act I would like to call this meeting to order ton Marion are there any Sunshine announcements to share yep um in accordance with the open public meeting act notice for this meeting and agenda were sent to the Jersey journal and to um it's been a while since I've done this so give me a second special Le though and for posting outside the clerk's office on January 23rd 2024 I have the um time I have this to be marked into evidences A1 the notices okay Tanya will you please take roll call yes sure uh Vice chair rjo here Carl's not here commissioner shadid here commissioner Baron here commissioner Allen here commissioner Patel here chair Coyle here um I think I got everybody right okay okay so six are present are we okay with that yes record is clear we have six Commissioners right now and we're expecting a seventh any moment he might just fly in here and then we'll be okay yeah he said he's going to be a little late yeah okay so we might change the order of the agenda just a bit to to clear up some things first okay okay okay will everyone please stand for the flag salute I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all we have anything to do with number seven yes that maybe you should Tanya yeah do we have anything to do with number seven this withdrawal of a an a appeal I uh just listed it as formally withdrawn um a request came in this week to withdraw the application and because it was on the agenda I just wanted to make sure the public knew so I don't think is anyone here from 68 Wayne Street I don't think so anyway that application was going to be withdrawn okay okay so the first case is no Bridget will you please stare swear in any staff that you have Iris Iris yes St word MH sorry Iris okay um Tanya is there any correspondence about adjournments um that you need to share with us there is not okay all right with that said we will begin but before we start um we would like to make the announcement that if we are in the middle of any cases and we're hearing any type of uh presentations uh once we hit 10:00 and if that case is still going on we are not not starting any new cases so if it starts to get to be too late know that we're not hearing anything after 10:00 um all right so our first case we are changing the order of the cases um as Mr leaga just said so our first case tonight will be um uh 238 247th Street our second case uh will be 114 Bower Street third case 312 Fairmont Avenue fourth case will be 48 Clifton Place then we'll go to 128 Glennwood Avenue um after that would be 104 Glenwood um and we'll adhere to the time that I just spoke about so our first case tonight is as I said case z21 d70 074 um this is for for 238 247th Street and is Mr Harrington presenting okay cop no just a copy we'll give it to yeah thank you so Iris so the record is clear uh Mr Harrington just sent sent me his uh affidavit and proof of service and notice of publication and so for this application we'll mark this as A1 thank you okay yeah yeah I know do you guys plug in not coming up yet what is there a oh there it is my wife will tell you I'm very unobservant so wouldn't taken me all night to see that there's a lot better I'm G hold it up for you did you this is my didn't took Myer no no I say look I circled I circled everything that's what I I don't know no this is my I don't know not I got it sorry I've been accused of worse can we have somebody else so how you doing know how about that if I say no will you be upset no I not I just nothing's registering so hang on no no I know I it's not um coming up so it's not connected I think I do for son of a gun you don't know you want to try mine to see if it's no yeah let's do that if we can try that bring it over this you can probably SL I think you got wheels on that oh yeah we got wheels that's fancy it's a fancy Podium wheel you going to pull up Aaron right you good Charles you want to try your notebook here got it did you guys use Anthony did you did you guys use this before the other end oh got it oh yeah these are just yeah just try it once come go back no no there it is all right apparently you guys good yeah couldn't have done it without me yeah I'm going to close this okay you want me to I'll start while uh we're all good so uh yeah for the record Charles Harrington of conell Foley on behalf of the applicant um notices have been marked into the record um so we're we're here tonight um for an application uh we we think it's it's pretty terrific uh application and project it's uh uh the it's for a three-story addition to an existing um historic home uh or or residence multif family uh building in the Hamilton Park historic district uh it presently has five uh residential units and the proposal is to um for the three story Edition in the rear and in the restoration and um renovation of of this uh building which when you'll see you see it it's uh it's really um I I think it's probably the most restoration that I've seen in in uh in any of the projects I've worked on in Hamilton in any of the historic districts it's really bringing it back uh to what it once was uh you know almost a 100 years ago it's uh so uh that the the idea is to increase it uh to eight residential unit um I note that uh the permitted implied density in the hamilt in the historic district is 75 units an acre um with the eight units because this is an oversized lot it's three times the size of a normal uh minimum lot in in the historic district it's only 63 units an acre um so it's actually less than the implied density in in the uh historic districts um so it it will be um eight residential units we are asking for a use variance it's essentially an expansion of the already existing non-conforming multif family use of five units uh so we're asking to expand that to to the eight units as a result of the the addition and you'll see all the renovations um as and restoration as part of that uh we're not asking for any other bulk uh variances so uh the as an oversized lot it it complies with the other conditions so um you'll see how it really is appropriate as you'll you can see on the screen it's it's a very large lot it's over 5,000 square feet uh the minimum lot size in the historic district is 1,800 square feet to give you kind of a sense of of what your typical lot is uh in in that area um so it is a unique uh lot a unique property and a unique uh restoration project that uh we think is is is terrific we we appeared before the historic preservation commission uh back in at the the end of October uh to request a certificate of appropriateness and that was granted uh unanimously so uh if you're not familiar with uh that process is in a historic district you go to the historic preservation commission they review it for all of their historic standards and make sure that you're compliant with the secretary of interior standards uh and you know if if they believe that you are that's that's you know what you're asking for the certificate of appropriateness and that has been completed and and approved so we have that as part of our application um they have conditions of approval uh in the event that is approved here tonight uh and that all of those conditions would be something that we would be compliant with uh going forward so with that said I I have uh three Witnesses uh tonight um and we'll try to move this along is um our first is our engineer uh Mr Chen who will just walk you through the site uh briefly and then I'm going to hand it off to Mr Vander Mark uh to take you through the architecture and then Charles height will address the planning I do sure my name is Aaron Chan last name spell CH an 92 Park Avenue and Rutherford New Jersey okay Mr Chan could you give the board uh the benefit of your professional educational experience and and advice if you are licensed in New Jersey has not appeared before the board I have not so I graduated with a bachelor's in civil engineering from the College of New Jersey I've been practicing the field for the last 10 years I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state also the certified Municipal engineer by the njsm I've been accepted into over 20 land use Sports across the state and provided expert engineering heing testimony at each of these worked on over 25 projects of multif family nature similar to the size and the scope this one before you here tonight thank you he Mr Chan could you please take the board through the the site of course I want to be uh brief I'm sure everybody is pretty familiar with this particular area in town um as Mr hington has already indicated you know this project is uh located on Seventh Street just south of the Hamilton Park it is three times over the minimum lot area required in this particular Zone it is in the historic district um and surrounding the surrounding uses are all very similar to what's being proposed it's all multif family also located within the same Zone um the existing structure is a four-story structure as indicated already it's five units being expanded to eight and the um the access and circulation pattern on this on Seventh Street is West going east um and beyond that it's not located in the flood zone Mr CH just before you go on the the rendering or or the plan that's on the screen right now is that's an exhibit correct that's correct this is the a this is title of the aerial exhibits prepared by Stonefield engineering on December 27th 2023 and I ask that be marked as A2 okay and then just to just to be brief um from the proposed standpoint again you've already heard the The Proposal here is to expand from five units to eight units from an engineering standpoint it's pretty routine um I just want to touch on the site briefly so really with the expansion of the of the roof area we'll need to capture some of that storm water we're proposing a small uh underground detention base detention base in the back of the property it's going to be 500 cubic foot um and that will store the additional runoff being created from the roof area beyond that there'll be new sidewalks proposed for the full Frontage of our property it's going to be 7 feet wide and it's going to be above that minimum 5 foot wide sidewalk and that's going to be keeping in line with the existing fences and also the stairs on our on our neighbor side um on the street side it's going to be a mill overlay and it's going to extend 20 foot beyond the uh our Frontage consistent with Jersey City standards um the utilities here will be reused it's an existing multif family home already so we'll be reusing uh those utility laterals and I did take a look at the planners and their Engineers uh review letter outside of what's been outlined already um we we have no issues with complying with any of those conditions and comments so and uh aim to keep it brief like like I said engineering standpoint is pretty routine and pretty typical okay and it hold questions until the end as usual okay then we're gonna move right into Mr vanderark I do please take your full name your last sure that is Anthony C vandemar Jr vandar v as and Victor a n d r MK principal of the architectural firm of mvmk architecture okay my license is still current thank you okay well thank you Mr Harrington um again as previously stated I we have a a really great application here this evening I'm going to have uh uh the actual filing Set uh uh as part of the presentation and then I have a slide deck we'll call that exhibit three um which is some pre-existing photographs uh with some colored renderings plus uh colored floor plans of what the what you have now uh as the filing set so just to go over some general parameters of the project as previously stated it it's it's a it's a triple large lot for the historic district of Hamilton Park we're at 5,575 Square ft which is 0.13 Acres um as part of this proposal we are proposing uh eight residential units and of those eight residential units we have two Studios one one bedroom four two bedrooms and one uh two-bedroom plus Den which totaling eight uh as he previously stated uh we will we have five uh pre-existing units this application has four bicycle parking spaces and again it is a full restoration of a house that is approximately 170 years old um with a three-story addition to the rear or the North uh side of the property taking you now to exhibit three um the house as it currently stands um again it has the appearance of a three-story uh house with a fortory which is part of this kind of Gamel uh roof um that you can see from the alleyway here so on the existing facade uh as you can see we have aluminum siding a cement parge coat at the base and uh uh one set of stairs masonry stairs that actually projects over the property line as you can see the adjacent properties are four stor uh Town Homes masonry construction again over 100 years old uh very historic Street in a historic district and we have the most historic house uh on this street right so um what we originally had thought was that this was just uh a renovated uh portion of the facade and this is the uh 1938 tax photograph of this structure as you can see it has the center stair um with two sides uh of stairs that actually uh uh offset off of the center stair uh the order of the building is exactly the same it has a small pament on top um and the original part of our historic application was that we were matching this 1938 tax photograph lo and behold it was brought to our attention that this house uh was constructed prior to 1860 and this was Colonel Garrison's house um here uh in Hamilton Park right so here in the foreground or in the center of the picture as you can see there was no adjacent properties um a substantial amount of property uh at for this part of Jersey City at the time um so we believe that this structure um is approximately 170 years old and and some of the building form and some of the window openings uh still exist today however um some of the characteristics of this house have since changed this will be the fully restored version uh matching the 1860 photograph uh of the Garrison Homestead white picket fence to match the pre-existing condition of its time uh we are removing the base parge coat we're providing the porch structure uh as per that photograph uh circular columns uh with uh a white painted clapboard facade uh with green shutter system as previously stated by our civil engineer uh it is a large property again we have 55 ft 9 in of Frontage we have 100 feet of depth on the property as you can see directly behind us we have multif family buildings that encroach into uh the hole in the donut so to speak um we are proposing uh an addition on our building but it extends no further than the ex existing addition to the rear that you see here in this aial the uh pre-existing uh Street Frontage as you can see this is kind of uh an empty tooth in that street wall of town homes uh pre-existing condition how the house uh sits on this property again we're not extending uh any further into the rear yard than what's pre-existing today top graphic is how the newly uh restored uh facade replicating the 1860 Homestead of garriston uh front and center uh in the street wall and below the graphic below is the three-story Edition uh box in red um we are maintaining the same a 41 foot 7 in setback to the rear yard historic uh District uh you're permitted to go uh as deep as a 30-foot setback uh again uh we are 11' 7 even in front of that um we are less in lock coverage than what is permitted um you're permitted as far as lock coverage 80% we are at 67.9 um and as far as building coverage goes your permitted 60 and we have 40.7 so we are well underneath the thresholds of what the permitted lot and building coverages are so we're only here for you know really what is a technicality between um the definition of the historic district the uh you're permitted to have Town Homes which is up to four units in this case uh we are providing a multif family to match the existing use but in term we're requesting a use variance but it's really no change to the use that's on the property right now as part of this application we are not providing parking um obviously we have a house pretty much on full Frontage on the property there would be no place to put a garage not in the restored house so therefore uh zero parking is being provided zero is required because it is less than 10 units in the historic district in the graphic in front of you here we have a 6'9 sidewalk width um again new curbing New sidewalk but due to the width of that sidewalk uh we are not proposing a sidewalk tree because a Jersey City uh forestry standard requires a 5x10 uh Street tree and pit um again the sidewalk uh pre-existing sidewalk is not wide enough so what we're doing here is we're proposing two trees within our Gate line in a front planter bed um that since we've removed that large masonry stair in the front of the building we've created a tree and planter bed directly front and center we have another planter bed to the Eastern portion within the fence line and then you have the circular stair to the left which is the Western portion of the property the pre-existing uh building is 31 ft 8 in in depth and as you can see the addition is 22 F 3 in in depth one of the uh suggestions and also HPC was on board with this we have pre-existing setbacks at 6'3 to the west and 5'9 to the east the addition was brought in two feet on both sides so you can see it from the alleyway and it also lessens the impact on the new addition we think this is a very proper approach that you can see the new addition from the street um and it will be uh an addition of modern materials so again we're matching the pre-existing setback as you can see the red line from the existing uh structure to the new structure and again uh we have a 41 fo1 setback we have a 9ft apron in the rear and a grass area of 32t 1 in as you work your way up the building uh first floor at grade accessed off of the sidewalk we have two Studios up front at 374 436 and we have a rear two bedroom at 894 at the first floor second floor we have a uh front porch extension uh to match the pre-existing photograph of the garriston house we have two two bedrooms at the second floor at 894 and 1009 up front propose third floor we have uh the beginning of a duplex to the lower leand corner of the floor plan at 1,329 a 503t one-bedroom and an 894 to the rear which is a two-bedroom pre-existing structure had a gabled roof uh we will be matching uh that existing gabled roof uh and putting back the upper part of a duplex there again uh covering both floors at 1,329 we have a uh private exterior re deck above the three-story Edition at 320 Square ft one of the requirements that HPC had uh uh had previously stated and suggested was that the condensers uh were originally proposed uh at the ground level you now moved to the uh roof area of the third floor Edition as you can see they surround uh that proposed roof deck we have a 42 uh inch high parit on the rear so you cannot see the condensers from the adjacent properties we also have a a small rooftop uh unit for fresh air that Services the units as part of the new energy code again going back to a Gable and we have a small Dormer off the rear for the access point to the uh to the proposed deck uh at the roof at the addition uh behind us here so we are using a three-dimensional shingle at the roof line and the standing seam roof uh at that small uh mansard area uh top elevation again is the pre-existing condition with the aluminum siding and the parch Cod at the base uh with the single masonry stair coming down off of the center door at the second floor graphic below is the fully restored elevation uh three stories plus a four story in the Gable um and again a three story addition to the rear as part of the uh original approval we had to do exploratory uh probing within the facade as you can see there were multiple layers between uh sheeter Shake uh aluminum siding and ultimately we hit the pre the original clapboard all the way at the bottom there so we feel that you know between the painting and the shutter systems and the Mason repair and the front porch reconstruction um you know with agreement of HPC and also the historic officer um that we have reached uh you know as as close as we possibly can from a side elevation uh what the original house actually looked like side elevations again four stories up front three story addition in the back the overall height to the project is at 39 ft 9 in the original structure was at 36 6 in rendering of the rear we have a Essex Green uh clapboard siding um as you can three three stories condensers aligned within the parit line and a fully screened uh exterior Deck with planter system uh to cut down on visibility just an overall uh version again of the rear extension two feet off of each side not visible from the street and the building in section uh really is an addition at the center of the uh front structure of approximately 3' 3 in uh just to bring it back back to uh its historic State and the Florida floor Heights here are 8 fo2 8'9 uh 8' 9 and 7t to the top of the Gable as far as uh impact on uh the existing neighborhood again our addition is no further than the pre-existing condition that exists today um there will be a little bit of a shadow cast into the alleyway um but every addition or every building does have some of a mass um but by bringing the building in and actually reducing the rear yard setback we think we've done a pretty good job of capturing um uh an addition that you know seems to be accepted by all this concludes my presentation thank you okay and just for a record if we could Mark the slide deck is I don't know that was officially okay then I'll move right into uh Mr height uh to present the planning testimony you want to take just leave up the photo which one you want the this one or this one or the rendering yeah I I do yes Charles height last name spelled h y DT uh one ever trust Plaza Jersey City New Jersey thank you all right thank you thank you still licens from Tuesday so at the planning board right um so I I'll just jump in um we have been uh working with the project team on this application for quite some time um going through the historic review process is is diligent um to address all