um by the planning board really weakens our ability to deal with this urgent and ongoing issue in the Heights and really in all of Jersey City the data I mentioned above is sourced from Cornell University the New Jersey D and the federal agency Noah the D commissioner stated we can take the wise steps that the science demands from planning more resilient development to enhancing our storm water and flood control infrastructure and Beyond I'm someone who works on that flood control infrastructure with the rain Gardens but we are already seeing that inundated during normal rain events and now we're talking about adding more impermeable service that doesn't meet the flood water management plan so that's deeply concerning to me so I really hope that our city would pass ordinances that then we expect developers to meet especially ones as critical as managing flood waters the area near this development again struggles with standing water during storms and flooding in basements and ground level units I'm also assured the city of Hoboken would appreciate us making sure we're managing um our flood waters as we are supposed to be so again this project endangers the Integrity of the landscape which has already been shown to be vulnerable to collapse I believe that the board will make sure that they put their names and put their stamp of approval only on an accurate safe application that identifies this as a major development um in terms of the storm water plan we really need to make sure that applications honor ordinances and protective overlays that people really believed in and they meant to be followed so again I really hope that you would deny this applications because of safety concerns and because it is simply not in the character of the neighborhood the building design will not fit in um personally I find it quite garish with the way it looks and we can all kind of see that as we go down Ogden Avenue so we really hope you fulfill your duty to protect our neighborhoods thank you thank you I do Jessica Caro and 65 Fleet Street of my address forly 226 Ogden Avenue not a member of the okay not a member and uh we have three minutes for you sure so um I grew up on that block actually born and raised my mother still lives at 226 Ogden one of the only uh rent control buildings still available there um you know it's always been my dream to move back to Ogden and it's really you know I would love to invest and buy a property there but it's really difficult because there's really no properties ever available and if they are now it's a you know Millions right at the same time you know I hear a lot of people complaining about things where the structure of the building is different it doesn't match I just don't see how that's any different than downtown we have historic Brownstones and you have a bunch of new construction standing next to Brownstones you know I think it's absolutely fair that the safety is important obviously we don't want something built that's going to be falling off a cliff or causing deaths but we have three parking lots there you're on a cliff and you have two other ones on the other side there's plenty of space there to build something new and beautiful and it doesn't have to be old or or matching the other houses because that's what new developments do and it brings an opportunity for people to buy a a condo there and you know be able to move back the other thing I'm seeing here is that they have 14 parking spots for 14 units so at least they're trying with the 14 parking spots they're also talking about not having any variances you know the massive structure of it and the safety I would presume that that would be looked into when it comes to the flooding obviously that's an issue as well but I know that when Ida happened it flood even on 65 Fleet Street it flooded everywhere so I don't know if that's what's being talked about but obviously looking into the safety of this is going to be key but building something there I think is needed we don't need three parking spots to be looking at right there in that area something nice should be put there now do they need to do these safety measures obviously yes and I would presume before building anything that that gets done and you know whatever needs to be done with a water retention obviously that that be done as well but what I'm hearing a lot from people is really just blocking of sunlight and the facade of the building not matching and I to that I say we see that all over downtown now so I really don't see how that's any different that being said I know I'm not going to get around of Applause but thank you so much for allowing me to speak and those are my thoughts thank you thank you we appreciate it yes I do my name is David Wallace da a v d l a w l SS I'm the owner and occupier of 170 Ogden Avenue which is four four doors down from the proposed construction good evening sir are you a member of RNA I am not okay we have three minutes for you sir thank you um so the house I I'm I'm living in is actually I'm the second owner of this house in 100 years Marie tuo who is a welln own um fixture of the neighborhood owned it prior that to me and before her I think her family owned it since it was built in 1924 if I understand correctly um first I I agree with all the technical concerns and objections that have been raised by the RNA and other opponents to the project um but especially with regard to the overloading of the local sewer local sewer system I lived in Liv at 159 Ogden Avenue across the street from 2009 to 20 uh 2012 and um experience flooding on a frequent and extensive basis there's no doubt that there's a problem there with uh water drainage not just not just during the Hurricanes it happened all the time um it's a single commercial lat stuck in the middle of a residential roow it's rather odd in this regard and the building um you know I I basically object to this on on aesthetic grounds very strongly the building is absurdly twice the height of the next tallest building in the vicinity it's just and it's an ugly Glass Tower I I I just really I can't say that I have any fondness for this at all uh let just uh oh yeah I should mentioned that there was a there's a building a couple doors further down that's now I think like three stories tall and at one point it was built a four stories tall and outside of the zoning of for that lot which apparently it's strange that each of these Lots can be zoned in a very different way they actually were required to remove the top floor of the building as a result of an RNA um lawsuit in action so that's I think something to keep in mind um this project is going to going to create a disaster for about a year the construction will be a nightmare it'll it'll you know be disturbing to our lives it be extreme traffic you know I've lived through this a couple times already and it's it's getting quite old so I oppose it on the grounds of that as well and it's going to increase the level of traffic on the street which is already at a problematic level thank you those are my thoughts thank you we appreciate it do you any testimony tonight be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do address please William cologne 157 Ogden Avenue good evening Mr cologne are you a member of the uh RNA no I'm not okay thank you we have three minutes for you okay all I want to say is that I've been living there since 1983 I bought this house uh back in the 80s they built a nursing home and my house got damaged with the dynamiting and so forth the rock so my concern is what's going to happen now when I'm only 150 ft away from what this building is supposed to be built ID like to get some guarantees on my house and that's about it thank you okay thank you [Applause] um truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do my name is Daniel heg ha a and I live at9 Ogden um right next to I am not a member of the RNA okay RNA needs to do better Outreach it sounds like everybody on aen I I thought they were all RNA members but I work with them on a music festival that takes place up there though every year okay understood so we have three minutes for you sir thank you uh I want to Echo with what my neighbor William said he's he's lived in that house since the 70s I Liv lived in mine since 2012 he's raised three generations of his family there I'm raising my first um we both live in old wooden houses you know single family homes uh two stories that's it and a basement and as David mentioned my basement does flood um we've taken remediation uh extensive remed remediation steps to dig down retar redo everything around the basement I mean I I've meticulously uh brought this house back to life pretty much um new roof new everything and I I'm concerned about what this development is going to do to mine and Williams foundations um as he mentioned when the health center was built it's about 300 yards from his house it cracked his foundation it cracked his walls um this is 150 ft from our houses and we're very concerned with what this construction is going to do um I don't think there's been enough testing as to where the Palisades lie as to when they're dug into what it's how it's going to affect the houses around it and uh you know I I I don't think anybody in this room is really against development we're against this development this height this scale this the lack of safety that's been looked that that's been put forth and you know I hope that at this time you guys deny this application than thank you sir appreciate it tonight going be the truth the whole truth nothing but truth I do your home address please Andy Herrera 118 Ogden Avenue h r r r a i am not a member of RNA thank you sir we have three minutes for you so as everyone's been speaking of tonight safety is a main concern non-conforming to Neighborhood yeah definitely not conforming double the size of most of the properties in the area my major concern is the sidewalks the driveways is going to be two driveways butt up next to each other essentially creating a two-way street on the sidewalk there's two parks north and south of this project children riding their bicycles running scooters walking down the street may be injured here safety is the biggest concern here I'd urge the board to urge to ear on a side of safety and deny this application thank you thank you testim tonight the truth nothing yes Elizabeth Dempsey d m Psy 154 Ogden Avenue I've been a resident there for 21 years I've obviously seen the block change quite a bit um I have my own business I walk dogs on this block all day long I have a 15-year-old