the comments to uh preserve the structure and actually restore the structure in this case um so I do want to uh characterize some of the uh details that we're already provided um we are in the Hamilton Park historic district uh town houses are permitted use by definition what is being proposed is a multif family use which is not technically permitted as such um the conservative position would be to request a D1 use variance I do think it meets that particular suitability test uh really quickly to reiterate we have an oversized lot the minimum standard is 1800 square fet what's proposed what's existing for this lot is 5,575 square fet three times a size um we are increasing the unit count from 5 to 8 but as was mentioned mentioned earlier uh the proposed density is 63 units per acre uh in the in Hamilton Park historic district town homes are permitted four units which C actually has a maximum density of 75 units per acre um so we're below what the Zone contemplates in sort of in terms of density so we did not do a density analysis we're not establishing consistency in the neighborhood there are town homes that flank um both sides of the subject property of the existing home um we are making improvements by way of site plan um to the overall facility with the storm water management um we're staying in compliance with building coverage loot coverage and the rear addition which is only four stories uh only three stories four stories are permitted meet all the setbacks the side and rear yard setbacks so as as Mr van vanmark mentioned it won't be visible from the front of uh front of the street along 7th Street um quickly moving into uh some of the other special reasons to support the the D1 use variants um come from the land use law I'll offer to the board that because we comply uh with all the bulk requirements because we are uh offering up more in terms of the rear yard we're consistent with the existing rear yard setback that's 41 feet where 30 feet is required we are um providing adequate light air and open space to adjacent properties as well as in the interior of the block um we are also establishing appropriate population density just cover the densities um that's being proposed and consistent with the Zone uh and lastly purpose J uh to promote the conservation of historical uh sites and districts so this is certainly uh aimed at advancing that historic preservation uh purpose of the municipal land use law um when we move into the negative criteria um I do want to clearly state that in terms of any sort of uh impairment to the Zone plan or zoning ordinance I do not find that there's any substantial impairment um we are a residential use where town homes are permitted so they do fall under a very similar category um we are proposing the storm water management that's consistent with the new storm water management rules for minor site plan um and with respect to the master plan just to um reference a few uh principles um continued efforts to enhance residential neighborhoods again this I view as an enhancement with the historic preservation uh to ensure housing is balanced that meets all uh residential needs again we have a mix of units as was covered by Mr vanderark between the studios's bedroom one bedroom two bedroom and two-bedroom plus Den um and uh lastly to further the purpose of historic preservation so that's that's one of the principles of the master plan plan as well um with respect to to uh any sort of substantial detriment to the general welfare whenever you increase units I know a common com question is um the impact to parking uh here I just wanted to clarify for structures uh in this District that are less than 10 units parking is prohibited so it's not even that it's we're meeting a requirement of zero we're not even permitted by the the um historic district as well as the direction of the master plan um so we don't anticipate there AR to be any uh impact to parking because Hamilton Park's a lovely place to live uh eat walk and enjoy the the overall uh area so um that's my direct testimony um I don't know if there's anything else I should cover okay that presentation questions the experts well first I'd like to see if there's anyone from the public who has any comments that they would like to make please come up to the microphone okay everyone has uh three minutes to speak um I will ask um my fellow commissioner here to uh time you and he will let you know when you have one minute left Mr Amed shadid will be doing that I do please Diane titer d i a n e t i d e r d d i a n e last name TI D R thank you thanks address please uh 242 7th Street thank you okay thank you um hello Commissioners uh my name is Diane tier and can you speak a little bit loudly more into the mic a little okay um I'll just take it off um my name is Diane tier and I've lived in downtown Jersey City for over 15 years and co-owned and resided at 242 7th Street for more than 10 years next door to the subject property I'm also representing Robert Burns and jod marowski the neighbors who live directly on the other side of the property who wanted to be here tonight but are sick and could not could not attend uh my neighbors and I were taken aback by the developers original proposal to expand this pre- War era Farmhouse from a 4unit house to correct the record it's not a legal 5unit into a 10un apartment building which has now been scaled back to eight units this is the oldest known house still remaining in Hamilton Park the homestead of Steven garritson A prominent farmer businessman and judge in Jersey City was constructed almost 200 years ago around the same time as the barrel mansion and the old Bergen church when it was surrounded by Rolling Farmland we are very glad there's been significant updates to the plans our chief concerns at this point are this major site plan involves significant excavation regrading the entire property from its original hilly landscape right up to our walls and it's unclear to me whether the plans includ include sufficient protection for neighboring historic properties stability and water safety we're in the process of engaging an engineer to review the plans as well but want to make certain that all the regulations are followed from this point but this is concerning to me given that Jersey City is seeing 100-year floods quite routinely now and one of the reasons that the city planning staff supported approval of this variant was specifically to secure safety from floods I'd also like to note that town houses in Hamilton Park and apartment buildings as a rule have front entrances not side entrances that are used for Ingress and egress this was discussed during the historic meetings but we would like to request confirmation from the developers that the side doors in The Proposal would be designated as emergency exit doors and Ada accessible doors were required but not be used as routine entrances and exits to have people regularly walking alongside one's building is not standard use in the neighborhood and does not feel safe or private thank you all for your consideration thank you thank you sure yes I do Carl Matias Johansson c a r l m a TT i a s j o h a n SS o n and your address 2427 street thank you okay um so um I'm a neighbor on one side of the proposed development and I've been living there for about 12 years and together with my wife we have started our family there um I'm pleased to see that the developer included this uh photo in the presentation that I together with a research librarian at rodus managed to dig out in front um before the HPC hearing um the developers plans they call for a restoration of the street facing facade of this historic farming Homestead which is great but they also called for significant excavations on the sides underneath and behind the homestead and in addition to the concerns about excavation near to our foundation uh our second concern is water penetration and drainage currently there is a 6 feet wide soil Corridor between the subject building and our building the pl call for this open soil to be excavated down and covered with permeable pavers all the way from our foundation to their foundation and we are concerned that those pavers can disturb the natural drainage given that they would go all the way from Foundation to foundation and that they would cause water penetration into our base M and we have seen this at the rear of our building in fact um the PVE installation as shown on the drawings do not seem to meet the requirements of the building code and the storm water management plan may also need to be revised or recalculated and what I'm referring to specifically is section 18044 of the 2021 International building code that reads under site grading the ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less than 5% for a minimum distance of 10 ft measured perpendicular to the face of the wall if physical obstructions or lot lines Pro prohibit 10 ft of horizontal distance a 5% slope shall be provided to an alternative method of dividing water away from the foundation so in other words in this case when there is only six feet between the buildings uh the permeable pav should be sloped 5% and from each foundation and then the divert the rainwater into a Swale or some other forms of um diversion and with this grind um grading and drainage system that is mentioned in the building code to protect the foundation is not shown on the drawings and uh should be taken in into consideration in the storm water management plan and it logically follows if you collect or divert more water maybe the plans those plans would need need to be updated for for this purpose so um in the grand scale of this project installing uh a little bit more drainage system is not going to cost a lot but it has implications for the store Mort management plans and uh that this board reviews um I would encourage the board to ask specific questions around building code requirements for grading and the implication that has on storm water retention and um diversion around the foundation and between the buildings buildings thank you very much thank you anyone else is there anyone else from the public who wants to make any comments if not I will close out the public portion of this meeting Mr Harrington you want to address that yes so if I if I could quickly in I my experts are here to add any additional information but uh you know with regard to um the excavation and drainage issues those are those are building department issues that would be addressed during the construction uh so um if they're not in compliance with the building code the building department or the MUA will require that they they are um uh and we do have on-site uh proposed on-site detention so that'll make it a better condition uh with regard to drainage uh and uh the side doors I've been advised that those will be used for emergency egress only and and again my you if you have any further questions with the architect uh they they can address that okay okay Commission is do we have any other any questions um about this project anyone okay uh can we hear from the staff regarding Seventh Street sure I am um taking over for Francisco this evening um staff did recommend approval the staff reports are uh within the portal um I also want to call attention to the certificate of approval that's also in the portal it has about 14 conditions attached to it I won't read them out loud um and the only other conditions that we add on are the typical ones which is all materials color selections shown on final plans no changes can be made um even if they're required by a construction code without consultation with planning staff and possible approval by the Zoning Board number two applicant shall provide an affidavit from the architect of record representing that the constructed project is consistent with final approved plans and three a copy of the memorialized resolution with amended deed filed with the Hudson County registers office with proof of such filing submitted to division of City Planning um prior to application for construction permits and four of course is that uh all the conditions imposed by the historic preservation commission um are met and this was approved by the historic preservation commission I believe on October 23rd 2023 that's correct okay thank you any questions based on what the staff had to say okay since there are no additional comments from the Commissioners I am asking for a motion to approve with conditions agenda item Z 21- 074 Madam chair I'd like to make a motion to approve case z21 074 as presented to the board this evening with conditions can I get a second motion okay okay on the motion to approve a conditions Vice chair aruo yes uh commissioner SL booki yes commiss Carl wasn't here let me just finish sorry um because I missed the first part um I mean I did read everything I don't know what I missed I'll abstain on this just because I didn't officially hear it but I did hear this stuff other than what I've read and needed to but I'm going to abstain anyway for the record okay and I guess we should announce that he's here sorry commissioner shadid yes commissioner Baron yes commissioner Allan yes commissioner Patel yes and chair Coyle yes and motion carries six in favor none opposed one abstain thank [Music] you Iris Iris do you need a break we can go with the second you're okay well you know what now they have the HDMI that's live so we're doing con yeah please yeah MH okay at this time we will hear uh case number z23 d022 114 Bower Street um good evening members of the board uh Michael Higgins of castano quigly chami on behalf of the applicant I presented before you all before on Zoom but it's nice to finally see you all in person um so uh 114 Bowers Street uh this is in the R1 Zone on Bowers it's between Central Avenue and Cambridge um it's a significantly undersized lot it's uh 30 ft by 50 feet for, 1500 square ft in total area Okay um standard in the R1 is 2500 square ft which is 1,000 ft greater than what we're working with here um we're trying to do on this lot uh we are are renovating the first floor existing commercial building uh which is a single story building and we're going to be adding two stories above that with residential units in those so it would be one commercial unit and then two residential units above that um what we need to accomplish this we need a D1 use variance for a mixed use in the R1 Zone um it's uh our position tonight and our presentation I hope will show that this is a particularly suitable site for that mixed use um this is an interesting uh location on Bower Street it's very close to Central Avenue where there are many commercial uh businesses and it's also uh it was formerly known as the B district and was zoned as the B District so there's a number of stores on that street and you'll also see several other uh locations that our our presentation will identify later that you see the same situation where there's a first floor commercial unit and then uh residential units above that um we also need uh several C variances for uh rear yard setback uh lot coverage and for building coverage and I would say all of those are due to the significantly undersized uh nature of the lot where we have a th square feet less uh to work with than is typical in the R1 so uh without further Ado I'd like to have my first uh witness our architect Jeff Lewis sworn in before we squar him in procedurally did we mark his notices no no no so why don't we do that we have his affidavit proof of service notice of publication so we mark it as A1 for this application A1 has received and marked okay thank you how are youu yes I do uh Jeffrey Lewis J FF r y l e w is you any business addresses 277 Ridge Street uh nework New Jersey thank you thank you and for the record my um license is active and a good standing in New Jersey okay so I'm just gonna get right into the site plan here uh as was mentioned we are 50t Deep by 30 foot wide lot so an undersized lot you can see the existing building covers almost the entire lot so it is built lot line to lot line and it only leaves a backyard of about 4 and 1/2 ft as well as no front yard and we are proposing to keep this existing building and then build two stories of residential directly above it uh looking at the proposed site plan on the left there are a few very minor changes the first is that we are adding a street tree this will be put in with all the forestry standards as required for Jersey City uh the second is that we are doing a new six- foot uh vinyl fence around the small backyard area um and then lastly it's not shown here but the staff report did did request that we demolish the concrete in the backyard and replace it with permeable pavers and we are amendable to do that so we will do that and these sign off sets will show new per permeable pavers uh in the backyard of the site plan these are the floor plans I'm going to start on the ground floor at the left here uh most of the space is the commercial space it is a 170t commercial space uh open space in the front in the back there's an office there's a bathroom and a half a mechanical room as well as a door out to that backyard area uh to the right of the commercial space there's a hallway that we need for egress this hallway goes all the way from the back to the public right of way to the sidewalk in the front uh the hallway also provides access to a trash area as well as the sprinkler room as this will be a fully sprinkler building uh lastly on the ground floor all the way at the right we have the residential entry with a stair directly up to the the second floor so looking at the second floor plan in the center of the drawing uh the second floor is one apartment it is a 1,276 ft three-bedroom two bath apartment uh the apartment has a washer dryer in the apartment as well as uh ducted heat and air conditioning uh looking over the the stair continues up to the third floor where we have uh the second apartment which takes up the entire third floor this layout is basically the same same as the apartment below this is slightly larger though it's 1,364 squ ft still three bedrooms and two bath the main difference here is that the stair continues up to the roof and we're providing a private roof deck for this third floor apartment so moving on to the next sheet we show the roof deck plan over here on the left so at the back of the building we have the stair coming up and it opens out to this private roof deck the roof deck itself is a 443 ft roof deck in front of that we have 192 square foot green roof area and then in front of that we just have uh some roof roof space where we're having our air conditioning condensers uh looking at the center drawing we have our front building elevation uh the main building material is a red brick um looking at the doorways here we have an all glass door for the storefront the two doors on the right are for that hallway and the residential entry these are dark ray doors with quarter glass uh vertically down the side uh above on the second and third floor we have these bay windows which are um the finish on these bays are a light a light gray fiber cement panel above that there's a dark gray fiber cement band board and then an 18inch high black decorative cornice uh looking at the rear elevation to the right here uh the first floor is finished with uh stucco and then the second and third floor has a beige uh fiber me siding finish and then lastly not much to see here but both side elevations are built on the property line and they'll each just have a a stucko finish um that concludes my presentation we want to go on to the next one okay uh thank you Jeff um I guess as a typical we'll just uh Reserve questions for Jeff for the end um my next witness is uh Charles height uh as a professional planner yes thank you hi good evening again board members um so I do quickly want to run through through the relief that's being requested tonight um we are proposing two additional residential units above the ground floor commercial um which does exist on the subject property um that does constitute as a mixed use development which is not a permitted use in the R1 um so I'll be covering the use variant as well as the associated bulk variances first um we do have an existing ground floor uh use that's been uh in existence for for many years associated with the um local commercial Corridor just to the to the west of the subject property um we are proposing residential uses above the ground floor commercial which is permitted residential uses in the R1 um there is a section of the R1 that does allow for mixed use um to be converted from uh two residential units and a ground floor to three residential units in certain circumstances so this is akin to that um we're we're kind of reconstituting a mixed use where we are still keeping the ground floor residential but it's very similar in terms of concept um for the three-story structure that's going to be proposed um so again um we're consistent with the uh adjacent and surrounding uses across the street uh where there are other mixed use buildings um ground again ground floor retail with residential above uh and we're consistent with the existing footprint of the overall structure today in terms of um maintaining that and increasing with the the two flors above that um for those reasons I do find it's particularly suitability particularly suitable to accommodate uh the two residential units and ultimately what would be a mixed use structure um on the subject property um in terms of special reasons uh I do think that this is um an improvement of the overall U pro property in terms of the facade uh improvements being proposed that would Advance purpose I uh to create a desirable visual environment through creative uh development techniques and as I um previously mentioned I do think this is an appropriate establishment of uh an appropriate population density uh where two two two units are contemplated within the R1 um notwithstanding that uh the lot is undersized um we are not proposing any uh off street parking uh it's a very walk walkable neighborhood um and the increase in two units doesn't in my opinion um warrant a substantial impact to any parking conditions um within the area