who uh I used to go to Hoboken to find other mothers there are now a slew of children on this block going down to the Dead End Street I have to Echo everything that's been said here as far as safety I know nothing about rainwater but I can testify to the fact that our building has flooded I live uh my personal bedroom is the basement of this building I've seen water come up I don't think it's just when there's Sandy and Ida it has to do with a lot of water at a lot of time um I also just you know the safety is a big concern I'm not against development I you know certainly something maybe could go there but twice the size of our building uh lack of sunlight sure maybe we you know according to somebody in the room they want us to just get a tissue out and wipe our tears but I will have no more light in my house I have one window so yes personally I don't love that if it was to scale with the neighborhood I could probably you know be swayed into a with something like that but as it stands I I just don't see how it'll fit in and yes I do have blue sky and some birds to listen to now but I think all of that will be gone I don't have the expertise of the people who got up and spoke about migration of birds and wildlife but we should be thinking about other things other than people moving from Manhattan to live next door who will have no appreciation for this neighborhood no appreciation for uh what goes on in this area and uh it's not people that are thinking they're going to live on the block again it's a lot of money to live on the Block and I just hope that people can respect the fact that we have a a cliff to protect and and just there's just so many things I know they've all been presented to you and I just hope that you take them all into account thank you for your timeon theu truth truth I do yep Anthony Herington h a r r i n g t o n and my address is 74 Jefferson Avenue good evening sir and are you a member of RNA uh no but I'm the secretary of Sergeant Anthony Park neighborhood association okay three minutes for you y thank you um I don't live that far away thank you Commissioners by the way um I don't live that far away from this project um the members of Sergeant Anthony Park neighborhood association share a concern about development along the Palisades um we I'll be back um next week they'll talk about another project that will be T story proposed project on Palisade Avenue I have great respect for Mr Harrington and Mr V Mark we've met with us many times for projects in our neighborhood but we do have concerns about overdevelopment in The Heights um and I'm here to lend my support to our name thank you for your time thank you truth truth yes indeed your name home address please uh my name is fra rer last name is rer r i l l e r and I live on 154 Ogden Avenue I'm one of the uh owners good evening ma'am are good evening are you an RNA member no but very committed to the the beauty of our little garden and everything else that contributes to the harmony of this very understood three minutes for you otherwise the mayor of Jersey City might not have chosen this wonderful Street it really is unique and and uh as you heard from uh all the people here it's a a very harmonious and strong tight Community I just wanted to share with you that last Saturday um a lot of owners of our our building apartment owners we um collecting bids right now from contractors to fix leaks of the roof and lots of holes in our brick wall and three contractors apparently warned us that we can't put up foldings here we can't hang them we can't H you're you're about to roll down the hill which is not very uh comforting as an owner of an apartment but if you ever look at the back side of our building it's really not looking very encouraging I just want to uh share with you that uh it would make me very sad if this building went up because I tried to I always try to look at both sides in situations I work in Conflict zones and we sometimes have to write the victory speech of our opponent to understand the other side so I'm not against development I'm not against you know beautiful new architecture being inserted in older neighborhoods but I tried to write the victory speech and it was very very hard but I do appreciate all the work and the design elements and everything that goes into a project like this by the architect by the developer and I would like to beseech the developer and the architect please find another lot where you can show your metal where you can share your skills and and Implement your vision but in this particular situation I would say please could you reframe thank you very much thank [Applause] you I do yes Lisa blando last name b l n d o and I'm at 185 Webster Avenue great blando good evening good RNA member not currently okay thank you we have three minutes for you thank you so much for all this time um I I moved to Jersey City Heights because it was affordable I stayed because I love the neighborhoody vibe I I really strongly feel that this project is bad for the Heights and it sets a dangerous precedent practically speaking I also am quite concerned about infrastructure um traffic already a bummer um parking a bummer capacity of um uh of uh the buses at uh a rush hour a bummer um aesthetically speaking um Big Shiny buildings are also way out of character for our little neighborhoody neighborhood and not to mention as people have been saying the heights is well known for its views and so a lot of people can kiss those views goodbye and probably kiss a lot of uh market value in their homes goodbye when those views are gone um outside of the confines of our neighborhood uh clearly I also share a lot of concerns about the structure and maintaining the Palisades but also as cool as it would be to say that we have waterfront property I'm sure Hoboken would really not appreciate uh the the the the water management issue um so all that being said I like everyone else say let's not do52 thank you the truth truth nothing the truth yes I do yes my name is Colin Eagan c l i n last name Egan I live at 35 Sherman Place in the Heights and I am not now nor have I ever been a member of RNA so good evening sir we have three minutes for you thank you and I just want to thank uh all the Commissioners here for coming out um it's it's great thing you do we do it every other Tuesday you're welcome any night that's why I particularly admire you guys because you're doing every Tuesday when I'm at home so anyway um the least important thing I have to say to you uh about this project is my personal reaction to it based on my understanding of streetscape and scale and Jersey City character was when I saw the building really for Ogden Avenue I don't think it's a good fit and frankly I think that the builders the designers would propose it show that they're not really planning on being very good neighbors but much more importantly than my opinion um I've worked in Jersey City mostly about preservation and quality uh life issues some of you may know the Lowe's Jersey theater at Journal Square for the better part of four decades and in that time I've gotten to know and work with many of the neighborhood associations Jersey City is extremely fortunate to have and RNA is has always been one of the best uh Sam peasant mentioned Ted Conrad who worked with me I work with him I should say at the beginning of the Lowe's project he's a founder of RNA and the thing about RNA is they have people who have and over the years this has never changed extraordinary understanding of concern for all all the issues frankly you folks deal with in terms of environmental concerns streetscape uh light air and quality of life when RNA is States an opinion it's worth listening to and I've listened to their opinion on this project and I agree with all of it um they're right this is not a good project for this space but what they have brought out and what is before the commission tonight is the fact that there is a very specific issue that is very much in your purview that is the en the storm water environmental issues and also the safety issues and based on those I would recommend that you deny this project thank you truth the whole truth the truth yes I do yes Paul amuso p a m a tu zzl 83 Sherman Place Jersey City Heights I am also president of the Persian field neighborhood association and I also serve on the city's historic commission uh board okay thank you sir we have three minutes for you thank you um I just want to um go back and I am speaking for my neighborhood association which covers a very large SWAT of the Heights and um I just need to say that this project at 152 Ogden Avenue just does not fit the realm of what we have supported in the Heights in the past it's way too large um you're putting it next to uh a building that's on the state and and National register of historic sites which is 154 Ogden Avenue um the chance of undermining that building uh I think are significant we don't want to lose any more of our historic resources uh they are way too important uh to us as a city moving forward uh this building does not fit into anything on Ogden Avenue or in the immediate area we don't need an eight-story Glass Tower sticking up above all of the other homes and in a place where we there will be no other like buildings uh let's try and keep all those eight and 10 story buildings together concentrated in the same area and leave the lowrise areas um to low rise and um I appreciate everyone's efforts here tonight and I just want to say please uh think about uh what this President will take will will the president that this approval um will will start in the Heights thank you very much thank you yes name yes it's Megan mcke m g h n m c ke e 469 Palisade Avenue good evening ma'am and I'm not a member thank you we have three minutes for you uh I just want to Echo everything that's been said tonight it is so dire that we do not have this built on a cliff the Palisade and everything but I also want to stress that the same architect and developer that wants to create this has also tried to build something very close to this site uh right on New York Avenue he knows our feelings about all of this and he knows exactly what we've discussed many many times in regards to what our neighborhood wants and what our community wants and he knows what we feel and it's just it's disheartening to have to have this conversation over and over and over again and it just feels like like as a neighborhood we're not being listened to which I'm thankful that the RNA does represent us and does try to speak out for us but