um with respect to uh the master plan uh as I mentioned earlier in the night on another application I do think that this advances uh um establishing a balance of housing opportunities uh for future residents in the city um the city does need new housing stock these will be new new units uh to be um created um and will'll further that objective of of the master plan um we are also um in terms of offsetting the building coverage uh or and lot covers proposing a green roof again this is a a very um tight lot with with an existing structure on it so that was a way if we were able to offset any uh storm water to accommodate that and The Green Roof System on the roof um I did want to just call out in terms of the lot size with respect to the bulk requirements uh it's 30 by 50 with is substandard to the minimum 2500 square foot lot um what that means in terms of the the setbacks um we have a variance for minimum front and rear yard combined where uh a minimum of 35 FTS required and we are proposing a zero foot front yard setback which exists and maintaining the 4.7 ft of the rear yard setback so we're substantially under that 35 foot threshold but again we're maintaining the existing footprint and setbacks uh similarly with the sidey yards 2 feet and on one side 5.1 on both um we are proposing zero lot line for the proposed structure the adjacent structure is zero lot line so there's no impact there um we did confirm um that any um any appearance of a of a window um on an adjacent structure that uh has been boarded up will be um will be refortified uh it's not an accessible window um and it's not not utilized today so again that that's on on one of the zero lot line setbacks uh I discussed the coverages just to confirm 100% coverage um with the patio in the rear is being proposed in terms of lock coverage where 85% perit uh and in terms of building coverage we have 90 uh 91 approximately 91 um% in coverage where 65s permitted uh and we're offsetting that with the uh with the green roof um and that that is similar to the existing coverage today uh that's the bulk requirements that are being or the bulk variances that are subsumed with the use variants um they're really a product of the lot size that's uh currently in existence and with respect to the negative NE ative criteria I don't think there's any substantial detriment to the general welfare um we are infilling two additional stories to complete the southern portion of the block so there will be Shadow impacts we're Below 40t in terms of overall height it's it's a well-known establishment of a streetcape a three-story structure that's permitted in the zone um so I don't see any substantial impacts there uh and with with respect to the master plan and zoning ordinance um we're in an appropriate location for mixed use um mixed use structure uh mix mixed use with residential overground floor um so I do believe as I mentioned earlier we're advancing goals and objectives of the master plan with appropriate balance of housing stock and uh retaining that commercial on the ground floor that's existing that's my testimony be happy to answer any questions um that does conclude our direct testimony uh I'd just like to note very briefly that all the conditions included in uh Francisco Espinosa's uh staff report are acceptable to the applicant and uh the additional condition that we use permeable pavers for that rear yard which is not included in that report but that's acceptable okay thank you thank you is there anyone from the public who would like to comment please come to the microphone again you will have three minutes and my colleague Mr Amed shadid will keep time and let you know when you have one minute left I exhibit I think so yes I'll take them okay thank you I do Anthony nitki ni t s c H ke thank you 127 Cambridge Avenue yard behind 114 Bowers okay uh sorry okay uh good evening we' like to thank you for giving us the time to this evening to voice our concerns and consider construction on 114 Bower Street my name is Anthony and I'm speaking on behalf of my father-in-law Robert Kelly who is in attendance and is the owner of 127 Cambridge 127 Cambridge has a backyard that sits directly behind 114 Bower Street I would like to give you a quick history of 127 it's been in our in their family for over 60 years my father-in-law Robert has lived there for 56 my wife was born and raised and our children are born and raised there uh when 114 was built uh it was zoned it was not zoned for residential due to the property size that is stated uh two other commercial buildings a couple doors down do not have residential housing above across the street are commercial spaces with residents above but nobody lives behind them uh also the parking lot behind them every building is commercial but they also have fire escapes there doesn't seem to be any fire escapes plans for them I submitted pictures of our view from the backyard um construction concerns because there is uh 20 ft minimum required uh and there was only a 4 7 in setback uh the propos is to add the two stories which with the rooftop uh so our concerns are insufficient room to bring the materials needed for the rear of the building uh insufficient room for scaffolding definitely the 4 7 in between the properties also on the side properties there's zero minimum um which again Prov provides uh safety and fire hazards uh the height of the new construction will obstruct our view and sunlight our yard is used daily we have a dog who enjoys roaming freely on a daily basis uh entertainment we entertain in our yard with family and friends our yard is used for recreational purpose and we've been using our yard for the last 40 years and now to have a building constructed that's going to a block our sunlight and view based on the images that I've given uh they all this could also be noise from the Terrace and rooftop that is proposed privacy issues their proposal is to have a kitchen and a bedroom that will Overlook our backyard so privacy is a main issue issue fire safety again there doesn't seem to be any plans for fire escapes all the buildings around that meet the height requirement all all have fire escapes um in conclusion Construction and building is too close to our backyard property that will affect our right for enjoyment so we feel that though this construction will adversely affect our property and adjacent of properties around us thank you also the again with the AC noise and the roof level um the de he mentioned about demolishing the concrete and putting pavers your three minutes is over okay thank you thank you is there anyone else from the public to comment okay seeing no one from the public we'll close out the public portion um do our commissioners have any questions at this time make sure you press your button before you speak whoever whoever wants to speak okay um then we'll hear from the staff regarding this property okay um a few things uh one is and I believe Francis go outlin this um in the current zoning today the property would have been able to return or uh be continued uh the commercial on the ground floor with the two units above um what really is kind of bringing it to the zoning board today is the nature and the size of the lot so let me explain what I'm trying to say it was a this was submitted to the old zoning ordinance we changed the ordinance it was approved in November of 2023 in November of 2023 we wrote um a standard the standard used to read that if you had an existing ground floor commercial within the R1 one and2 family District you could switch it to residential and you wouldn't need to go to a board and it didn't matter how many units you already had however when we were doing this last study we also saw that it was important to be able to preserve some of these already exist existing small commercial spaces that have kind of organically formed in the city so we flopped that flip-flopped that uh standard on its face and said if you had a space on the ground floor that was commercial in 1938 you were able to restore it to commercial as long as it matched the 1938 tax photos without going to a board for a d variance so today it's a d variance before you because of time of application which is a completely legal term just to say when the application subed when it was completed it can legally conform to that zoning um so the D variance here is for the Mixed juice but had they applied in December you would not be seeing this with the D variants uh you would however be seeing it with the c variances which is the setback variances so and a couple of things have changed as well so in the R1 before November the rear yard setback read in collaboration with the front yard setback so the front yard set step back would have to match what was ever prevailing on the Block and then you'd subtract that from 35 and that was your rear with a minimum of 20 so the building would go like this essentially right if you had a bigger front yard you'd have a smaller backyard and that was to ensure that the one and two families that were being built were typically built at 55 ft or 65 ft deep um in this in we changed it we actually changed it back to what it was in the 60s and the 50s um which is a little bit uh better for Jersey City because while we definitely have a consistent width we have very inconsistent depth right the depths for Jersey City lots are all over the place especially in the Heights and so we did it as a percentage if the idea was that we always wanted 30% of the lot to be open spaced within the rear that's where we went and and so it fluctuates with the size of the lot and hopefully it also brings consistency on the Block so in this instance um if it was applying to the older ordinance to be able to do the 30 ft here um would be impossible so the site itself is 50 ft wide and so if we're applying the old zoning code ordinance we're looking at a 30 foot setback which means that you have a 20 foot wide building on the top floors now the ground floor is existing so there's nothing we can do about it in the sense that it's an existing non-conforming structure um if we Swip it if we flop it to the 30% um it goes from 30 to 15 and we're still looking at a 35 foot deep building so I do want you to take into consideration um that we are looking at a lot that is extremely limited by its size and so I know when Charles was speaking when Mr height was speaking and um within Francisco's report we call that a C1 right and the C1 is really just a a reference to the citation in the ML and the C1 lines out hardships based on things like size topography things like that um and the idea is that you're giving the variance based on relief because the site itself cannot conform to the zoning because of XYZ um sometimes people use the C2 which we call a flexible which is just to say the benefits outweigh the detriments it's kind of a catchall um this site is a classic C1 site a hardship site um and I think laying out what you could build according to the zoning it would be very very difficult to build anything here on the top two floors so I know that that was a lot um but I I'm trying to kind of lay out the fact that if they applied today you'd only be looking at the setbacks and while the case before you is for a d variant and you do need to consider what's before you um I think the focusing on the setbacks and the undersized nature of the lot is really where you kind of want to be thinking um and considering whether or not it is impossible or impractical to build according to the standards and are is the request that they're asking reasonable um with all that said I Francisco's conditions are on the record he did change uh they're in the in the file I don't want to reread them all um he did change one thing for the permeable to address the lock coverage um and I have uh nothing else so staff Francisco this is still his case I'm just representing it um recommended approval with those conditions okay thank you uh do any Commissioners have any questions now after listening to the staff I guess I I guess I have a question a few questions um the gentleman mentioned fire escape are you using two means of egress within the building you're calling that your kind of fire escape um actually technically you don't need technically this building would only need one stair a two story building a three story building with two units um we do have egress windows at the back and the front and that's what the hallway from the back to the front is for as well bu and it is a fully spr building right and the gentleman also spoke about Shadows on his yard and that now would be he wouldn't get the sunlight was any Shadow study completed or anything of that sort so um we are within the permitted height on this and in Jersey City if you're under 40 ft I believe a shadow study is not required because the assumption is that it's just not such an impact on on Shadow that it would burden the neighbors so no no Shadow study was completed because it wasn't required and I'm looking at the photo of in front of me and the photo that's up there and I'm seeing that the house to the right of the storefront there's Windows right there so that's all going to be how are they going to be affected house on the right actually has a three foot set back on their property so they have enough space for the windows they have enough space the windows and their fire escap is in that 3ot space okay does anyone else have any questions okay okay if no additional questions um can I get a uh motion uh to vote on um case z 23-22 to approve with conditions Madam chair I'd like to make a motion to approve case z23 d0 2 two as presented to the board this evening with conditions can I get a second motion second okay okay and that's on the motion to approve with conditions Vice chair aruo yes commissioner sauki yes commissioner shadid yes commissioner Baron yes commissioner Allen yes commissioner Patel yes madame chair Coyle yes motion carries seven in favor none opposed none abstain thank youone Iris do you need a break okay 10 minutes five minutes okay we're just going to take a five minute break commissioner Patel is right here okay at this time we're going to hear case z23 D28 which is 312 Fairmont Avenue uh Madam chair do you want to announce the adjournment just in case sorry I apologize um and case number z22 d77 104 Glennwood Avenue has asked to be carried to the February 8th meeting so if anyone's here for um 104 Glennwood Avenue case z22 d77 that is being adjourned or carried to February 8th should I ask um is there anyone here from uh Mr Joseph's office or is Mr Joseph here to present on 312 Fairmont okay check I can get this on my I I have no email asking for a carry but Francisco was not in the office today it's possible Mr Joseph emailed him asking for an adern um Vinnie just was checking cuz he thought he saw someone here had to represent from the attorney's office okay next okay then we will move on to case z223 d23 uh 48 Clifton Place we have Mr Roth rothberg okay spe how you doing hi can I start sure uh good even good evening my name is Mark rothberg from the will flaw firm and I represent uh Clifton Place uh to start I just wanted to uh confirm uh that our uh affidavits uh and notice uh notices were filed and yes we reviewed them find the affidavit proof of service thank you notice of publication I also have cop thank you I also have copies of uh the documents that we uh prepared and already filed but I have extra copies for okay board thank you is that your application that's on the portal that what you're showing us uh yes those are the the exhibits me just take that P and maybe pass these to that direction if anybody wants that and uh I represent 48 Clifton Place which is a two building uh uh residential apartment uh buildings with uh 33 residential units plus an office uh that was constructed in the 1960s and we're here tonight uh simply to oppose uh a violation that we received for 48 Clifton Place Apartment 2A uh and according to the violation it says that it's an illegal unit that must be removed and our position and the documentation that we have uh shows uh that the building has been registered uh with the DCA and has been 33 residential units since the 1960s uh it's been registered with the DCA for over 30 years we've been paying taxes and on the tax rol we've submit uh the rent rolls that shows it's 33 units plus an office for both buildings uh we negotiate every two years uh tax appeals and settlements uh we receive uh um uh formed their 91 requests for the rent rolls and we've done that and all 33 Apartments have been listed we provide income that's for the chapter 91's income and expense statements yearly to the Jersey City uh it's interesting uh we made o an Oprah uh request and confirmed that no se was ever received for this property because it was built uh in the 1960s and have a copy of the ordinance requiring cosos came into effect and adopted uh in 1979 and it was based on njsa 5 52 colon 27d -133 that was adopted in 1975 uh and it was not retroactive it was adopted after our building was constructed in 1962 and we purchased it from the seller and that's why if you notice and I actually attacked AED a copy of the deed which is exhibit H uh when we purchased it from our seller it was it was sold uh in 1961 from uh Jersey City uh to the seller uh and the only reason we're here tonight with regard to this issue isn't the overall picture of whether this development has to have cosos it's because for apartment 2A uh and the Tenant and and we've registered I went back in our yardi it goes back to 1999 it's always been residential there is no change in use for that apartment and that apartment has always been registered with the DCA going back uh at least 30 years um we re we received the summons because the tenant in apartment 2A uh who took residency and I have her Ledger believe it was in two years ago uh she has hasn't paid rent uh and she owes over 20 $25,000 as of today's date we filed a civil civil action in in in the uh civil court and we received a judgment for possession and before the warrant we received an order to show cause from their attorney which is the first time that we became aware uh that this violation was issued not against the not against the building or any of the units just against Department 2A and I couldn't find the vi it says violation V 41b uh I couldn't find uh that violation but it says a legal unit must be removed so immediately the attorney files it to the S uh to the the to the court and the judge stays everything and he's like well you need to have this dismissed so he adjourned it to February 7th knowing that we were coming here tonight so we're not asking for litigation as far as whether or not we're grandfathered for this building that's always been filed it's there's 's no question that all the registrations that I have as exhibits uh include the 33 residential units and it's always listed apartment 2A we're simply asking that this violation be dismissed by the board uh and that's all that's the only issue that's here tonight has uh we're not litigating or deciding whether or not the building that was constructed in the 1960s prior to the 1975 statute uh is retroactive it's actually I actually looked it up it's not retroactive uh it says no buildings or structures here and after constructed shall be used or occupied without a CO but that issue is not before it's just this one unit that that we received a violation whoever the attorney was that they represented contacted someone and said we don't have a CO issue the violation which is immediately well you can't evict someone if you don't have a CO and therefore everything stayed and she's just been living there for since this happened um it came to our attention in December uh uh when when we filed this action um everything's been stayed we've had two ad germins already uh because of the February 7th date yeah uh because of the date that we're here tonight hopefully we won't I was put February 7th down because I know that's your next meeting but we're simply asking to have this violation um dismissed um based on the fact it's not a legal unit you have the documentation I do have the property manager I could go over but I believe this all has been filed it's a letter to the director with enclosures correspondence uh to Edward uh um Mr to to toaza and I sorry from mispronouncing his name he's the assessor uh but we've been uh and it just shows the tax appeal we've been that we had back in 2023 the income and expense statement Exhibit C is the viola is the violation uh exhibit D are the registrations for that we've been filing for years with the DCA showing the 33 units plus uh the office uh Exhibit C is the DH uh Department of Housing Economic Development and commerce that shows what we've been filing for all the a year showing number of units 33 plus the office um and it goes on and on so what we're asking tonight isn't for a major decision on the buildings itself I'm asking and we're asking if this violation for apartment 2A that says it's an illegal unit that must be removed it's been there since 1960s uh and it's always been occupied and registered uh as a residential unit so the issue is pretty small in this in this case uh and sure yes our office and I have uh Miss Gonzalez she was the attorney who appeared uh in Jersey City in the in Hudson County yes and I and the judge that it's been withdrawn that it's been withdrawn we have all the registrations and stuff and no we don't have possession yet oh we got a warrant right and then we sent it to the Marshall and then all of a sudden when they get the 72-hour notice saying the Marshall is going to come then all of a sudden this attorney files an order to show cause saying that this apartment is illegal it has no Co and a a and they got someone sure yes and the and and we had no he adjourn he adjourned it the judge no he wanted he wants a CO also he his position was that because we had an open violation with the city the only way to resolve it was to get a SE we explained to him there's because the building was built in 192 the ordinance came to being in 1979 oh sorry jul yes the building is that correct representation that the building does not have a CO one wasn't required is there a reed for this building now um yes the co would be required for the building now I I don't know of any law but that's not because it doesn't exist but because I don't know that there was a a time where we weren't issuing cosos um when a violation for zoning is given um we respond to any call we don't care whether or not people are paying their rent um we only care about whether or not the the zoning um is proper and correct for what it is what it's representing um first it would be would it be permitted here um this is the R1 Zone this was approval that was given a while ago then we go through old tax records not just the current we go through the 75 things like that and we see whether or not over time even historically sometimes we'll see 1938 there used to be 17 units and then it became 16 and then 17 all of those stories happen um but as far as the zoning officer is concerned it wouldn't be able to say that there was a legal 17 Unit if it doesn't show up in a tax record at any point it basically be like the zoning officer was giving a use variance um expansion of a non-conforming use so to speak to get that uh extra unit so the only way to do it um would be to go through the proper channels either through the zoning board uh for the use expansion expansion of a non-conforming use which we've done in the past for apartment buildings for super te sometimes super units turn into extra units um but ultimately when we go out to a lot of these places what we will issue or violations on no cosos and the process is that the person applies for the permits with as built plans um and then a CO gets issued and then the tax record gets updated so the tax record will always reflect the co they were suggest these options were suggested and offered for them to cure this situation and did they do was this followed were any the multiple times I I'll explain there we did not add a unit in other words it says 202a is is an illegal unit it it's never and what I'm showing you here it's never been added it's always been 33 units uh and even my yardy printouts as far as you know became electronic go back to 1999 but uh through throughout the last 30 40 years it's we've we''ve never done any new construction on the building we've never added a unit this isn't a case where they wanted a sup unit they've always been 33 units and and as the filings clearly show we always registered it with the city so in that sense sure how do I know that this 22A is the illegal unit as opposed to 28 why why is why did this unit get to be the illegal unit I I don't I don't know sure yeah would didn't have to be the whole building then many if I may how many electric meter do they have in the building and when they were installed yeah I'm sure every apartment has a me I I just I just confirmed every apartment has a separate meter in when they were installed what do you know the date in an installation no they've always they've always uh been nothing new was ever added to these apartments they've always had separate meters but Tanya could we just I'm having trouble understanding this so in in 48 Clinton Clifton Whatever It Is Clifton Place yes is there a CO for anything in that building no no so so what are we doing here if there's no Co for any apartment why are we zeroing in on this apartment as the illegal apartment only because the tax record shows 16 oh the tax R shows 16 the current tax record and previous tax record show 16 not 17 Oh I thought you said it was 17 no it's 33 units plus an off office and this unit 2A they're just choosing 2A because the tenant claimed there's no co uh the office is a separate is is is is not if you look at everything that's been filed it's the two buildings together 33 apartment units plus an office so nothing has ever changed the reason why we got a violation for this particular unit and we did an Oprah um we did an Oprah request and not one building not one apartment any of the two buildings have cosos ever so the reason why this was issued against apartment 2A is because we got a judgment against them and the Marshall served them with a lockout and the attorney is like oh I did a search there's no Co for this unit and the judge put off the case saying if there's an open violation he's not going to make a ruling we need to clear this up so we adjourned the trial date or the hearing on this issue twice we're going back on February 7th uh for us to clear this one violation not has nothing to do with the whole building we have all our exhibits that that we're going to give showing but because there was a violation for this unit the judge put it off saying we needed to come to the board so that's why we're here we're just we're not here for here for the big picture about the buildings and why in 1975 when the ordinance the ordinance is is clear it says here and after constructed and that's from 1975 um and I have the site so Tanya the tax records are still showing 16 units in this one building yes where there are now 17 units yes so so how do you choose how do you how well how do you go from 16 to 17 units unless you've added something it's the off it's the office Al together there there it's two buildings that make up the apartments and it's it's um 33 combined so to all of a sudden and and and then the extra one the 34 is for the office this apartment has always we're we're here just for this apartment this apartment has now we're at 34 when before you said we're at 33 33 Apartments plus one office that's always been an office never been uh an apartment and that's been there since the 1960s okay um you keep saying that the the are uh Series 3 plus an office and the staff saying they are 17 where we go we have to believe the staff and unless you have approved that there is it is this is what it is since that day and bler excuse me why don't you apply for CCO or coo our position is we don't have to apply for a COO for a building that's been uh constructed this not I understand your position but this is the law every building has to have a CEO our position is that it's for older units that were constructed it and it you have to if you have to have a CO and that's a different issue you have to coo if you're adding uh Apartments if you're doing construction on the apartment but an apartment that's been there prior to the issuance it's here and after constructed that's that's the what he's saying is true this is I don't I don't know enough about a certificate of occupany again as the zoning officer reviewing it we review it based on the tax records the tax history um if there are issues of grandfathering that means that prior to when the law changed that was what it was legally existing prior to the law change I have tax records that say 16 I know we're talking 16 and 17 but this is not very different from two and three right so a person can come in here and say that they've had a three-unit building in the R1 since 1960 and it wouldn't be any different to me than 16 and 17 an illegal unit is an illegal unit if there's no tax record or zoning approval for it here if you look uh at exhibit e I'm just pulling any of the exhibit uh second page it it clearly shows apartment 2A that was filed what the legal rent is the date of 2015 what the lease is this was filed with a rent leveling board in 2016 um we're talking about apartment 2A this has always been registered as an apartment um if you continue and exhibit if you continue in exhibit e and I it's highlighted in yellow clearly shows uh uh the apartment uh in question if you go to exhibit F which is the Reg rtion uh that was filed it says number of units 33 Jersey City um received by the leveling board 2011 and the next page it clearly shows 48 a colen uh a-2 which is apartment 2A what the legal rent is $520 215 2011 the lease expiration 229 2012 so it's never been it it's always shown as 33 units uh throughout all of our records that we've had so that's never been an issue none of the apartments in the building uh have ever had Co since the Inception because the njsa requiring cosos uh that was adopted in 1975 it's njsa 2 52 colon 27d d133 no buildings constructed here and after constructed shall be used or occupied without a CO so if you have an old Victorian house from 18 hundreds and it's been used as a single family house for 60 years uh you can't all of a sudden show up one day and and say to the resident you don't have a CE uh you have to get out of your home are are you familiar with the tax record that uh Miss Marion is showing us that shows 16 units in other words the reason why I showed the tax assess and appeal is to show that all 33 units when we do the assess when when I did my tax appeals and I have done the tax appeals for the last decade uh with um I mispronounce his name um the tax assess the tax assessor uh and his assistant it's always listed 33 units and it's valued and and what they require to do when we do the assessment is they want a copy of the rent rolles and the registrations that we have and then he determines what the value is does does he show the 34 which is the office S I can no no no it's always 33 it's always 33 hold on and they weren't counting the offices making that 33 without knowing about the other no no no yeah but here in other words that's what I attached I attached my letter from um so excuse me let me ask another question where is this unit is this unit in the basement no oh it's up above it's apartment 2A and it's been it's been a residential unit going back you already we got in 2 uh in 1999 goes our our our actually yardy prints out but I have every single registration for the last I think I showed over 20 years of registrations with the state and the city uh and the tax roles showing that we paid for the 33 units um so we're we're not requesting that the issue be how does the tax roll say you paid for 33 units if the assessor says there's only 16 in the one and 14 or whatever it is in the other how how does it what how are you paying taxes on 17 units you got a tax bill that says property registration with the city 2011 exhibit F let me just look the tax assessor also will assess you if they find an illegal unit for that illegal unit right and and that's never been it doesn't it doesn't mean that the tax record changes and makes the unit legal no but exactly in other words here is in other words for the rent leveling board I'm just looking 33 and as part of the chapter 90 uh the chapter 91 he's asking for the rent rolls and he sees 20 uh 2A and the rent roll so we're simply asking and goinging before the board tonight with regard to 2A that's the violation here it's listed that it's an illegal unit that has to be removed and that's the only issue before the board and we're respectfully requesting that that violation be dismissed because per the documentation we have uh 2A has always been registered with the city and the dhcr in all these documents showing that it's been a residential unit so that's the only issue that we're asking for the issue as to whether or not a building is required to have cosos uh if it was constructed in the 1960s before the 1975 adoption that's a different issue but we're simply asking for this one violation uh to be dismissed with regard to twoa I think there's ample evidence to show that unit has always been registered with the city and the department and it's always been listed as a as a resident so will you ever asked to go through the zoning process just to um you know have this paperwork completed well with with with the office uh with um the zoning officer when I was showing these documents they're like well file for a CO and my our position is that we don't need to file for Co and if we filed for a CO for this unit uh that means what happens to the last 30 years of us charging rent we're not allowed to charge anyone rent uh you know uh and then any case no one has to pay rent that they're living there and in other words it's a it's a bad precedent for me to to start another um so we were saying and and then you know we the suggestion was that come before the board Tanya what happens what happens to the to the to the next tenant in this building and the next tenant doesn't pay rent technically at all and and we go to the tency court they say it's registered and Judge Jimenez again says show me a CO he's got no Co and then he goes to file another violation and here we go again dismiss this thing the overturning of the violation wouldn't equal a CO is that what you're asking no but according what I'm saying is what what what's stopping there's 16 units according to our tax records right and you say we say there's 17 units in there uh what forgetting which which unit is which which is the Oddball unit let's just say that he follows your advice and gets a Co for this particular unit yeah now the guy across the hall decides not to pay the rent and he goes before judge jenz and the judge says uh well uh I can't throw you out because there's no Co to but it wouldn't be the co for the unit you only give cosos per unit when their condo owner occupied be for 17 Unit building so so you're asking him to get a a CO for a 17 Unit 17 Unit building not for this particular apartment correct oh see and and according to the court um they have the documentation showing that it's been registered the issue is that there's a violation for this and and he's like well resolve the violation so we're not asking for a decision on the buildings or whether it's grandfathered when cosos are required we're simply asking for this violation for 2A to be dismissed that's all we're asking the board tonight respectfully so I have a question to I'm sorry so being that it's is the violation against was written against one unit or against the entire building because if the building's supposed to have it then I would think the violation has to be against the building and not a particular unit and if that's the case I really don't know what we're actually making a decision on the violation I almost want to dismiss it because sure the violation I don't get it and it's just too crazy the violation is a legal unit must be removed and apartment 2A so that's what we're asking my concern is what makes that unit illegal it was written to a unit but you're saying it really it's the building that should have the CEO so it's not a unit it's a building no not I'm time I'm sorry so I mean it's just confusing this unit versus the building so why can't you don't have to have a CO at all according to state law but I mean that would determine everything I guess right now right we won't even be having this conversation but let's say it is the case if you did need to have a CEO it's the building that gets the co not any particular unit the violation was sent to the property owner not to 2A as 2A right so my question is this why can't we just dismiss this give him 60 days to get a CO and you somebody goes out and inspects it again if he doesn't register it as a 17 Unit you give him a violation for not coing the entire building right another would that be the easiest thing to do and then he could come to your office and say I don't need a CO because I'm grandfathered in and we could debate that somewh say that to the construction code official yeah I can do that to yeah right yeah why why are we grappling and just you know that that have enough issues there's no secret about this building this building is registered and it's inspected whatever the yearly inspections and I just want to let you know that my client just didn't you know go to some vacant lot and construct something without it's inspected every year we pay our our our our our inspection fees and it's registered and with rent rolls showing 2A so we're just asking for 2A to be dismissed I I have no problem speaking uh with councel uh if necessary uh or yourself you know with regard to the building having inspections that's not an issue we have inspections all the time I just so just so we're clear I don't make the decision whether or not a certificate of occupancy is required that is 100% the construction code official there you okay can I can I ask a question sure the word is very simple but I don't understand how we do it what do you mean by moving a unit from a building how how you going to do that no what what removing how is going change removed right how are you going to remove a unit for what I was going to explain is that I'm I'm not asking you I'm asking I'm asking actually the man who give it you the foundation or the person who give the foundation like putting a bedroom in a in a in a in a boiler room putting a bed and saying here it is so take out the bed but that's not the case here I want to know the case I want to understand the case what do you mean by moving a unit you vacated vacated H vacated vacating Ving it you mean you're right you canot longer use this as if this is the case the lady should leave no I I would very much like to we are we are that's what I'm leading this is what I'm leading to but no I I can't just get rid of for 40 something years someone will rent that unit I'm trying I'm trying to help you that's that's the thing and I'm trying to figure out what this mean and how it be done so there's there's nothing that makes this unit special that it's supposed to be the one that has to have the violations so all of them should go they all should have violations or like as you said the whole building so sticking into this one unit makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever and if we're still going to continue with this then we should just dismiss it because it just sounds crazy either the building should be have a violation or they're not supposed to have cosos according to what you said but like Vinnie said until we could get you could get your hands around that issue whether even cosos were required that time period to give you that opportunity to do that I think should be granted by us getting rid of this today and and if it turn comes back that there is a violation at some point that'll come up again right we'll get to the bottom of it when we have more more clear information about it then we'll make a decision when that come if if it if it even gets to us it might even be something for the construction board of appeals or something so if the if the building construction code official determines that a CO is required that violation is through the building department that's what I'm saying so it might be the a cour we're making the decision with something that's not even on court it's a legal it's a legal issue so what what you probably should do is go to the construction code official and ask if you need a CO because the next wise tenant is going to say I don't have to pay rent because I don't have a CO I have an asked I have an asked Direct to your note that's what we're going to do tomorrow so this way we don't have this issue but I would apprec we would respectfully request and appreciate if just this case this one ticket can be dismissed tell Judge Jimenez you know come on we have enough forecast stop it I was just there two days ago on another case he's a very nice judge but he's just covering himself there's an open violation he said North Bergen in their tax appeals judge men is so he's very well familiar with tax appeals when was in private practice so somebody want to make a motion to just does anybody want to make a motion I'll make a motion dismiss dismiss um case um where am I at here um number nine number nine yeah number nine to dismiss case uh z223 d23 um do I hear does someone want to make a motion to dis dismiss that I'll make the motion to dismiss can I get a second okay um okay Tanya on the motion to dismiss the appeal uh Vice chair ruho yes yes okay uh commissioner sui yes commissioner shadid no commissioner Baron yes solution commissioner Allen yes commissioner Patel yes chair Coyle no motion carries five in favor to oppose none abstain okay thank you thank you take care okay um our next case is uh z22 D 8918 Glennwood Avenue Iris are you okay or do you need a you're okay okay by the way what what happened to this the word dismissed would that mean the violation dismissed was here for this right or did he just leave I don't know you say that yeah but this is also very difficult but he has to go to construction because they should know Mr what happened to disappeared [Laughter] yeah okay all right okay all right good evening everybody um chair members of the board commissioner uh Mr leagle Miss Marion core reporter uh good to see everybody first of all in person I know it's been a few years since we have and there have been some changed faces so uh on behalf of the applicant Benjamin we of prime and tuel uh we're here this evening seeking minor sight plan and D1 use variants uh approval in order to construct a residential development on what is currently a vacant piece of property located at 128 Glenwood Avenue which is block 13204 lot 58 the issue with this lot in particular is uh it's one of several yeah yeah no I'm I'm sorry go ahead have F oh would you like to have our affidavit page Mark first and foremost might want to form like Harry Vermont yeah you know we were just discussing not not this case but uh the gentleman uh before from uh Mr Joseph's office has another case here that we were going to do and I guess he just left the room so I don't know if anybody's here a case z23 D28 which is 312 Fairmont Avenue I don't know but Mr leag I will say I actually spoke to Mr Joseph yesterday um no he was here you saw him here before Mr Higgins was here but I Higgins but isn't he from that office he is but I had spoken to Mr Joseph yesterday on a completely unrelated matter and he did indicate to me that he was not himself planning to be here this evening and uh so I don't know if he was going to present that particular case but if so I I Mr Higgins just emailed me and said that he respectfully requests to carry I guess he wasn't ready to proceed is that the idea I I not sure but I just got it car to when when's our next board meeting February 8th February 8th so case z 23-28 will carry to February what did you say eth eth sorry got it sorry so let's start apologize with your case so we do have your notices your affidavit