I'm just very disheartened by this thank you I do Monica platka Monica m o n i CA p l o TKA I live at 373 Ogden I've lived at 373 Ogden oh let me say thank you for your service thank you and are you an RNA member I'm not currently you should be but I will be again soon I'm delinquent anyway um I feel like wasn't there just a redo of the zoning in Jersey City didn't we just have a full exploration of it I think I took a tour with you before you did it and when I saw a flyer for this building I was like shocked how could this be it's in the R1 but it's not not I realized it's in a Zone all its own um which I think is such a huge mistake that this happened so I I don't really understand how or why that we could change other things why did why did this um why did this happen so it's completely out of character with that street uh well our street the other thing I I've been thinking a lot about what people are saying today I I by maybe 20 minutes um I could have died when all those rocks fell down on Patterson Plank Road that storm and I think it was 2007 when the underneath the yardly building that wall just collapsed I drove by there was I remember the day so clearly and I don't know what that's Union City it's not Jersey City but it did happen and I know the cliff is probably I don't know I don't know the state of the cliff but um I live at 373 across from those five row houses where the mayor once lived he's since moved on but during Ida and some of the storms uh there's five homes there that uh the catch basins all filled up and the the water flew through the doorways going into their basement apartments and went out the other side it was terrifying for these people so we because we're on a cliff doesn't mean that we're safe from flooding and catastrophic flooding and these kind of storms keep happening more and more I just think you have to think about all these issues that these experts we have here are bringing up I'm not one of them I just observed catastrophes on our our block where when I moved there from hobok and I was like thank God no more flooding but that's just not the case case we have a lot of issues and the more and more development that comes the more ground that's covered and has the water has nowhere to go so just this past weekend several of my neighbors reported bubbling up sewage in their homes I'm lucky I didn't have it I don't know you know but a lot of people right on our side of Ogden have been having these issues so we just have to think about quality of life and safety and this building is just way out of scale for our neighborhood um for that street for that the zone that exists around it I I I just can't I urge you to vote no we need a compromise we need something better we need to do better okay thank you thank you anytim truth the truth truth yes Emily m i l y Duke Duke 329 Palisade good evening ma'am and are you uh an RNA member okay thank you we have three minutes for you thank you good evening board members um I wanted to start by saying thank you for doing this important and difficult job um to anyone in favor I think if you think this building will mean there's more affordable housing on Ogden Avenue you clearly did not look at the plans and you'll be sorely mistaken I'm worried about all the issues that were raised already um storm water disturbing the cliff and the huge eight-story design looking absurd on ogan Avenue if you recall on the zoom meeting where this case started there were over a 100 community members on um ready to speak on their concerns the fact that the meetings have been moved to inperson at 5:30 takes away the voice of many residents who cannot be here it should be easier and not harder to parti to participate in things that affect our community so taking that into consideration the people who cannot be here and thank you Yousef for speaking on their behalf as well as everyone at RNA and who has spoken so far um I just wanted to say um that I implore you to listen to those people that you serve and uh do the right thing to deny this application thank you good evening again good evening Miss Burke you've already been sworn in tonight and you were still under oath and we have three minutes for you thank you um The Rock that's there is very strong as the engineers for the applicant had attested to when they gave their testimony but water is stronger and the Fishers that they referenced certainly can be a affected by that water but as many of the people here tonight who live in the area they attested that that strong rock is actually what the water flows over and into their home and into the neighborhood so it doesn't always just go over the cliff but it can go into the surrounding neighborhood and the fact that the jcmua which I checked the website uh the portal I didn't see any um report from the jcmua about this project as of yet and certainly it was supposed to be something that was presented before the application was even considered and so I would really think that based on the fact that it's incomplete you should deny this on the basis of that they really haven't presented is this a minor as they claim or a major development and from my looking at all the plans I would say even if it were on the border it given the fact that all this rock is underneath you should be considering a major development here because it really does need to address the storm water um one other point I would like to make and if all of you looked at the shade study that was presented in the plans the shade that is cast on the surrounding neighborhood because it is very much on the cliff that it casts a shade a shadow all around itself the morning sun rises in the East and to the north it gives this incredible it looks like an entire Block it's cast in a shadow so those are two things that really should have been taken more into consideration when it comes to the neighborhood because to lose that kind of that kind of sunlight particularly this time of year in the winter when the sun is lowest on the horizon is when we need the sunlight the most and really that's very very impactful and believe me I know I live next to a very large building I may appreciate it in the summer when it Shades me from the heat of the Sun but I certainly don't appreciate it in the Winter thank you anybody else up testimony you get tonight is going to be the truth the whole truth the truth yes yeah Michael Falco last name f 3603 Kenedy Boulevard uh I don't know much about are you an RNA member I'm not okay thank you I don't know much about the cliffs I'll be leaving with a lot more anxiety than I had coming here without all the speculation uh but what I do know is that the 119 is the worst bus in New Jersey that I've ever taken uh it's like a poster child for New Jersey transits and competence to be completely honest with you and I don't know how we're going to fit people if you're going to set a precedence of these multif family massive buildings A lot of these people are young professionals that work in the city and there's days when I miss like three buses cuz they're full I have to explain it to my boss it's ridiculous and I really hope that that's taken into consideration with these projects going forward thank you anybody else please come on up good evening you any testimony you tonight is GNA be the truth the whole truth truth yes I do yes my name is Ry re ni I my last name is m s d o l and my address is 21b bleer Street good evening M and are you an RNA member no I'm not okay no thank you so much and I don't want to keep you um any longer from your families and from your dinner appreciate she misses me it's all right but appreciate appreciate all your work and I don't want to be repeating everything that has been said I agree with everything I'm as well concerned about integrity of the cliff um maintaining the wildlife and storm water sewage system Etc um but I'm just thinking you know Ogden Avenue is one of the nicest streets in Jersey City Heights and it really is a gift from the past to all of us because it has really beautiful buildings it's a it has a nice streetcape and I'm just thinking what are we leaving uh for the for the future what gifts are we leaving for the future for everybody who comes after us right are we leaving something that's memorable it's beautiful it's sustainable um so I I just feel that we can do better smarter we can build smarter better buildings and really think also about integration within existing neighborhoods because we can still bring new developments but we can also build them the way that they can fit uh we don't have to reinvent the wheel you know we can learn a lot from old times we can go back to Renaissance we can go back to Victorian age we can go back to um modern times but um I just really feel that um we do not we do not want to send a president of buildings that completely are out of scale out of proportion out of balance within our neighborhood and this building would be such thank you so much thank you anybody else like to Mr like to make a motion to uh close the public portion second okay motion is made and second it public is closed uh before we go on Mr Harrington I don't see Mr lean here anymore do you have authorization to carry his next application on tonight I do I do I believe that's 385 commun that you're refering to yeah 385 to 387 commun paw yes if we could carry that to to the next uh hearing date if possible um cam I didn't think we could make the next one possible no we would have to put it to March 19th okay so we'll carry to a date certain March 19th I know Mr lean was aware that it was the 19th and and uh okay so we're going to carry case P22 d129 it's a prelimin preliminary and final major site plan for 385 to 387 commun AV to a date certain March 19th with preservation of notice okay thank you uh council do you want to give a closing statement and I'll allow Miss haanas as well well I I thought that uh yeah I thought Miss haanas was going to go first okay but um that's fine come on if I could before we go there um you know in response to uh you know the comments from the public comments one one thing I think you know we can add which uh uh is is a concern with the minor development versus the major development um while the applicant you know does not concede or agree that it's a minor development for storm watert purposes under the uh interpretation of the ordinance and and our calculations uh and speaking with my client I think you sent that said that backwards oh okay I'm I'm sorry reverse I don't want to put words in your mouth think about it first okay so um yeah we're not conceding that that it's a that it's a major uh development sorry for that and thank you um but uh my my client uh has advised me that he would agree uh to to um develop the property under the major development standards uh under the storm water ordinance you know as indicated at the last meeting that that would mean that there would be a uh A detention underground detention uh and that the idea would be would be to put it under the building um and that that can be designed you know accordingly uh I have uh also spoken with my experts here uh tonight and if the board would like to hear from Yen but they've all confirmed that that would not change any of their analys analysis or calculations with regard to the foundation and and and um stability uh of the rock uh and and uh the building that would be proposed but that is something that we we are agreeing to all right thank you Miss haanas do you want to make a statement good evening Commissioners and um I just want to thank you for your time and attention and you especially you heard testimony from four different Engineers uh which was probably pretty technical compared to a lot of the applications you hear and um I want to thank you for keeping an open mind because there's some unique issues that have come up on this application uh and I did just want to briefly address what um Mr Harrington said about being will the applicant being willing to address or or to treat this as if it's a m a major development for purposes of storm water control you don't have a plan in front of you that has a major storm water uh management system the plans um do not have any specificity in them you heard testimony from the applicant civil engineer Mr leusin that if they were going to do a storm water system they would have to excavate even for further down into the Bedrock that forms the Palisades and um that's a new cut and fill plan so I think it would change a lot of the Geotech it would change the site plan and I don't think you can vote on a plan you haven't seen so I would I would beseech you please do not make this a condition of your approval it really is something under our ordinance that has to be complied with at the outset not as a post uh approval condition uh so having said that I'm I'm just going to go back to the beginning of my summation um so I'm representing Riverview neighborhood association it is one of the oldest continuously running neighborhood associations in Jersey City according to the one of the commenters it it was first started in 1983 and since the Ron members aren't allowed to speak this evening I did want to just Briefly summarize why they care so so much they were instrumental in the passage of the Palisades protection overlay District the special Zone that protects the Palisades they believe that this is an Irreplaceable natural resour resource that is worthy of protection and they want that ordinance strictly enforced they've seen erosion along the Palisades in their backyards and at least one collapse in backyards along ABS along Ogden they're also concerned about safety and stability of a new building like this that's being built so close to the cliff um they're concerned like like everybody else about storm water and flooding you heard a lot of that um and just any new development how it impacts the neighborhood and they've RNA has successfully partnered with the city in in a lot of ways and um and with the development community and they have a vision for the neighborhood that has been um I think in many ways um respected by the development community and by city planning so what is the legal framework for the board's decisionmaking you I think you've heard the term as of right as of right as of right over and over and over again um which might lead you to believe the board has no authority to deny the site plan but that is simply not the case uh first I want to um say that it's uh and there are grounds and in it in the land use tretis um Cox and kig which every land use lawyer refers to talks about the reasons uh for that a a planning board may deny us a site plan um so zoning compliance is one reason here are storm water Control Ordinance as part of our zoning ordinance we've made the case I believe that this plan does not comply with the storm water Control Ordinance lack of specificity in the plans missing information misrepresentations in the plans and safety so those are some of the many grounds on on which boards have been upheld when they've denied site plans in the case law uh is this an as of right application as you heard Mr lampy explain at the outset of our our Hearing in November that very issue is the subject of a court case should a should a 30-foot setback have been required ultimately we don't we don't know the the case just started and I'm I'm not the lawyer on the case but ultimately a variance may be required so it's an open qu zoning compliance with that 30 foot setback requirement is still as far as my client is concerned an open question um what information is missing the the board has not received anything from the JC mua on the adequacy of the storm water management plan from the jcmua um and I just wanted to read to you from our ordinance because it does in it's a section 345-7460 in this section Municipal approval may not be issued unless the requirements of this section are met and I think that is the jcmua they're the experts on this and I think the board does need to hear from them prior to making uh a decision and I and it and as a as a practical matter I think that's helpful but as a legal matter it's required under our ordinance um we don't know if the jcmua considers this major minor but in his you know I think the applicant saying they're not conceding but in his re rebuttal testimony Mr liebeskind acknowledged that the jcmua May in fact consider this project to be a major development for the purpose of storm water control despite the position taken by the applicant that it's a minor development if it's major the site plan's going to change more excavation of the Palisades may be required to install a storm water detention Basin as Mr liebeskind also acknowledged um so it's it's so not having any comment or review from the or nothing from the jcmua it's problematic in two ways we don't know if the plan is in compliance with the ordinance and missing essential information needed to evaluate the adequacy of the storm water plan um or there is information missing necessary to evaluate the Ade adequacy of that plan our expert Jeffrey go who's a a geotechnical engineer he testified about the plan his project was that this his opinion was that this project is a major development for purposes of storm water control he testified that the limit of disturbance shown in the applicants plans was 10,519 ft that pushes you over the threshold for o over the minor development threshold into the major category also testified that the um regulated impervious surface plus the regulated motor vehicle surface was 7,650 square feet in um including off-site disturbance that pushes you the plan over the 5,000 square foot threshold or combined threshold uh between major and minor also so there are two separate ways this plan uh gets into the major development category even without the St disturbance Mr go uh even without offsite disturbance Mr Gold testified that the regulated impervious surface and the regulated motor vehicle service surface was 6,000 square ft so even if you eliminate the off-site parts of the plan you're still over 5,000 um and and and I think it's I think it's beyond dispute it's major but just even thinking about it just if you if you enjoy you know I know we have some doctors on the board and we have some people in the building tra so just like from a from a quantitative reasoning perspective if you just think about the size that's depicted on the plans it's roughly 40 ft by 100 ft that's 4,000 square ft just that the building itself is going to occupy the number in Mr liis Skin's engineering report what's the impervious surface his number was 3,671 that's less than what the building's going to occupy and he he said and he said that he doesn't count the building he backs that square footage out from his total how can a building not be part of an impervious surface obviously it's impervious you don't get water soaking into the ground underneath a structure um or or this kind a building uh so I think the position taken in that report was just indefensible uh um then then our our expert went on to talk about is there even any kind of storm water management plan he said there are permeable pavers shown in the architect's drawings but there is nothing in the civil engineering plans there is no system depicted there is a sort of a rendering of permeable pavers and that uh so he said there really what was shown wasn't a real storm water management system in terms of M materials or design the design doesn't meet deep regulations you also can't tell where the water is supposed to be going once it sinks into the cracks between the pavers um the pavers are also shown over 12T psng easement you can't and according to our expert you can't put a storm water management system over um a utility easement uh the applicants engineer also testified that the jcmua adamantly opposes water infiltration into the ground and that's what this applicant is proposing so on the one hand they have a storm water system that doesn't meet D regulations and there's no details on the other hand it's also something that jcmua won't won't like because it shows water kind of going in between the pavers uh let's see so I I think just based upon the adequacy of the storm water management plan plan or the inadequacy of that plan there's enough reason to deny this application um and and I don't think it can be granted with as with a condition for something we haven't a system we've we have not seen uh safety there there was an issue of pedestrian safety that came up there's an intersection at wood place and Ogden um originally according to the city engineer the driveway was supposed to be moved at least 30 ft away from a crosswalk walk um but then I I guess they figured out they don't have 30 ft to move that the driveway on uh anywhere in that parcel um so the driveway is now 4.1 feet away uh from the crosswalk as Mr leusin testified on my when I did my cross um it's they decided the best way to do it is AB budding another driveway and and one of the public commenters really really um struck me she she talked about having a vision impaired child who now has to cross