proof of service so uh Iris we'll mark that as A1 for this application perfect great thank you thank you so as I was saying uh the property in question located at 128 Glenwood Avenue we are seeking the D1 use variants to propose a residential uh development on the subject property the issue is that the property is currently zoned youu for the University District and it was one of several properties that uh St Peters has either sold off already or is looking or is under contract to sell off in this case my client actually does own the property outright he purchased it from St Peters I don't have the exact data in front of me but he's owned it for some time in the U zoning District if you're familiar uh which which it's exactly what it sounds like which is it's it's zoned for predominantly University uses that includes dormitories fraternity and sorority houses um meeting buildings uh parks and playgrounds things of that nature this property has been a community garden uh managed and operated and owned by St Peters for years and years and years and again it's one of the few properties that they have uh since sold off to private developer so unfortunately given the context of its U zoning um what we're here seeking is to turn this into a residential use which is uh which which is our burden of proof is to show that the site is particularly suited to the use that we're proposing as well as to show that the positive criteria which we'll go through in detail substantially outweigh the the the detri the benefits substantially outweigh the detriment and that we satisfy both the positive criteria and negative criteria which as you know for a D1 application is to show that we do meet special reasons specifically with this building uh it would contain four units which is by Design very specifically the majority this entire block is either zoned U for the zone for the University zoning District or R3 which is the other residential district that is located on this block so we have tailored this application to an R three type of use which is a four family use um because that's simply what would make sense given the zoning on the surrounding blocks and if you actually look as we'll go through in detail you'll see that the the residential uh Lots on the block are predominantly R3 there is one I believe that is still u in addition to ours but they are predominantly R3 so that's ultimately how we designed this just by way of a little bit of background this project began quite some time ago it came into my office approximately a year and a half ago or orally when the project architect and my client brought it to me we had proposed compliance with all the U zoning standards I bulked at that a little bit because as you'll note on the on the zoning table which you might have the U zoning districts are substantially actually more generous than your typical residential Zone uh it would have allowed for a building that went on this 140 or so foot property approximately 130 feet back so it's it would have been a substantial depth building we initially did propose that uh at my client's request we went to community meeting and uh very quickly disposed of that as simply just not in character with the R3 or or anything of that nature we subsequently had two more Community meetings and just very briefly uh managed over the course of time to reduce the height below uh what is permitted both in the U Zone and the R3 Zone we also added a some decorative metal railing detail to the roof uh to serve uh around the uh the roof deck on top instead of your typical parapet that runs up again to kind of elate some of that uh some of that you know more modern residential feel um we also eliminated a bedroom from each of the units so while we have four units initially we were proposing three four-bedroom units and one three-bedroom unit which we did think was appropriate even with the shortened building but nevertheless we took one bedroom out of each at the request of the community uh and lastly we have gone through approximately five or six facade iterations uh to bring what you see here this or what you see here this evening uh in into into something that more reflects that Queen an style that I think is uh I wouldn't say predominant on the Block but certainly there's a a row of several houses that do elicit that type of uh that type of look so again what we're here this evening seeking is the D1 use variants minor site plan approval for a four Family Residence um you will hear from our project architect who will walk you through the plans in detail uh how we got to where we are today and then you'll hear from our project planner as well who will seek to justify the relief um again just to provide some context as I said before this was historically owned by St Peters and it made sense as a US zoning District however being that they no longer own the property and had no interest in owning the property uh the US zoning District to to build a fraternity house or a dormatory building which we certainly could do uh likely does not make the most sense uh in the context of the rest of the uses surrounding so uh so with that Madam chair and uh Commissioners unless you have any questions of me what I'd like to do is call my first Witness okay thank you so my first witness it'll be a tandem I'm going to have Thomas leaport and I know this board is familiar with this procedure they've done it in the past Thomas leaport is our licensed architect with under whom the plans were designed and prepared and signed and sealed and Martin Moreno is the project lead designer who handled really the bulk of the work on the project and ultimately uh will it's if if he's accepted be testifying before you as to his design okay so with that I will also yeah up apologies I'll try not to get anything affected I'm a little sick yes Thomas leor last name is l a p o r ta 900 South Avenue Staten Island New York 10314 to get you qualified lorta especially because your address is in New York so just to confirm um you are a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey and have you appeared and been accepted as an expert before any other boards in the state of New Jersey yes uh I've been licensed in New Jersey for almost eight years now going on nine years and I uh presented in front of the planning board of Jersey City and orange and in Jersey and a lot in New York city so Madam chair unless you have any objection I would like to have Mr laora qualified the field of architecture okay thank you so oh and I should add also Mr laora um what Mr Moreno will testify to the plans that everybody will see this evening that they have in front of them they were prepared under your direction is that correct correct okay and that's your signature and license and seal on the on the plans correct okay and you oversaw everything that Mr Moreno ultimately designed and submitted before this board correct okay thank you all right so I'm going to ask you to take a seat and what we would do now Martin I know I've done this with before but I would get you qualified you'll be qualified well really you'll be uh testifying as a fact witness but if you can again give the board her qualification first of all I gu your name do will theuth theuth the truth so I do yes your full name my name is Martin Moreno m a r t i n m o r n o and your address uh 370 communal Avenue Jersey City New Jersey 07304 M so Martin again as a fact witness I think it would be helpful nevertheless if you could give the board the benefit of your background and your your affiliation with this project yes so I studied architecture at NGIT class of 2015 I've been working as a project manager in Jersey City for almost 10 years now since 2015 and I presented to multiple boards in New Jersey including caucus orange and Jersey City okay so we're not asking you to be sworn as an expert I will ask Madam chair if Mr Moreno can you please speak on this appli yes thank you all right so Martin I believe you're going to walk through the presentation what I would ask you to do is if there's going to be anything that you have not previously submitted at least 10 days in advance please indicate as such that we can get that marked into evidence yes we'll do okay so uh good evening everyone as mentioned my name is Martin Moreno and I am presenting on behalf of Tila portal architect PC for our project at 128 Glenwood Avenue the property is located in the University District between John of Kenny Boulevard and Westside Avenue as Illustrated in our um um zoning map on the top Center you can see my cursor let me see if I can there you go as Illustrated here in the top Center um next to our zoning map is a colored elevation of our proposed design uh we are proposing a four-story 4unit residential building and therefore requesting permission for a use variants as Mr wi previously stated we've went through many iterations of the front design um to be more in line with the neighboring properties as you can see in the working site photo in the bottom left left hand corner some of the features are very similar to that um scrolling down to the next page z101 um in the top leftand Corner we have a survey of our property as you can see is currently a vacant lot and right next to it is our uh proposed uh survey as mentioned this is in the University District which does not have a front or rear yard setback requirement so for the front what we are doing is matching our neighbors front yard setback to be more uniform with the uh neighboring homes uh for the rear yard we are proposing 44 and 1/2 ft a substantially deep rear yard for uh better coverage Green Space water tension things of that nature um for the side yard setbacks uh there is also a variance being requested given that the uh University District requires a 10-ft buffer so we are proposing a total of 5 and 1/2 foot side yard setback with two feet on one side and three and a half on the other which is very much in line with uh similar residential standards um other than that our coverage we are proposing a loot coverage of 63% Which is 177% less than the maximum allowed and to further more um elaborate on the Green Space we are also proposing a tree on front of the property per JC city um forestry standards uh also as I mentioned we are located between Westside Avenue and JFK so in the top right hand corner we have Street photos looking in the direction of both cross streets to get a better sense of you know the neighboring properties um z102 and Z103 are both uh very uh normal standards the Jersey City forestry standards and site standards that we have for our project including some details for the waste and things like that so I'll just briefly go through that and I'll move on to our floor plans so uh as mentioned we are proposing a four-story 4unit building each floor is going to consist of one residential unit each unit being three bedrooms and two bathrooms the first uh unit is located on the first floor um and it measures at 1,000 and excuse me uh measures at 1, 162.5 Square ft and has all Ada clearances also located on the first floor as you can see here is the sprinkler room for the building um the refu storage uh screened away from the public and the utilities for uh the building drawing attention to the bottom part of the sheet we have the second floor floor plan which um features unit 2 as mentioned it's also a three-bedroom two-b unit and it measures 1,941 square feet uh the main entrance will be from the front uh which I will further elaborate on once I get to the side elevations but every single unit in the building will come with a washer dryer and the mechanical for each unit will be located inside the unit for better uh maintenance convenience moving on to shade sheta a101 here we have the unit 3 and unit 4 layouts um they are very similar to the unit uh two layout on the second floor both consist of three bedroom and two bathrooms um unit unit 3 measures 1,941 ft and uniform measures 1,904 ft uni four is a little bit smaller given the front facade design which created we created a sort of a triangular Dormer um accent which a a little bit into the residential unit but other other than that the plants are very similar and each plan um each unit has um two means of egress as labeled in all the floor plans moving on to sheet a102 um the rear yard is going to serve as an exterior Green Space for unit one and unit 2 and the roof is going to serve as an exterior space for unit 3 and unit 4 um both roof Terraces will be provided with a gas line and water line hookup connection and both Ser both Terraces will also act as the main space to keep the uh AC condensers for both unit 3 and unit 4 as shown as so uh we are also providing um an Eco roof with the details being here on the right uh bottom right hand corner the reason for the E for the Eco roof um serves two purposes um both visually aesthetic it's nice to have green space up there but it will also have a function as a water retention tool and also just kind of highlight the pedestal um decking system that uh will be proposed or something very similar as such moving on to our um elevations um as we previously mentioned we went through many different iterations of the front facade design to come up with something that was a little bit more uniform with the uh neighboring buildings so certain accents that you see on the front facade such as the Triangular roofs here um the the porch the step up the bay window those are all designed to be more in line with the uh neighboring homes um in terms of the colors and the materials those were also picked to be more in line with the neighboring homes and I do have an exhibit a which is an exterior rendering which I will get to um towards the end of the presentation if okay with everyone um just to highlight the rear um the rear the rear elevation units 4 3 and two excuse me units 4 3 and two will be U will include an exterior balcony with unit one having direct access to the rear yard as mentioned both unit one and unit 2 will share the rear yard as a common exterior space to our um side elevation this is going to be the side that has 3 and a half feet of um side yard setback considered our sort of egress um our egress side our erress side elevation um showing all the windows towards the bottom here we have um in more detail the materials that are being used as mentioned we have some light blue some white some beige bricks to be more in line with neighboring homes which again I will get to once I um demonstrate exhibit a and some lighting details which can be found throughout the elevations as you see here also each elevation um is properly noted with the materials um corresponding to the legend to going on to the next elevation this is the two foot side per Co we can't really have any Windows there so this is going to be mostly siding um and then towards the bottom of the of the she we have our cross-section of the building uh demonstrating the different spaces between each unit and furthermore highlighting uh both egress paths for each unit moving on to our our proposed study of the uh streetcape as you see here in the existing site photo uh up above um like Mr why mentioned we could have designed something a little bit bigger in terms of uh masing and scale but we decided to do something that was more uniform with the neighboring homes and fit more in line with said neighboring homes I am going to just briefly go through jcmua these are jcmua standards and some just site and construction note standards but going on to exhibit uh one here is the proposed exterior elevation as mentioned we are if I can zoom in I don't know if I can see I'm sorry say this is very slow all right I'm not oh there you go oh wow apologies I'm not sure why this is going so slow as you pull up I'll just for the I think this would be exibit I believe the affidavit packes A1 yes oh my apologies so this is exhibit A2 I apologize so I'm not going to zoom in to avoid going through all that again but um for the bay window we are proposing a shingle like um siding and for the blue signing here is more um almost like a shingle siding as well which is meant to match some of the neighboring uh materials and colors as I mentioned we have for the colors we have some blue some Light Beige some um some um some whites in there so the both materials and colors were chosen to be more uniform and More in line with the neighboring homes uh and then to further elaborate on a sort of massing study as you can see here this is our working site um just to get a sense of the neighboring uh massings there's a number number of larger buildings that are around our working property but like mentioned many times throughout the presentation a lot of the design choices were meant to be more in line with these uh R homes here and Mar just for the record we'll ask that this uh this exhibit be marked as A3 and if you could just describe what the exhibit is um yeah so as mentioned this is uh continuing the massing study this is just meant to show the uh the size and scale of the nearby buildings um as you can see there's massive uh buildings of over stories larger scale much larger density um which is something that we can potentially tap into from a design standpoint but as mention we are being more in lined with our neighboring homes the neighboring um homes and to be more uniform from a design and massing standpoint AR just a couple of follow-up questions if it's okay so so first of all with respect to the zoning requirements so other than that buffer which is designed for a university use um we are fully compliant with all the Ming that is correct as you can see in the zoning analysis chart on the first page okay and out of curiosity would would we also be complying with the R3 zoning and massing standard we would yes okay all right and uh my only other question for you as well if you can jump I'm sorry if you can jump back to that that final exhibit down at the bottom the aerial photo yes sorry Miss okay all right I just wanted to highlight because I might have missed it when you if you could just point and direct to the sighting question right so as per the legend down here the working site is this red boundary indicated here in the center okay as I mentioned it is a vacant lot okay wonderful and the front yard setback again even though there's no standard in the U Zone the front yard set back we would align with with one of our neighbors is that correct correct to be more uniform as a foot or so yes as you can get as you can tell there is a sort of predominant setback throughout the street that's a little a little bit more forward more towards uh closer to the street but as mentioned we are you know matching our our setback to the neighbors to be a little more recessed back to for better coverage front yard things like that perfect all right so Madam CH that's all I have of Mr Moreno at this point Thank you thank you thank you so much so you see Cynthia Rising so should we uh want to cross-examine at the end of everything I know that that's normally what we do but given that he has his exhibit up on the computer I don't know if it would be easier for me to jump no problem right okay yes good evening Commissioners chairwoman fo um my name is Cynthia Janis I'm here tonight on behalf of Sharon and Nathan McCormack who live adjacent to this property at 13 are you finished I'm she's going to cross-examine him oh okay few questions yes yeah I have a few questions for Mr Marino sure um so I I believe you explain that you're an architectural designer would would you just tell us what an what an architectural designer does uh Works in an architectural firm under the guidance of a licensed architect I can also be labeled as a project manager um to uh create code compliant designs um or just in general any sort of schematic or anything like that for submission to cities for permits or anything along those lines okay and um what did Mr leapor do to oversee your work M every single thing that was done here was discussed with Mr leapor in regards to the floor plans the designs whenever we had Community meetings I reported back to him um so he's very familiar with the project okay um you may recall there was a prior iteration of these plans that showed an exterior fire escape as a second means of egress how did that change uh we added a an interior second means of egress which is the interior stair okay what and why did you do that because we um while a fire escape in the code and I have this from DCA in the code there's no writing that s of fire escape cannot be used as as a legal second means of ESS um there was some issues in the zoning which said fire escapes are permitted on the sidey um which I believe is still there but it wasn't really made clear that's only applicable to existing construction and not new construction um after discussing with DCA they made it very clear that while it doesn't state that it cannot be used as a fire as a second means of egress they it it is not permitted to be used as such so after we received notice from the zoning department saying that we cannot use a fire escape as a second means of ESS we redesigned the floor plans to have two interior stairs okay okay so so the so it turned out that the code does require an enclosed staircase as a second right but the code requires for four stories or or more it requires two means of eress however it doesn't make it clear that a fire escape cannot be used as a second means of eress so we did have an internal staircase as our initial means of eress and the firescape was used as our second means of egress and it was located in a sense per chapter 10 of the building code to be separated oneir of the building diagonal um the building code states that if your building is sprinklered your both um access to both egresses have to be oneir of the building diagonal so for example if your building is 100 ft from corner to corner the distance has to be 33 ft and change so our fire escape was compliant with that separation but as mentioned we then changed it after we received word from zoning that it was not permitted okay so how far apart are the two means of egress now now they they're more than compliant there has to be a minimum of oneir