two side bys side driveways close to an intersection where there's no traffic control and um you know it does seem that there's there are still safety concerns even if engineering has okayed the relocated driveway and that maybe maybe it's possible no driveway would be better um our engineer also said okay they did they did do their Geotech report at our at our Chairman's urging he insisted on that back in November to his credit um but there there are still some concerns about erosion and slope stability uh he he said that even though the applicant prepared a geotechnical report he didn't include storm water or um seasonal yeah seasonal groundwater in his model and as he said water is a great lubricator um he he and we don't really know the exact incline of the Bedrock one of the points he said was in interpolated to show this slope in a cross-section so how how is that water that's that's we're not sure where it's going how's it going to lubricate this the between the soil that's resting on the Bedrock he also talked about this wedge of overburden that's going to be in front of the building um and once you excavate and you put a bigger taller building there it's going to create additional pressure on that overburden and that that could be a potential source of slope failure um so in in conclusion uh this this is an applicant that wanted and and fought over Community objection to locate the building as close to the edge as possible came before the board in November without a Geotech report that really met the technical requirements or or actually in yeah in November uh without meeting the geotechnical requirements um under the peod ordinance and was sort of forced to meet them presented a plan that is very sketchy and I would submit incorrect on storm water control and the one place I would think you really want to manage storm water well is at the edge of a steep slope there are safety concerns there I think it's really really important that they get this right and not as some post decision condition that the public can't even examine or or or uh see in the plans until it's until the board you know until it's too late or after the fact so um and I and and if they are doing the major plan it's nice to hear that um but that means the site plan May significantly change and we we need to see that I think they would have to bring a renewed application um but I would just once again reiterate I don't think it's possible to approve this application with a condition and and would ask the board on behalf of RNA to deny the application thank you thank you Miss [Applause] HJ okay thank you uh the board thank you for your time uh on this application and everybody's uh time and input um as as I started off uh the application and and I know you've heard it before and I'm going to say it again it uh it is an asof right application um it's an application uh that complies with the R3 zoning standards and it complies with the the peod standards both the procedural regulations and the performance uh standards and and I note too that you know someone from the public said there was recently a re redo of of the ordinance right there was substantial changes and uh this was zoned R3 before then it did not change it stayed as R3 so while it's you know there's an R3 zone between the R1 that has been there for a very long time uh and it's not just this property there's the property the parking lot uh to the North and then I believe that that other building uh the condo building is an the R3 so um we're not seeking you know any variances We are following uh the R3 um we're not seeking any more bulk uh than what's permitted under the R3 and in fact as presented to you we're seeking less because the project is designed by pulling back to sixth and the seventh and eighth floor um and and you if you recall that's uh the building is set back 5et from the from the property line and then there's an additional setback of 18 1 12 ft on the seventh and eighth floor uh to create that that that U you know the setback look as this board knows you you you create that to to so that a a a project reads a little bit smaller uh at the at the ground level um on the sidewalk level so while you have a compliant building uh the applicant has has designed a building that is that uh creates a a lower scale building from from the streetscape so um it's a little different uh application before the board because the the peepot standards they are part of the application before you and you I think it's fair to say that this board has seen more technical data and Analysis than any other site plan uh you've seen before it a lot of this data and Analysis is something that that is post approval um it's part of a building permitting process that you would work through with the construction Department with the MUA uh with with the JC uh engineering department but that um that's not the case here we have provided you that information um we believe that all the information that that you have been provided uh absolutely meets the requirements of the P pod uh the procedural uh regulations um as well as uh well all the procedur reg regulations and then the the standards on the setbacks um and I think I think what you know the intent you know cuz I was I was around too when when they were doing the peod you know 20 plus years ago I remember uh having meetings on uh the project at the base of the cliff with I believe Cliff Steinberg was the uh no pun intended I believe he was the one of the leaders U of of the RNA at the time and and I believe the the intent of providing this data and Analysis to this board as part of an application is is to demonstrate that the the project can be built that it's not going to affect the Integrity of the cliff you're going to be set back far enough from a a cliff face and and the steep slopes that that uh that run uh uh adjacent to to any Cliff face and and I think I think we've done that and and I I think what you've heard uh from from the obors you know they have concerns we we understand that and I they're all legitimate concerns but uh we believe that we've we've met all the requirements uh to provide this board um to and any information to make a determination that this this is a a uh would be a safe uh project and I think some of the information that you heard from the objectors and and their expert uh is information that's beyond the requirements of the poot um they you know the when you look at the the procedural regulations they have it's a little amorphous uh to begin with it to talk talks about you know giving me information such as a technical summary such as it's not it's not definitive as to what is required to be before this board um the the objectors expert you they they they testified as to well you don't have this you don't have that but it's beyond what's stated in the peod um we're we're not required to have that and not withstanding that we we believe we've had we had a structural engineer and a GE technical engineer present to this board um both of which have extensive experience in other projects in Jersey City on on uh projects with bedrock uh and you know similar issues they testified before this board that they see they have no no issues with with putting this building here they they looked at the load capacity they looked at the stability of The Rock and and they said it's okay uh I mean with all due respect we can say what if what if what if um you know tragedies happen and I'm not belittling you know that but um we have our experts saying this this works um and you know the with all due respect to the to the applicants uh I mean the objectors uh expert uh you know he asked questions you may want to look at this we didn't have that but he didn't provide any report or or written analysis back to this board for you to consider um so there really isn't anything in my opinion that refutes our experts opinion that this can be done um and you know I think that that speaks to the safety of the project too uh I know there's concerns for safety there's all you know all kinds of regulations that that uh the applicant would need to follow as part of any construction of this project um and and I note that you know the driveway uh uh location that was reviewed by the Jersey City traffic and engineer ing department and approved so you know I would defer to them as to whether or not they believe that is a safe condition we believe it is um and I think lastly too uh want to touch upon you know there been some comments about whether it it's doesn't fit in with the with the neighborhood and I guess you know Beauty's in the eye of the beholder right um but we are complying you know with the the uh R3 St standards um but I also note as the architect said he did consider the design standards when he designed this it does have a setback on the seventh and eighth floor the sixth floor uh reaches uh about 65 ft uh the building to the north um I heard one one public uh comment was that it's about 50 feet so you're looking at a you know a 65 vers 50 ft uh overlooking the Palisades um I don't think think that that's that's a large difference uh when you're you're talking about a scale of a building the architect also testified that they used um certain materials um and finishes and setbacks and Divi design features to to fit in with the the ne neighborhood and the community so I believe again people may not like a design we've all seen that you know I'm sure there's designs that come before you that don't you don't typically care for but uh we believe that we comply with with the um the design standards uh and and you know I think can't lose s too that you're you're going to the proposal is to remove uh a surface parking lot that has been there uh forever surface parking lots are the worst Lane use in in uh in the city we actually have a parking lot to the North and then the driveway and parking lot to the South as well the proposal is to to sit between those too so you're still going to have substantial light and air uh between the the adjacent properties um so that uh and and also the the building is not taking up the entire lot uh it's it's uh you know conceded we have a psse uh and G easement that we have to contend with but that that means that this this uh development like the zoning I don't believe is is is uh created with the understanding that there may or may not be an easen the zoning was created that you could possibly have have a bigger building across the whole uh lot here that's not the case it's a reduced uh project in and of itself because of that easement so