and okay they're way more than that okay so so I I don't I mean I didn't I tried to kind of I you know just uh eyeball it and it looked like it was about 30 feet apart but you're saying it would have to be 33 feet apart it's more Miss Cynthia as you can tell the initial one is here and the secondary one is here so it's way more than but again that was an example for or just to be clear the 100t corner corner was was an example because that's an easy number to divide by three 33 and change so um that that distance will be specified when it comes to Preparing construction documents for building permits okay but you can almost eyeball it that is more than onethird of corner to corner the separation of the of the stairs okay and aside from the two staircases are there any other means of egress on the plans no we we're only providing two which is required per code the main one is going to be used as I mentioned from the front and the secondary one would be used you know in terms of in case of emergency things like that which lead out to a code compliant um side yard setback how how about the bedroom windows or the because I I think if we if we blew that up you'd see that they're labeled as erress right so per um per NGC section 1031 we are required uh certain installation for egress windows from habitable spaces and the windows indicated on the side elevation all comply with uh the minimum opening with and the minimum opening height okay um now if there were a fire how how would someone get out from a fourth floor bedroom window into this 3-foot alley uh they would not they were if in the case of a fire God forbid um there's two sort of safety measures here that are being included one this a sprinkler system as I mentioned earlier the building is going to be sprinklered and the means of egress both per um chapter 10 once your four stories or more your egresses have to be rated two hours so those two stairs will be rated two hours okay what what is rated two hours mean uh it's a fireproof rating uh at least two hours of fireproof rating okay um what what is the height of the proposed structure uh well it's on a bit of a slope um but we are less than 4 which is the maximum permitted okay um how much less than 40 I believe uh on the front is about 2 feet and in the back is about a foot and a half okay how how does the height of this structure compare with the height of the two immediately adjacent structures uh it is going to be taller um but as I showed in the streetcape um these the streetcape here of the height of the neighboring homes were you were determined using uh various methods such as new such as Jersey City topographic uh Maps such as Google Earth imagery and on-site measurements so you could see here that it is going to be uh taller than neighboring homes and just to reiterate just to um the home here um is something that was uh recently approved as well um which is of similar height but I mean my my question was how what's the height of the adjacent structures do you have a a number or yes like I said this was concluded from using different methods so we have it's labeled um it's labeled here but it's a little hard to see and I'm having trouble zooming yeah but it will be like I said we are we are under the 40 feet maximum that's permitted um but I'm sure it will be a little bit taller than the neighboring homes okay are there steps going down to the ground floor unit uh there is yes and how how many steps do you have to go down to get get into that unit I believe it's two or three okay and did I think the plans note that it's an ADA unit what do do the are the steps ADA Compliant uh no the Ada access will be will be accessible from the sard setback so chapter four of the 2017 IAC requires or on I I think believe it's IC um requires that when you're approaching and you have a door opening that you required a minimum 42 inches wide which is what we have okay so they wouldn't get into their unit by or if if someone needed if someone were accessible and needed to access the first floor unit they would be able to do so through the side yard okay okay so um actually um I had a question for you about uh z101 a site plan there um is oh you said it's tough to zoom in it is um okay whenever I try it's yeah okay um if we could can we look at the front uh the just the yeah that's very good okay so um you testified that the front uh setback matched the adjacent structures MH it's but from from I and you tell me if I'm wrong there's a it looks like um where the adjacent properties building line ends that's where your front porch starts we are ma we are matching on if you're looking at it on the right uh the primary front facade is matching the right um bay window you mean the the porch no Miss Cynthia if you look this right here that's that hatching indicates that it's part of the building this circular hatching here and I'm believe it's evident yes you can see here it's evident in the site photo okay so is so you're You're Building because it looks in looking at that it looks like you're jetting out beyond the that's the porch is stretching out a little bit beyond but the primary um facade which I believe uh zoning States that the front yard set back has to match the primary building facade is adjacent with the uh doesn't doesn't the front building line of the proposed structure jut out to and and kind of line up with where the other where the adjacent homes porches are located I'm sorry I don't understand the your doesn't the front building line of the proposed structure jut out and and line up more with the with the porches on the adjacent structures so as I mentioned this the neighbor if you're looking at it from the street on the right has two large bay windows that's what's indicated in this hatching here so our primary facade which is this line here is matching the edge of that bay window okay MH um this this survey here which was performed by a license surveyor that's also showing the uh the sard setback too at 25.8 I'm sorry at at 25.8 and we to clarify it's front yard set back you just said s oh my apologies front yard setback correct the the building on the right is 25 Point yes the um the bay window the most farthest point is at 25.8 okay and then and then my client's home on about two foot more I believe that's 27.7 okay all right and then um just your your massing study A3 um is that in this same document um it is yes okay and this is my last question um I'm not sure what's going on here that works are you talking about this or the areial the aerial view of the entire block okay um aren't aren't the bigger buildings on much bigger Lots um that is something that I'm not aware of I'm not sure what building pertains to what lot exactly but this is more schematic purposes just to indicate the size of the neighboring buildings but but right but you you said there are a lot of bigger buildings on the on the Block didn't you yes Miss because there are as you okay and and and it's not obvious from looking at this that the bigger buildings are on much bigger Lots than the right but 128 Glenwood I can't say exactly to what lot they pertain to that's something I'm not familiar with okay all right okay that's that's it thank thank you of course no problem Madam chair can I redirect on one question sure so just uh just following up on Miss haan's last question but just to confirm and I think you stated this earlier the massing of our building complies with the zoning requirements for both the U Zone and what we think would make sense in the R3 zone is that correct that is correct yes residential building that is correct yes thank you mhm okay okay are there any um individuals in the public that would like to comment on this project we have to oh I'm sorry you're not finished okay I would you like to question Mr else or is that it sure all right so with that Madam chair uh my next and intended Final witness this evening is Miss carollyn worstell of Dres Robin who's our project planner you're not getting rid of us that fast getting away I do it's Carolyn worell w r s t l l it's one ever trust Plaza Jersey City and I'm actually have a card I can just give to you thank you the witness perfect thank you so Carolyn I know you've appeared before this board several times but if you can please confirm for the board that uh your license as a professional planner is in good standing and Madam chair would you like Caroline to go through her uh educational professional background no we don't need that she's been before this board numerous times so your license is in good standing it is okay so I would submit missell as an expert in the field of professional planning correct we accept her qualifications all right good evening everyone nice to see you all in person um so again we're here this evening for um a D1 use variance um as we are requesting uh to put a residential use on a lot in the University District where that is not permitted um for a D1 use variant um they are permitted to be under the municipal land use law in particular cases and for special reasons and under relevant case law the Michi uh case law uh the standard for granting such variances uh with respect to the positive criteria is that the use will promote a general welfare the property is particularly suitable to accommodate the proposed use and that the proposed use can be reconciled with a zoning ordinance so um I'm going to break that down um into the individual pieces as we sort of go through this so uh with relating to site suitability so the subject property is in the U District which permits colleges and universities parks and playgrounds dormitories fraternity and sorority houses or meeting Halls so it's a fairly prescribed use that's very related to a what a university needs um however this project this property is no longer owned by University um in addition this property is a little unusual it in the size um it is a 25 ft wide approximately 140t deep lot that's about 3,581 sare ft uh that's larger than you typically see for a residential lot but it's pretty small for a University use you know if you're going to be trying to put a building with classrooms or offices or a meeting Hall where typically you're going to have a large group of people Gathering you're not going to be able to create a building footprint to allow accommodate that use on this lot and this lot is isolated we are sort of in between two properties that are currently residential uses um the other permitted uses include dormatory fraternity or sorority houses um and these are you say are more residential in character um they hold on oh yeah it fell asleep I'm apologize uh hold on you I'll just call it up later oh there we go perfect thank you sorry um so those other permitted uses dormatory fraternity sorority houses they're more residential in character they often include bedrooms bathrooms laundry rooms eating facilities um however unlike a typical residential use and a residential Zone there's no maximum density and number of units or bedrooms in the for this use in the University District um furthermore each bedroom is likely to house two or more persons uh because it's a communal living home for students this project is proposing a four family detached residential building which is not a permitted use in the University District um but it has been designed uh to be consistent um with the type of development that we think would be appropriate for this site um it has been designed to be consistent with the bulk requirements of the R3 District uh which most of the other Residential Properties on this block um are zoned for um and it's uh consistent with the overall character of this block which contains there are some you know one and two family homes but there are also um uh larger apartment houses um as well as some of the Legacy um uses from the University um there other uh the subject property is one of six narrower 25 ft uh in width Lots which are located between much larger Lots which are occupied by midrise structures um and you can obviously see that here in this this image you've got midrise structure midrise structure and then you've got these um the sort of six Lots um the five other lots are currently developed or with approved for a detach residential dwellings four of the six properties are in the R3 midrise multif family District which permits four family dwellings on Lots between 25,000 and 6,000 square ft or500 I'm sorry um so development of the subject property with a detach for a family dwelling would be consistent with the character of the block and the character of The Zone in which other properties on this uh uh block are zoned for um furthermore we believe this use is consistent um with be with the permitted dormatory fraternity or sority house use which would be permitted in the um uh University District um but we feel that um this would be a better planning alternative um as it would allow for a wider range of occupants including families and young professions Professionals in addition to students of the University um and again we also believe that this is really a very suitable use again not just due to its size but its location it is located between two residential uses um so we don't believe that you know you know the other um develop um uh types of development permitted in the the University District would be appropriate for this a lot um I believe this uh uh development would promote the general welfare by advancing purposes in Municipal land use law um you know it is um an appropriate use for this lot as I've just discussed um because it will create a residential use um which is in character with other residential uses along the block um it will um create um a proposed will create adequate light air and open space um this property does provide setbacks that either meet or exceed the standards for residential use in the R3 District um so that would be very consistent in providing the the types of light and air that residential adjacent residential dwellings should expect from a residential use um it will promote an appropriate population density um again as I said this um dwelling is going to propose um four units um it is uh consistent with the four units that would be permitted to be developed on this lot if it was in the R3 um and then the project promote a desirable visual environment through creative development um so as was just discussed by architect we did take quite a bit of time to try and design a building that took the characteristics of the historic development around it and tried to incorporate it into a new structure that um while it's it's not going to be exactly the same as as a historic structure we're trying to create something that will not be completely out of place and additionally I think this can be uh reconciled with a zoning ordinance um this variance request can be reconciled with a 2021 master plan um in that master plan there's a recommendation that the university sort of the University District be transitioned to something of an overlay Zone uh which would allow universities continue to grow and improve facilities within a defined area surrounding existing campuses without rendering existing residential or other non-university uses non-conforming we're sort of in a bit of a an opposite situation we have a university owned property that is no longer owned by University so we're looking at this sort of with a bit of a twist on it but I believe that um with this idea of this being an overlay there's this idea with an overlay you have to have an underlying Zone um and that you know the the idea would be that the overlay would include bulk regulation so that any development is consistent with the surrounding built environment um and I believe that that's what we're really trying to achieve here is a building that is consistent with the built environment of this block and with the R3 standards which would seem to be very appropriate for this block given the zoning um Elsewhere on it um this project has been designed to meet the requirements of the R3 District um the lot size of 3581 ft is consistent with what is necessary to build a four family um in the R3 District the height uh is at four stories and approximately 38 ft is less than the four stories and 42 ft that would be permitted in an R3 District uh the front yard setback at 25.8 FT um is is consistent with the with the um requirements in the R3 where you're matching the setbacks um obviously as was just discussed some of these buildings have setbacks that are a little bit different you've got porches that extend beyond the uh front building line and and so there's a little bit of differences between all these buildings but in general this building is consistent with the the setback of those other structures um um the proposed uh sidey guard setback at 2 feet on one side and 5.3 feet on both is consistent with requirements for side yard setbacks in the R3 our rear yard setback at 44.5 ft exceeds requirement um of 25% uh which would require a minimum lot rear setback of 35.75 Ft so we're exceeding that we have a building coverage of 40% and we have a proposed lot coverage of 63% uh which is is significantly less than the maximum 80% which would be permitted in the R3 District um I would also like to note that that if this property was in like an R1 District which would be another potential R District um you could still potent you could still could get a for family uh residential dwelling on this building it is a very large lot that is oversized um so it it it's can you could get a four uh unit building on this lot or four development uh four units on this lot um the again the rear yard setback here at 44.5 feet exceeds the 25% requirement in the new R1 standards uh the front yard and sidey yard setbacks again would be consistent with R1 standards and again the lot coverage at 63 is less than 85% which would be permitted on the R1 um so this again um would be consistent with the two potential other R districts that that people might want to consider and think about for the lot um so in addition um to to the the bulk um or in addition to the our use require request we are requesting one um bulk variants from the U District and that's generally generally we subsume them within the the use the use um and in this particular case the bulk that we're request the bulk uh variants we're requesting is for for a minimum buffer adjacent uh to an adjacent setback um so in the University District there's a requirement you have a 10- foot setback from any um I think it's a residential Zone um or residential use and in this case we've got residential uses on both sides so it would dramatically narrow our lot to about 5et wide of the buildable area uh but in addition to that not Not only would that be a hardship but I don't believe it's really um necessary any longer to try and meet the standard because we are now trying to provide a residential use on this lot the buffer standard is intended to buffer a resident from a university use and we're not proposing a university use on this property any longer um so I believe it's very appropriate that um that that variance be subsumed within that use variance um for that um relief um and as I mentioned we we are meeting all the setbacks within R3 District um that would be appropriate for a four family residential unit and then finally looking at the negative criteria um you know granting the uh the requested variance variances would not result in a substantial detriment to the general welfare um you know we're we're looking to develop an existing vacant lot um as a detach for family dwelling um we believe that this project is um more appropriate than some of the other uses that are permitted the other developable uses that are permitted within the University District um there is going to be some improvements on the streetcape you know there's going to be a new Street tree um there will be a landscape front yard um which would uh continue to improve the streetscape and and maintain the the the streetscape of this um neighborhood um and I don't believe that granting the AC crested variances will result in a substantial impairment to the intent and purpose The Zone plan and zoning ordinance as I mentioned I I think that the um master plan really does consider um the changes to the U District to um address um these ideas of having underlying zoning and and that the universities um are expanding or Contracting and so having a fixed uh zone for them may no longer be the the most the best way to do it in the future um and then you know I believe that this this project really also advances numerous goal some of the goals of the master plan um looking at enhancing residential neighborhoods as a goal of a master plan um it speaks of of how um in the way that the city has grown that you do have areas there there are um sort of um lower um lower scale lower density areas that are have pockets of um uh higher density or or midrise apartments and that I think is what you really see here on this block um you see a real mixture of these midrise residential D you know buildings and then you've got smaller pockets of smaller buildings and that eclecticism is one of the things that makes Jersey City what it is and it makes it what an urban place is um and you know often times it they it the master plan speaks of this as providing a blueprint to encourage investments in additional housing types so I think that this building is it meets that sort of goal of encouraging additional housing types you're not going to have an apartment it's not you know a small or a smaller um typical apartment layout it's not a single family home U but it is um sort of somewhere in between and creating a different housing type that can meet the needs for both current and future residents of Jersey City and then availability of housing that is balanced and again that speaks to the idea of diversity of housing this is creating another type of housing that is maybe not here on this block um or in this neighborhood and it's creating that diversity of housing that is needed throughout the city um so I think that that this project really can meet both a positive and negative criteria that it can advance the portion you know the master plan um and that there really is no substantial um detriment to the public good okay so that's my testimony and I'm open for questions thank you so Carolyn just a couple very quick follow-ups you alluded obviously to the uh mediji standards for a D1 use variant which I think you walked through in in great detail you know not going to ask you to reiterate them I think you went through them I think you also alluded to the price vehi standards as to why we are considering R3 here as kind of the appropriate comparison um being that it is the remainder of the zoning on the Block but um but very simply the the other properties that are you know immediately surround even though we look at zoning not in a vacuum and not in a you know let's take a look at at five particular properties but the other property those five properties nevertheless um they could actually while they they exist as they do today they could actually be expanded both vertically and uh and I guess horizontally to the rear consistent with whether they're are three zoned or U zoned is that correct um so the speaking of I guess if we're just talking about the buildings that could be expanded if we're talking about the the sort of the buildings that are with in that little sort of six block stretch uh yes I think there are a number of them which um with whether you look at some of them are in University I think the one that is directly next to us I think that is technically still in the University District um so it would fall under University District standards which would allow for larger um building footprint um but you would still have the same issue of the the the setback um buffer uh but the other buildings who are on the Block that are in the R3 District um yes I mean I think some of them could potentially have be expanded um to uh uh to achieve larger Footprints under the R3 standards okay and they would also be permitted for family uses they would be prevented for family uses okay so my last question to you is in light of all the testimony you heard uh both from Mr Moreno as well as that you provided is it your professional opinion that the benefits associated with this application again in light of all the standard enumerated would substantially outweigh any detriments yes I think that this use is uh substantially more um consistent and and uh would be a better uh uh planning alternative on this lot than any of the developable uses within the U District okay thank you so Madam chair I have nothing further for Miss worstell on Direct can I can I ask a question please uh what was that building before before became vacant land uh the the lot this lot specifically I'm not sure if what was on it it's been vacant for a while yeah commissioner I'm not sure how long it's been vacant you bear with me I do actually have a sandborn map that would take back got to just locate the site yeah it was assuming this is the the the numbers are correct um actually I believe why does that vacant for for quite some time I I I don't want to miss speak I how long oh yeah I just ask I I I'm not sure how long it has been vacant but it was all was owned by the university I'm sure I'm sure it was not a part of the original I remember a case that when I know somebody I know he has a lot in that street and burn the house burned out or R down and then the university because of the law of Zone U bought that lot then the university decide to sell it to somebody and instead of using it I just want to know if this is the case or not well commissioner this looks like a manab to me right so it wasn't it wasn't vacant so to speak as Mell indicated it was a community garden so the university used before the community garden I know the community garden I even know the person who's running the community garden I just want to know before the community garden I I don't have the answer to that question thank you okay if you want to course examine and we'll hold our questions then you and I can I can see it's getting late um I feel the energy levels going down in the room um hi so good evening Miss worell how are you good evening how are you okay um so do you do you know what the our zoning ordinance states the purpose of the University District is um I mean it's to allow University uses but I don't have the exact wording okay I'm just gonna yeah I mean I can I let me if it's okay I'll read it to you and you tell me if it sounds more or less like what you recall the purpose of this district is to accommodate existing colleges and universities while preserving neighborhood stability and residential quality of life especially in areas bordering institutions of higher education does that sound familiar that is the purpose as is stated okay um and how does this new construction preserve the neighborhood stability uh it's providing a residential use in a residential neighborhood which would provide stability as a residential neighborhood okay and um what about residential quality of life know uh you're creating uh a new attractive housing um on what is currently a vacant lot um that the university is not using so I believe that that would continue to maintain uh the quality of life for the neighbor neighborhood as a residential uh neighborhood wouldn't a one or two family or even a three family dwelling also achieve the the purpose of the University zone so we're proposing for family which is a permitted use or no no I'm sorry it's not a permitted use so the University District does not have any dancity standards we are looking at the R3 which is the the density standard for some of the surrounding properties which does permit a for family use on this property okay um no and I understand you've been analogizing this or you've been analogizing your request for D1 use variants to the R3 Zone but but this this particular lot is not in the R3 zone is it no that's why we're here for a use variance okay and do you think this part of Glenwood should be rezoned to R3 that is a question for uh the city council and are are you aware of any proposal to rezone this part of Glenwood to R3 I am not to this portion of Glennwood to R3 it um I'm not aware if the city is currently contemplating rezoning this from University to R3 okay and do do you recall what the purpose of the R3 district is it's for residential housing let me purpose is to provide for a broad range of multi- I think it's supposed to be multi-unit housing in areas served by Arial streets mass transit neighborhood commercial uses and Community facilities okay so um is Glennwood an arterial Street I'm would not um I don't know the classification how the city is classified Glenwood whether it classifies at a un arterial Street or not I will say that the R3 District does exist already on this block which means that the city thinks that it is an appropriate zone for this block okay and um is is there Mass Transit on Glennwood there's not mass transit on Glennwood but there is mass transit in proximity to it on um both JFK and MLK and does Glennwood have neighborhood commercial uses no but there are neighborhood commercial uses in the proximity okay and are there any Community facilities on Glenwood AP apart from the University I mean I was going to say University would arguably be a um a a community use um I believe that there are no I'm not aware of any other sort of community uses other than the university okay so if Glenn Wood's not an arterial street it's not there's no mass transit on Glennwood it has no neighborhood commercial uses and there are no Community facilities aside from the University on Glenwood why should this part of Glennwood be considered R3 by default um so I'm I'm just going to say that um it doesn't specify that those all those things have to be present on a street in order to be uh classified as R3 says in area served by so I would say that um there does not have to be all of these things on a street in order for it to be classified as R3 and this uh lot or this area has been zoned R3 for some time and the city has not te uh to rezone it the most recent rounds of uh zoning now and is there such a thing as default zoning no okay um okay and then um just going back to you had mentioned the companion application at 124 Glenwood how did you mention that um I briefly mentioned that there were I didn't bring it up in any spef specificity um no okay um and is is this this particular project you're proposing for 128 Glennwood is it compatible with the scale form setbacks and Heights of the that cluster of uh homes uh that are in the immediate V vinity on that Northern side of Glenwood I'm just going to object to that what what exactly are you reading for Miss aan to lay that foundation for what the test is for use variants what I'm not sure I I'm following your objection some standards um that you're reading out of something and I'd like to know what you're reading out of I'm I'm actually pulled that there was a memorandum drafted by uh Patrick hburg of Hunter research um in about historic uh it's he's a city's historic preservation consultant and when the developer of this project demolished the home at 124 Glennwood um he made some recommendations about what would be appropriate on that site and I um I we can enter this memo into evidence but since Miss Rella didn't really talk about 124 I don't know if we we need to get into it that's all I was that's all I with so I apologize okay all right but I mean the the the I mean I think the question I mean did a historic preservation professional make any recommendation about what the what new construction should look like on Glenwood on this particular that was I'm not sure that I can answer that one Ben I'm not aware of any such thing okay okay [Music] um and uh do you think at at one time it's it's possible that St Peters may have plan to acquire adjacent properties um and and consolidate this lot with other surrounding Lots I cannot speak to St Peter's intentions okay all right I think that's it for me thanks got know what's okay I have nothing yeah that's to I question is okay at this time are we done does have the right to do point of order mam chair I Believe Miss haanes has her own Witnesses so what I would request is I have concluded my case in Chief with the with with the exception of I would like to reserve the right obviously to cross-examine as necessary to sum up as necessary to address any public comments as necessary but as a matter of case in Chief um that would include my case okay thank you minutes to 10 yes but we said once we start all right want to finish yeah we do Cynthia how many witnesses do you have we have one planning expert who um is walking up the quickly uh and then I've I've my the homeowners would like to briefly just address the board okay uh how many dress the board are they going to be sworn in as way yeah of yeah as fact Witnesses yes but we have we have everything timed pretty carefully so that we don't antagonize the board at this late hour um okay okay so um I'm here uh with our our planning expert Colleen mcer uh good evening hi good evening I do Colleen mcer MC GK yours address please 28 Westwood Drive Bayville New Jersey 08721 okay and um Miss mcer have you testified in front of this board had the pleasure okay um I've testified in front of multiple uh townships um I'm currently licensed I'm also a member of aicp I receive my degree in urban planning from Boston University and I've also banned the township planner for East Brunswick for 5 years and the assistant planner in Oldbridge for 10 uh until I retired uh this year and uh now I just have my firm okay um does the board accept Miss McGurk's qualifications you have any problems no OB yeah okay I have no objections okay thank you great um okay so okay thank you I'll try to keep it brief but but okay so tonight I will be discussing uh whether the application satisfies the burden of proof for the for the relief requested whether the site is particularly suited for the proposed use whether the proposed use will legitimately address a public purpose or demonstrated need and the anticipated impacts to the streetscape to the immediate neighbors to the Jersey City master plan and to the Jersey City Zoning scheme if the relief is granted the applicant is asking for a D1 use variance they are also asking for a c variance for side yard buffer from adjacent residential they actually need two for one for each side they have not asked for relief from the parking regulations which according to rsis would require eight this is a two-prong analysis is a location ideally suited for the proposed use and is the site ideally suited and is the site itself ideally suited for the proposed use the parcel in question has 25 ft of Frontage and a depth of 143 ft it is slightly more than the elongated version of the 20 by 100t lot which is the most UB ubiquitous lot in New Jersey and was used extensively in the early platting of most northern New Jersey communities a 25x 100 foot lot works well for tow houses and for other attached topographies with party walls it doesn't work as well for detached building typologies because it results in very narrow sidey setbacks but we see many examples of this typology including the notable grouping of what at one time were six single family detached structures there are now four with the parcel in question being vacant there are six other there there were six single family dwelling detached structures down the block also to the West the 200 by 100ft lot or in this case 25x 143 is poorly suited for a multi-unit Residential Building because it is far too narrow a good site for a building like this with n units facing the street would be a parcel with 80 or 90 ft of Frontage this allows a 60t wide building footprint with a double loaded Corridor which is is the most efficient layout for an elongated lot and still allow for reasonable sidey yards the fact that the lot in question is 143 ft deep does not affect these calculations when Jersey City was being urbanized if someone was looking to put up uh an apartment building with the nend units facing the street they would assemble three or more adjacent Lots in order to reach a minimum of 75 ft of Frontage if you look at the floor plans of the proposed building you will notice the surprising amount of space dedicated to internal circulation within each unit this is a very inefficient layout which results from the narrowness of the lot if you look at the old sandborn lot which is on the screen uh the sanbor fire Insurance maps of Jersey City from about a century ago you will see that the block blocking question was subdivided into lots that were in some cases 25 ft wide and in some cases had wider frontages none of the Lots were even remotely wide enough to accommodate institutional buildings so the university over time acquired adjacent lots and assembled them into lots that could accommodate the footprints of the much larger institutional buildings the university did not try to squeeze its institutional buildings into 25 foot wide Lots so while the site may be well suited in terms of providing easy access to public transit to goods and services and to other Urban amenities and therefore be suitable for housing it is clearly not particularly suited for this proposed type of housing the 4 unit structure proposed has been shoehorned into a site that is clearly too constrained to property accommodate the building the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed use would satisfy a critical public purpose does Jersey City or the region have a deficit of this type of housing units proposed in this application this has not been established if these were affordable units possibly but they are not they are proposed as straight market rate units for the general population so I don't think that we can say that they would serve a critical public purpose the plans show the first floor as ADA Compliant but the rear and front of the structure is depressed by two 2 ft and has stairs also the rear yard is not accessible since the Mac side yard is only 3.3 ft wide whereas a minimum of four feet is needed the applicants architect has said that there's a side yard entrance that makes it Ada compliable but I'm not certain how this could be since again one side has 2 feet and one side has 3.3 feet whereas 4 feet is needed Jersey City's most recent master plan November 2021 is a nicely presented document that includes a section titled Urban Design framework this section States review new development proposals for scale typology and Architectural character the city should consider the long-term impact of all new developments on the larger neighborhood street life and pedestrian movement in addition even though some buildings and areas may not be designated a historic every attempt should be made to preserve them and reflect their unique architectural character and scale in new neighborhoods uh the dwelling at 124 was in question since it's been vacant for some time I did obtain a photo of the original dwelling that says 128 oh sorry that's right okay sorry moving on then um when the master plan urges the city to make these determinations it is urging in this case the zoning board to do so as you represent the city in these proceedings so while the zoning board evaluations tend to focus on the criteria to evaluate the grounds for variances their master plan is urging you to go beyond that and to take a closer look at the long-term impacts of this proposed development on the adjacent neighborhood and streetcape and not doing so will impair the master plan the stated purpose of the University District is to accommodate existing colleges and universities while preserving neighborhood stability and residential quality of life especially in areas bordering institutions of higher education the importance of preserving neighborhood stability and residential quality of life also applies to non-university uses in this case the 4unit residential structure the building use is not permitted but it should be subject to the same test as any permitted academic use if the academic uses which are permitted are urged to respect the neighborhood stability and quality of life all the more reason for the proposed building which is not permitted to be subject to the same or perhaps enhanced level of scrutiny the master plan looked at the U Zone and did not recommend this lot or adjacent residential lots to be rezoned in fact the master plan States Beyond revisions to the U District another zoning mechanism to explore would be the creation of an overlay Zone an overlay Zone would allow the university to continue to grow with a defined area without rendering existing residential uses non-conforming underlying bulk regulations would still apply so that any development is consistent with the surrounding built environment and I've come to the opposite conclusion that this structure would not be consistent with the surrounding built environment the 2021 master plan contains a table summarizing all variances issued by this board between 2000 and 2019 for the institutional districts which comprise the university the medical and the government districts the board issued only six variances during that period of time or 4% of all variances issued so issuing variances in these districts has been exceedingly rare almost unprecedented the Jersey City master plan also contains extensive design standards the residential design standards state for example that the design and layout of buildings and parking area shall provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance and efficient Arrangement compatible with the character of surrounding development to the greatest extent possible new residential development in existing neighborhoods shall be integrated with the housing units in the adjacent area new development in existing neighborhoods shall incorporate distinctive architectural characteristics the surrounding development such as Window and Door de detailing decorative material roof style pitch height and porches while there are Victorian elements they do not satisfy this overall design standard in fact six design standards would need to be waved in the ordinance for this application to be approved the substantially larger bulk the huge blank wall and the wall with 17 Windows clearly indicate that the structure is dissimilar a building that would have had no place in this neighborhood there are quite a few designed standards in the design uh Jersey city code that are relevant to this proposal proposal but I will not go through each and every one but just a few building proportions shall be compatible with the predominant proportional relationship along a street Mass scale height orientation porches entries and parking shall be consistent with the neighborhood so I have a something I obtained on near maps that shows the building at 130 Glenwood to be approximately 40t in depth uh the building at 126 is also 40 ft and 122 40t and then at 120 it's only 30 ft this building is 73 ft in depth also monotonous I'm sorry can I when you say this building which which building are you ref the proposed 128 Glenwood structure um monotonous uninterrupted expanses of walls shall be avoided facade articulation such as recesses projections columns openings ornamentation decorative materials and colors shall be used to add text and detail that is not so along the side of the structure possibly in the front but not along the sides which is what the neighbors will also see I cannot but conclude that if this application allowed to move forward in its current Incarnation multiple design standers in the city's Land Development ordinance will be violated for no reason I appreciate the fact that the applicant has revised the plans a few times to reduce or eliminate the need for certain variant relief and to attempt to make the project better fit in with the existing single family structure streetcape for example the treatment of the facade of the proposed building is intended to M Queen an Aesthetics of the four neighboring houses and that's a nice touch but it's a symbolic gesture that does not change the fact that the proposed building given its size and bulk simply does not fit in with the surrounding streetcape queenan buildings