that leads or lends to the supporting that that it is consistent with the design criteria um lastly I think you know with regard to the storm water I think uh you know as I said earlier we would uh agree the applicant would agree to have the storm water consistent with uh a major development um um I believe that that can be a condition of of an approval uh that is something typically in applications where every standard condition you know you're going to comply or address the the uh Jersey City Review comments so what that means is you're going to you're going to leave uh the planning board and you're going to go to the MUA and they're going to have to approve review and approve what what your your plan is if they don't approve it then then you got to rework it but I definitely think that's something that this board can can approve as a condition of approval it's not going to result in in in further ex excavation below what's already proposed um it's something that would be below the building um it's not going to be on on top of the psng uh um uh easement and um that I think I don't know how else to solve or address uh the storm water issues raised other than agreeing to comply with the the uh major development storm water regulations so we think you know contrary to the comments here and and you know we've worked with a lot of these a lot of people in the public and we you know respect their comments and uh and and uh you know Anthony and I have gone to many many you know Community meetings but we really think this is this is a terrific project we think it fits in uh with the zoning and we've complied and and provided this board uh the the required data analysis to to make a decision on it and we we hope that uh you agree and approve it thank you Council Matt I'll turn to you comments staff comments anything sure um excuse me all right so uh we are in receed of uh a revised uh engineering memo dated January 23rd 3D 2024 um as well as uh as well as our staff memo which was drafted and dated um September 12th 2023 uh this application is in the R3 and preservation palates preservation overlay District uh in this Zone uh speaking first to R3 uh this is a a mid-rise Zone um it is meant to uh fit a lot of different contexts uh there are tow houses allowed in the R3 Zone on smaller Lots on larger Lots there are mid-rise apartment buildings to all the way up to St storage buildings um when you think of an R3 uh the Duncan Avenue is what comes to mind uh that is in the historic district but it's also Zone R3 um so large buildings on large Lots uh with uh a significant amount of lot coverage um and in the zoning that was drafted for R3 um we made certain combinations uh for development requests which are mainly the car uh so in the R3 we allow for 100% law coverage um this project is only uh Pres proposing 15% uh they have an unusual lot obviously uh and they are in the palate preservation overlay District right so there's uh certain performance and design requirements that are required of them um they are meeting those uh they do not have variances this project um they are uh one to address some comments about safety in the engineering comments that we re received uh the engineer for the city recommended the the location of the the curb cut um regarding the the overlay District standards uh they are setting back from uh the the cliff uh 63 ft uh in change to the garage and uh 50 just about 51 ft uh to their residential above um they are setting back more than 10 ft which is what what is required of them for a slope of greater than 30% um but they are doing 11 feet point2 um so they're meeting the standards of the the preservation uh palate preservation overlay District this project 14 units it's eight stories it's 14 uh parking spots uh in our staff memo we recommended uh staff conditions uh we want to know if the applicant has reviewed those and uh if they can put on the record if they would comply with those uh conditions yes the applicant would comply uh another uh piece of the municipal code which wasn't brought up um but I think is relevant here is um for major site plans uh we have uh what's called review agents um that's what it's called Cally um but the the standard is 345 uh- 24b and in that uh Clause it specifies that uh review agents in this case being the engineering depart uh division um traffic transport ation and jcmua uh have 14 days upon receipt to get us the comments and that is not because um that is not an arbitrary number is is meant to fit into uh the state statute in the mlu for time of decision we are bound when we get a complete application to hear an application and decide okay 14 days have far elapsed we have not gotten comments from the gstm uh we have received two sets of comments from the division of engineering um we frankly don't have any comments to go off of uh that said um in our review there are no variances on this application if you have questions for staff we are here for you okay thank you M so I I think the best way for us to go forward is uh do some board deliberation this is uh this possibly the most democratic thing everybody will ever see we just have an open discussion between board members in public view um if there's any concerns bring them up let's talk about them but this is a discussion for the board this is not for cross-examination this is between the board members if we want to call anybody up we can at this point so anything you sound like you want to say something here to answer any of your questions chairman for seeing you at a loss for words um so here's here's where I'm at the applicant is saying that they'll comply with major storm water regulations no one on this board is an engineer no one designs storm water retention systems what we always do is we rely on the MUA to provide those engineering requirements and the applicants will follow them I have full faith in the MUA that you know when they get around to it they'll make those calculations and you know those calculations come in front of us all the time and I'll be honest you know I I've spent over 20 years of my life as a pipe fitter and I don't understand the mua's calculations so you know Eddie you might know a a little more than me um but you know those are the experts we rely on to make sure that an applicant complies with with the regulations um so I'm comfortable putting it in the hands of the MUA to make sure that this site complies with the major storm water requirement that being said I think if this requires digging into the Bedrock and Mr Harrington's testimony stated that you know they believe that they don't have to dig into Bedrock I I think if any of that has to occur any digging into Bedrock to make a storm water retention system work I think this is a completely different application they would have to come back and I think they would have to come back yeah um and he said that on record yeah I I think that that's a significant change in the application process and I think that would trigger them to come back and you know Santo Matt I'll I'll Trust you guys to to have input here if if you think that triggers it so chairman if the board is considering conditioning it on the determination that it is a let me say it this way the board has determined or determines that the applicant who has consented to is going to design the storm waterer management system as a major development under the storm water management ordinance and that system requires the Excavating of Bedrock then it is determined to be a substantially different application by the board and the applicant would then have to come back to the board uh for relief or for a amended or new application as a result of of that condition I think it could be dictated that way by the board in its memorializing resolution if that is what the pleasure of the board would be and the way the board wanted to to move forward with respect to that specific issue thank you Santa yeah I think any digging a Bedrock would be a substantial change um once again you know I trust the mua's design standards um that's what we rely on all the time and I I think we'll do that again if you know if it was up to me um anybody else I don't want to be the only person speaking on this it's not my it's our board chairman Ein um what was presented meeting after meeting to us at this board um I understand if they want to um which would be a good thing decide to go with a water V system um to up upgraded the project in that sense that's a that's always a good thing right but as of right now what's been presented to me and this and their um testimony to us was that uh what they present now still works I don't disagree um and and and it it works um I think we also in that concept um even with the engineering the engineer if he's here uh the betrock basically there's a lot of talk of the building sliding and not being safe MH a lot of talk about that the water is going to take the building and slide and not here safe but there's betrock in a lot of places in Jersey City and I haven't seen building sliding and moving in Jersey City because we got a 100e storm they didn't float they didn't move Academy Street anything built around cademy sheet is built on bedlock and those Builders stay still when we had the 100 when we got Sandy my aunt lived on Academy Street that house is still right there same spot so what I'm trying to say is um to the board is that this safety aspect of things just floating and moving and stuff like that uh a question I would ask the engineer right now is basically you know um my concern would be and I'm surprised that um I'm sorry to see Mr Williams uh Mr cologne and the other neighbor leave because I think a message that maybe I'm going to start bringing forth to all homeowners of Jersey C City when somebody's building something in your neighborhood always check your home I work construction all my life and like I mentioned earlier today for a different project a very good developer from Jersey City had to buy two houses because somebody took the footage out of out of them for a project his his excavators would do it yeah so if um the conser of added upgraded the water r t system does it mean going into the Bedrock are we clear from the test I feel clear for the testimony and if I Engineer wants to come up and tell me again what stops a building from shifting because of the rain that comes in another storm condition that I think that's so you're okay with the condition I'm okay well I'm see the way the condition sounds to me is that we're going to put this condition now and if they do their calculations they got to come back to us again because they might have to go two feet into the bedw walk I'm not okay with that that I'm not okay with I think the B lock is not going to shift the building and I think that we should uh I think that they um said that they could make this work without going into the bed lock then try to make it work give them the option of doing it both they've presented it to us I mean I I'm giving them the option that they're saying they can make work right listen what they what they willing to do is great they will to give us a better project that's what I think and my experience in the pipe trades too yeah I'm not a I'm not an engineer yeah but you're going to give me something better it sounds good I agree with both you um most important thing my concern is the storm water situation yeah um we haven't heard from MUA I definitely would want to hear from them I don't know Council if you could put some pressure on I'm sure I know there's a lot of things that have come up recently emergency jobs and what have it they could have been side and whatever on getting that stuff happening uh getting it completed but I think uh we really need to I want to I definitely want to hear about the storm water situation I don't feel rock is going to slide but here again I'm not an engineer what heavy construction experence I've had I I don't really see anything for it but I don't have a seal you know I can't take I can't take that well make that decision well that's see I'm not saying sorry no that's right um you know we don't claim to be experts we we rely on Expert testimony and believe me we've had plenty of it here we've had more than we've ever had on on geotechnical terms ter believe it I um I read it and you know you could have just watched the video right you didn't have to read it I did that okay both anything um I yes I could give you a decision tonight but here again I um I'm surprised that the MUA hasn't responded it's not out of the ordinary yeah that the MUA doesn't respond and again we rely on the mua's expertise and we always have the applicant say that they'll comply with the MUA reports yeah so chairman let's let's not mix apples and oranges yeah MH the MUA has to review the proposed storm water management of any application that involves storm water management so they would be the agency that would tell us and everybody else the applicant whoever this works this doesn't work so if the MUA had put together a letter that said on application a we reviewed what was proposed by the applicant we are satisfied that this satisfies the requirements of the ordinance it meets the code and the calculation mathematically check out we accept that as the planning board that the MUA has done what they're supposed to do and that their representation to this board and to everybody else is accurate so I think the only difference in this scenario that the chairman was adding to the potential IAL approval would be well since you haven't actually gone and designed a storm waterer management system for a major development under the storm waterer management ordinance when you design that if it requires you to hit bedrock then you've got to come back to this board that's the only string attached to what the chairman was articulating and if I understood commissioner torres's comment it was even if you hit Bedrock if the MUA says it's okay I don't think you have to come back here I'm okay with relying on the MUA is what commissioner Tores articulated in my opinion very good point so and make no mistake that if the MUA comes back and says you know you guys are out of your minds overdesigning this to to meet a major storm water management plan it they're still going to do it in my eyes they're still going to yes provide storm that ship so even if the MUA says well you could have done this as a minor CU we think it is a minor the applicant has already agreed although Mr Harrington did a great job of trying to preserve that he wasn't uh stipulating to that but the board's going to make that decision for Mr Harrington exactly so he doesn't have to and he's going to design it to a major development requirement and criteria the only open question in that regard based on the comments of the board is well if you hit Bedrock do you have to come back to the board or not and it sounds like commissioner Torres is not in favor of that well um thank you for clearing that up too though the uh some of your points there um it clears it up for me in a different way um and I do agree the MUA has the final say they're going to let us know so whatever happens tonight on this project whatever which way it goes um if it does pass then um they're going to let us know whether hey you guys can't build that or you guys can't do this right then it has to come back so if that's the case and that um but you all could correct with what I was trying to articulate but at the same time I would um um also be comfortable if uh it moves forward just like last it was saying if it it would it wouldn't um it still has to maintain points whatever the MUA say it's going to say because it's just like the engineers it's going to be said and it's going to be done because it's safe they're the experts and that's what we need that's where I'll be comfortable when I know that if they gave because the projects not going to get built to they give us a study anyway you know so the hold Up's going to be them giving you a study and the truth of the matter is whatever it is whatever happens it's not going to happen unless they have that study yeah so I'm I'm comfortable Now with uh which either way that it goes you know this is why when we don't have the mua's numbers we condition it that the applicant will follow the mua's numbers Y and it's never had to come back to us could be the one I I don't know and again if the MUA comes back and says no you only have to do minim you know okay the the the minor stor that's CLE and no it's we want major they've offered it we want major now um right designed to the major development standard anybody else no sir me and Eddie be the guys that talk too much anybody else come on Jesus just right sorry if I confused just okay so I love the the clarity thank you you're welcome sir so personally I would be comfortable going ahead with the condition that they design for a major storm water management plan and closer to the bike and whatever calculations the MUA says they need to make that happen they make happen um and I if they if they have to demo any bedrock or dig into Bedrock or you know Dynamite Bedrock is out of the question uh without them coming back uh I'm comfortable going forward with those conditions uh second that anybody else you know there's an open Forum agreed agreed agreed okay I think then I'd entertain a motion if somebody wants to make one yes I do Mr chair I'd like to make a motion to approve case P22 d140 with the condition that uh the the applicant go would a design uh a major storm uh water plan a major development storm water management yes and there's also the conditions that they agree to on this comply with the conditions set for staff and the condition regarding the excavation into Bedrock correct and jurisdiction being retained by the board in that event correct second okay motion made and second Ed for approval with those conditions Vice chair Dr Gonzalez so I uh gonna talk a little bit because there are a couple of things I think that need to be said and these two can cannot be the only ones talking um you know I so I I want to speak to the public I think first because I know that you guys you know like like us have been here it has become harder to attend these meetings now that you have to do you know know in person and it's not virtual um but I and I I I want you guys to know I'm a physician in the in the in in Jersey City um and I serve the public uh of Jersey City and New York City and I and I'm very humbled and privileged to be able to do that so usually I'm the I'm the the public guy right that I I I totally understood and heard what each and every one of you said because we all live here I mean every single one of us live here um um and none of us are Engineers but what we we have to go to through uh to to get our final analysis needs to sometimes be said and I know you guys will understand that I know you understand that because I heard a couple comments of well you know just because they said as of right but I I do want you to know that I am very appreciative of you coming here and that I I I really understand what you guys were saying and we hear you we do we actually do take all these into consideration at the end of the day um we're tasked with and I've been on the board now we were just calculating Eddie and I uh 12 years and um it's hard every time that there is such an opposition to a project like this because it's very rare that that happens we love it when everyone uh well people don't come out for projects usually uh but we love it when you know uh we just believe in good neighbors and good developers and you know we don't I don't know the developer in this case but I will tell you the things that we can't consider really uh when we're looking at a decision one is how beautiful the building looks we we can kind of look at design standards but not much and we can't really look at how it fits with the community um the obstruction of a view um the effective migration of birds those things we really can't look at uh what we can look at is testimony take into consideration testimony given by experts in this case two experts does it meet the goals and objectives of the master plan in this case it did does it meet the intent of the R3 and comply with R3 standards it did um are there any variances there are not um it's as of right it goes further and meets the peot standards and requirements in both procedural and standard uh guidelines so those are the things that we have to look at unfortunately and in this case they were all met and at the end of the day you know we look at testimony from the experts and one case had stronger testimony than the other and um with all that being said um I'm going to vote I the changing from the minor to the major was Major for me to be honest with you um because even though I just told you what we would have V I would have voted on and people can vote however they want um that says a lot about where we that was my main concern that really was my main concern if this was going to be a designated as a major or minor and so now that that has been shifted and changed and we've conditioned it the other thing that we do at the very end is we rely on our on our expert uh planning staff and you know like I said I've been here a long time this is the best planning staff I think in the country um and when they say and recommend the project to be approved then we kind of listen so I'm going commissioner genen so I don't want to be that long Dr Gonzalez um having sit through this project from since November and then back in January um we had a lot of history um from the neighborhood as well and I want to thank NRA and the community for your concerns your attendance and your comments um throughout these meetings your comments definitely send the right um message which is accountability to both the developer the Builder the um expertise that will be on this project handson to be careful and to be cautious if this project is approved so your your concerns are valid concerns and we hear them and and I'm sure that you'll work hand inand with the developer as well as this project goes along but based on the master plan and the Redevelopment plan this project meets the goals and objectives there are no variances and as such it's a RightWay project what happened here this evening in in redesign of the major storm water plan is a major win for everyone here this evening for the community and for us as uh Commissioners as well we rely on the testimony of the expertise and with that being said I will vote I commissioner Torres I also just want to take a an extra minute of your time we've been coming to this one your mic is not I just want to also take a extra minute of your time and make a couple comments we've been doing this project um longer than any other project I think I've seen in a while um never had one project be the only project we did in one day uh in that many hours and still have to come back uh so um to the community um I'm I'm impressed with the years I've been on this board and different communities I mean I thought Hamilton Park and fan force park Paul this hook had their experience and stuff but you guys really are like top League you know your experience your history uh kind of surprised me I'm a downtown boy yeah I mean I live in Greenville now but I'm still a downtown Guy and um you um have a lot of experience so with that I don't want to offend nobody but there's a master plan there's a Redevelopment plan there was somebody that came last meeting and uh two meetings ago and spoke that he worked on the plan with uh v v Cara on the plan up in Palisades and in that area and he spoke very elegant and very knowledgeable but we just went over the master plan last year we just went over the V development plan and that's when that stuff needed to be changed you got my hands tied and it's and it's frustrating you know um that you we come to this board a group that's so experienc and with dealing with something that this you got our hands tied and believe you me uh if you look at my history I voted on projects that I should was supposed to say yes and I didn't agree with so I I did have that history but in this case um there's a project in Jersey City by a church that I grew up in and one building is different than the other this is what happens when they start changing neighborhoods some buildings start to look different maybe a 100 years from now they're going to say this building is a good beautiful building I don't know you know um but when we have development things start to change um I did have other notes I got off track a little bit so right now I'm going just give you my vote and uh please if you you come out and figure out a way how to change the plan for the rest of the neighborhood that's what that's where you get to go how did you change it that this board doesn't have to be put in this position and with that I as a right project an R3 no vares um I'm voting I oh and another thing I really want to say every body and they're going to build it safe and they're going to build it safe the builders is going to be built with by the experts on betrock the safest way possible that's what the other departments in Jersey City are going to make sure happens that's what they do so with that I vote I commissioner somato I vote I commissioner Cruz I vote I commissioner Dr Desai uh the main problem was storm water control which has to be dealt with and also um piset cliff and safety and so many people came here tonight with Sam pin and uh our councilman uh and all of you you had all your pro all your opinions so we would like to thank you we would like to thank you for coming over here but with these two problems if uh the uh it's already changed from minor to Major uh uh side plan uh with uh St water control then uh those two are deal then I'll v i chairman Langston so I I'm not going to reinvent anything here I think everybody's spoken their minds um it complies with the R3 Zone do I love eight stories I don't know it complies with the R3 Zone um that's that's the oath that I took was to uphold the zoning in this city that's the zoning and I I you know everybody else said it and I talk about it all the time if you see an empty lot next to you something's going to go there something is going to go there um you know my councilman came down and spoke tonight I had a conversation with him last week that you know why do these things get to the point where the community has to come down and oppose an as ofri right project does the councilman's office have a list of empty lots that they could check what the zoning is on those empty lots and maybe get out ahead of it before an applicant buys a lot with the understanding of what this can be what can be built on that lot and that's what they want to build that's their investment make no mistake you know everybody hates to have a greedy developer move in next door they're in business that's development is a business so you know before it gets to us as of right look at the zoning get the zoning changed if you oppose we sent to plan City Planning did current I I love that you guys come down we listen to a lot this is this is our time all right I I appreciate it um so you know we're we're gonna we're going to walk out of here tonight RNA is going to think they lost this I tell you what Harrington doesn't give up that that storm water changing into a major without you people coming out tonight so you made a difference tonight you got that major designation you got the storm water retention that that's a win in my book for for the heights um again it's it's a an as of right project as far as site plan goes so I want to thank you guys for coming down Eddie said at best you know we we've seen a lot of community groups over the years that come and go RNA is always here RNA is is a tough group and and we appreciate that um you know anybody that that's going to keep Harington honest on this thing I love it um so you know my vote is I um and counsil the the applicant still in the room I say this is my neighborhood um we're going to make sure this thing is built safe it's not a far walk from my apartment so I'm going to keep an eye and uh that's it thank you everybody motion carries all in favor U with on a motion to approve with conditions okay let's move on to memorialization of resolutions Mr chair we have eight resolutions I believe cam yeah okay Cam Mike do you want to come up here it's going to be loud for you no did you uh cam did you give me liberty Harbor North on the resolution whatever's there it's just those eight you don't see it I thought I saw it you I didn't go through them sorry I thought I saw where is Liberty Harbor North number six Mr chair Mr chair I'd like to make a motion to memorialize the following resolutions resolution number one of the planning board of the city of Jersey City is applicant backpack boys JC LLC for conditional U 746 Grand Street Jersey City New Jersey block 18703 lot 9 case number P 23-39 second resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City applicant is Hudson exchange embankment Plaza LLC for preliminary and final major subdivision at 145 Gangi Drive 36 Second Street and 125 Provo Street Jersey City New Jersey block 11603 Lots 2 as subdivided new lot 2.01 and new new lot. uh 2.02 or 47.2 as subdivided new lot 47.3 and 47.4 and 51.2 to be Consolidated with a new lot 2.01 case number P20 23-30 third resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City applicant Hudson exchange Phase 2 LLC for preliminary and final major site plan Amendment with C deviation variance 99 probos Street formerly 400 to 420 Marin Boulevard Jersey City New Jersey block 11603 lot 51.1 formally Lots 50 and 51 case number p2023 0031 fourth resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City applicant is Hudson exchange embankment Plaza LLC for preliminary and final major s plan at 145 Gan Jimi Drive Jersey City New Jersey block 11603 Lot 2 is subdivided new lot 2.02 case number p2023 0032 fifth resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City applicant Huston exchange and backman Plaza LLC for preliminary and final major site plan 145 gangji Drive Jersey City New Jersey block 11603 lot two as subdivided new lot 2.01 and Consolidated with lots 51.2 case number P20 23- 0033 six resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City is finding the proposed amendments to the Liberty Harbor North Redevelopment plan that are consistent with the city of Jersey City master plan and recommending to the municipal Council of the city of Jersey City that said Amendment be adopted with revisions seventh resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City is P2 case number p2023 d004 for site plan Amendment applicant 319 fth Street stre LLC address 319 fth street through City New Jersey block 11208 lot 13 and the final uh resolution be on guard is resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City for approval and recommendation of the adoption of block 11606 Redevelopment plan and an amendment to the Paul hook Redevelopment plan case number p2023 d36 second uh we have a motion in second can can we have a roll call please for resolution Vice chair Dr Gonzalez hi commissioner gangadin hi commissioner Torres commissioner Dr Desai you commissioner Cruz I commissioner Stato I and chairman Lon motion carries all in favor to memorialize resolutions executive session no no yeah did he say yes yeah we're going to kill you Mr chair I move to uh adjourn okay do I have a second all right thank you guys all yes is a journey and let's get the hell out of here in the ex you coming out now anybody want to come out we're going to go to O's