generally do not have flat roofs with roof decks where the tenants can host Gatherings which will have a detrimental impact on the quality of life the neighbors due to noise I also appreciate the fact that if we look at the immediately surrounding area we find various buildings primarily institutional buildings which much larger building Footprints but they are also on much larger lots and they are permitted uses under this Zone the applicant is proposing use and structure that is too large and too intense for this lot there's also the question of the blank wall the Southside elevation or the left side of the proposed building it is 73 ft long with vinyl siding only 2.9 ft from the lot line that is 2828 ft of blank vinyl wall my client's house is 5T from the from that property line that means that they would basically never have any sun or light from the windows on their house and would face this wall they will be staring at a blank under Dorn wall only 7.9 ft away and definitely contrary to the city's very explicit design standards the wall on the other side of the proposed building the Northwest elevation or the right side of the building would have 17 windows the wall would be only 3.3 ft from the property line the adjacent house is virtually on the property line those neighbors would lose all privacy as well as all natural light on that side of the building as well use variances should be viewed as the exception and not something that zoning board should be handing out routinely or that applicants should feel entitled to D1 use variances according to the ML and the Jersey City Land Development regulations shall be granted only in particular cases and for special reasons without without causing substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone plan and zoning ordinance the proposed use is not an inherently beneficial use and no hardship has been invoked the applicant has argued that the site is particularly suitable and that the proposed uses would materially Advance the propos the purposes of zoning an assertion that I dispute the applicants planner invoked several purposes of the ML and supported the application um purpose e is to promote the establishment of appropriate population densities that will contribute to the well-being of persons neighborhoods Etc there are 12 buildings in this unit the buildings building is out of scale and is dissimilar to the surrounding single family dwellings purpose G to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations variety of uses according to their respective environmental requirements in order to meet the need of all New Jersey residents I have argued that this may be an appropriate location to provide additional housing but the site is not particularly suited for that purpose and the applicant has not established that there is a dire need on the part of the general public for the product they are hoping to build purpose I to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good Civic design I don't think that the proposed sidey yards and blank wall would constitute a creative development or a desirable visual environment in my opinion the proposed application does not satisfy the positive criteria I have already discussed how approving this application would compromise the city's master plan zoning ordinance and the character of the housing on either side of the site so I don't believe it satisfies the negative criteria either the applicant statement of principal points states that the balancing criteria is met since it will develop an existing lot and provide one street tree and a landscape front lawn the improvements to the streetscape are minor with regard to the buffer area not being met since the proposed use is residential the 10-ft buffer is a requirement for were permitted residential uses within this Zone like dormitor sorority and fraternity houses it is needed to separate more intense residential uses such as this one from single family dwellings like the ones adjacent to this property especially since the proposed use contains a total of 12 bedrooms and also a roof deck which will create additional noise that will impact the quality of life for the surrounding properties as to the question of whether the U zoning is effectively functionally obsolete as the university is seeking to divest its properties this is a question that should be properly addressed at the governing body not a zoning board zoning boards are not asked to Aline on whether a certain type of zoning is functionally obsolete the applicant has every right to argue their case in front of the governing body and to ask for rezoning the governing body can ask the planning board to reevaluate whether the U zoning is still relevant none of this um has been done and the master plan uh actually States additional oh sorry sorry about that none of this should interfere with the board's deliberations regarding the use variance request as I have continued is without Merit the presence of objectors at this hearing certainly indicates that the immediate neighbors's view of this application is an unwanted addition to the neighborhood which will be usually detrimental to the immediate neighborhood and will negatively impact their quality of life one of the fundamental purposes of zoning is to ensure that adequate light and air are not compromised it is impossible to look at this building and not come to the conclusion that adequate light and air will be compromised in summary it is my opinion the applicant fails to satisfy the positive or negative criteria and must therefore be denied I just had to just uh if we could go back to the the black and white photo because I I think it does answer yeah I think it does answer commissioner shad's question actually um okay um this is a photo that my client just just gave us when you asked that question that shows what had originally been on the lot at 128 and I I don't think we know exactly when it was demolished but Cynthia was this prepared by um miss mcer it it it was not and my my client cont testify about it no exception I just want to make sure that you authenticate it correctly no it it was not it was not we had her text it t us and put it in the presentation during the hearing um but I I um would do you have any objection to moving this we sort of Consolidated all our exhibits into one presentation do you have any I have no issue with that okay okay um so I'd like to move this into [Music] evidence yeah o11 okay um and I had one more I had one more question for you because at some point during your presentation you talked about there being 12 buildings in the unit and I I think 12 bedrooms okay 12 bedrooms in the building is that what you meant yes okay okay that's that's it for me okay thanks all right so good evening M mcer hello I'm glad the vibrations have stopped me too go outside anymore um how familiar are you with well I'll ask it like this have you worked on other projects recently in Jersey City either as an applicant or on an objector side I did not but I did review the city's master plan their ordinance the applicant's application and I did a site visit of Glenwood and I went around the to Highland where my uncle and my entire family used to live Okay the reason I ask is a lot of the beginning part of your testimony and I'm going to paraphrase it so correct me if I'm wrong you focused on 25 by 100 or 25 by 143 in this case not being conducive to detached residential uses is not as conducive not as conducive um would you are you aware that the typical zoning lot in the vast majority of residential zones throughout Jersey City is contemplated at 25 by by 100 I did see that in the ordinance and that that would contemplate detached residential use yes okay are you further aware that whether this is zoned as R3 or zoned as R1 or actually literally any other Zone that permits residential on a lot of this size we would be permitted four units I believe well you would be permitted four units but in the R1 Zone they only they only allow three stories okay but but talking about the density so it would be You' be permitted four units anywhere in the resid yes not in the U Zone okay so your testimony that 25 by 100 in this case 25 by 143 is not conducive to four family dwellings um is that really accurate based on the way Jersey City typically operates with all of their zones I said it's not as conducive it's better if it's a town home uh attached they function better they don't have the sidey yards that are so minimum and impact single family dwellings okay and you maintain that given that again the the bulk the setbacks for example the sidey setbacks are either meeting or in excess of again all those residential setback standards yes but there are four existing single family dwellings that that is not the norm okay and how are those dwellings zoned well one of them is in the University District and the other three are in the R3 zone so one of them the other four are in the R3 Zone sorry yeah okay so one the one that's in the U Zone um is a non-conforming use because it is res residential and that's actually your client's property correct correct okay so they have a non-conforming residential use yes it so predates the Zone but your contention is despite the fact that your clients in a university Zone have a residential use nevertheless putting a residential use in the University zone is not appropriate well the structure at 130 predates the U Zone District I'm not disputing that I'm just asking that you believe that that is poor planning your clients are in a poor planned home no The Zone changed it's an existing use and it's the style of the other Lots so it's essentially a little mini neighborhood and they were all single family dwellings and that's the the scale and type that those lots are used to even though the single family dwelling that's there is not a permitted use correct so is it fair to say that the university Zone which is the very fundamental basis of why we're here before this board we we don't with the exception of the buffer which we can talk about in more detail we don't have have bulk variances we're here before this board because we're looking to put a residential use in a university Zone that's the fundamental reason we're before this board and is it your contention that your client's owned property within the University District is is is not proper and should not be there it's a pre-existing non-conforming use it should certainly be there that's what was developed on those small Lots they were single family dwellings uh the city did a master plan re-exam they looked at the U Zone and they did not change the zone for these properties okay and what is the sidey setback from your client's property to my client's property uh going to say why don't we finish presentation I believe that your testimony was almost on the property line no that's the building on the other side it's our property is almost on the property line yeah complying at the actually more than 3.1 foot setback that would be required in any residential zone right okay okay um just I just wanted to confirm that and and get that out there you also indicated that um and again I'm I'm totally paraphrasing so m m please correct me if I'm wrong but I I scribbled it down but that the university doesn't want such uses um you talked about that uh obviously if they sold the property they're not interested in using it as University use so in your opinion um as a professional planner what is an appropriate use on this 25 by 140 given that everything you suggested in your testimony was none of the University uses were would be appropriate for this lot and no detached residential use would be appropriate for this lot what would be I I didn't say no detached residential use wouldn't be appropriate on this lot something that is less intense more in keeping with the existing structures with the existing structures in that swath of correct and that includes 124 Glenwood which was conv I forget which exhibit it was but was conveniently left off that was approved at over 80 feet because that's what the r R3 standards allow for it essentially is destabilizing these lots that were single family dwellings those six lots are now becoming destabilized so the more that you construct that is not similar to what's existing the more destabilized the homes will be but yeah with the what they propos at 124 was permitted in the R3 Zone but again this lot is in the U Zone which is why we're before the zoning board the the city looked at the master plan and they did not recommend any changes to this zone for this lot even though they recommended that the University's District become an overlay subject to the underlying Zone yes and it also recommended that it fit in with the existing environment okay so would it be would it be surprising to you if I mentioned that all those R3 zoned lots that you that you refer to that are only 40 feet deep homes or or whatnot could by right as of right be extended both deeper and actually an additional story on top and converted to four unit dwellings per the zoning that could occur but it has not okay but it could yes okay all right and on your client's property even though you'd need a variance for an expansion of a non-conforming use corre but if that was converted back to say a university office that building also could be extended further up and further back yes okay so is it fair to say that the bulk standards to which we're trying to apply whether it's the U zone or the R3 zone or the R1 zone or or pick pick any zone are actually not out of character with Jersey City as a whole correct okay thank you all right um you mentioned the design standards and you refer to to those and I will admit I don't have those in front of me I know there are a lot of them I review them periodically um but I'm not up to Snuff as much on the design standards part of when you submit an application for review and as Miss Marion knows and everybody on this board knows um when you submit the application City Planning reviews it and comes back with determinations um as to if we are in fact correct with the variances that we've requested or if there are additional deviations um be it for parking be it for design standard be it for you name it um you are familiar generally that's a General application yes okay um so being that Miss Marion um or her staff did not come up with you know deviations from the design standards um would it be fair to say that uh well of course the board is welcome to make that determination that we deviate from the design standards would it be fair to say that those are not variances no there there would be design waivers okay all right perfect I just wanted to clear that out um and then okay you also focused a lot and really this is going to be my summary question but you focused a lot on on going Point by point on Miss worstell's testimony and suggesting um you know you didn't meet uh purpose a because of this you didn't meet purpose e because of that you didn't meet purpose and so on and so forth um if you could elaborate a little bit as to why we don't meet those standards and I I only ask that because we put on extensive testimony I hope as to why we do meet those standards and with respect simply saying I don't feel you meet those standards or those positive criteria I'm just going to ask for a little bit of elaboration well for purpose E I stated that it purpose he is to promote the establishment of appropriate population densities that will contribute to the well-being of persons neighborhoods Etc and that's when I stated that this uh structure would have 12 bedrooms that the building is out of SCH scale and it's dissimilar to the existing single family dwellings in my opinion for G to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations variety of uses according to their respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of New Jersey residents so I stated that I I I've argued that this may be an appropriate location to provide additional housing but the site is not particularly suited for that purpose and the Apple has not established that there's a dire need so I stated that um the length of the building the height of the building the roof deck the lack of parking for purpose I to promote a desirable visual environment and you know they didn't meet six of the design standards so I didn't feel that they were meeting that requirement either okay so again even though um we conform with all the bulk standards no matter which residential Zone you you would put a residential use in you still don't feel that it's an appropriate use on the property to be more in conformance with what is existing correct okay so my real last question for you is what would be an appropriate use on this problem and again I just want to remind you it's a use we're not seeking a density variance we are seeking a variance for residential on this what would be an appropriate use I don't really want to design it for the applicant but I would think a three-story structure with less length would be more in conformance with the existing single family structures that are nearby but again the no Zone that would be on the property would call for the standards for the U Zone don't work with this because this is not a permitted use so they could propose whatever they feel is in scale with the adjacent surrounding structures which go beyond just those couple of houses and as we've said those there there there are other single family dwellings on this block also that are two and a half stories high that are zoned R3 R3 or the University District I'm not certain but I drove down down the street and I observe them there single family dwellings two and a half stories but that could be four stories four families potentially okay all right um Madam chair that's all I have for Miss mcer Cynthia you're not going to redirect are you no I'm not okay so we the the board here is wondering what shall we do at this hour oh okay you have your clients I do and then there are no you need this public that want speak is it 1030 it's 10:30 I'm actually happy are because we've had an expert on Deck to testify since July so I'm very happy that we got through that um I mean I'll whatever the board wants to do I mean we like to hear the looking clients still going to have to come back maybe we still got it you still have the clients no we still have the um public yeah yeah there's so do there's quite a few yeah there's quite a I mean would would anyone object how many U people from the from the audience want to come up and give it so there's quite a few right how many is that can hardly see anymore 12 dozen yeah just Mak very SAR oh my God could we rever could we reverse the order and put the public up or do you think that's okay not that I think it's inappropriate I I just don't think that what does the board want to do I mean I the board wants to come back or we can adjourn and come back or we can have Cynthia just bring her Witnesses forward and then the public can come back there on February 8th and we could vote then when don't we just he yeah I I think there was an old the case that uh we get to figure out how many people with how many people against and people canot not repeat the same uh Point uh just to say hey I'm against it I'm with it and we can finish quick we can't no I I don't know that we could do it that way well they do they do that I'm sure there's a dozen people here and I'm sure there's a dozen people who are against it um should we go well I don't know I don't know who's for it okay all right so Cy you have what about your W about her Witnesses I know my clients would be committed to coming back obviously um I'm just I feel like if there are members of the public who would be unlikely to come back at a At a next hearing maybe we could we could hear a couple of people can I offer a Sugg if it's okay what I what I would like to avoid is splitting up the Public Public I don't want to do that we're going to do I gather it just to accommodate the public is hear the public now close the public and then your clients will come back whatever that is February 8th and I think that's the best have a vote until then we'll have a vote we return on I think that's the best option let's hear the public first so who wants to come up and uh okay so if there are any members of the public would like to make comments please come up to the microphone three minutes each is it 36 minutes here we are I'm getting to work know uh a reminder that you have three minutes um you will be timed and reminded by my colleague U Mr ahed shadid when you have one minute left to speak what yeah oh thank you I I do Sandra Riley s o n d r a Riley is r i l e y please 122 Glenwood Avenue and I beg your Indulgence my mom is 105 she has attended planning board meetings that were virtual in the past she couldn't attend tonight I do have her remarks I would like to read them into the record as well as my own if you will allow that three minutes three minutes yes you can you already started pardon me okay good evening members of the zoning board I India n Edwards I'm a lifelong resident of Jersey City at 105 years of age I'm the oldest living graduate of Snyder High School and of Wilberforce University I regret that I cannot participate in person but my health restricts my ability to travel in today's world virtual meetings are a vital option for the citizens of Jersey City especially for the elderly the infirmed and working parents who have to juggle their schedules virtual meetings would ensure more CI czen participation in the important matters of zoning and planning I have dedicated my life in service to others as a social worker for the Hudson County welfare board the luant home for the agid the Jersey City Office on Aging I served as director of social services at Christ hospital for many years and also coordinated Christ Hospital's mental health program for the elderly where I advocated for accommodations for seniors and the infirmed I have lived at Glenwood Avenue at 122 Glenwood Avenue since 1957 and knew Mrs Ella barale Brown my neighbor at 120 I knew and loved my other neighbors the Phillips the SMI the the staffords the Brantley the Fishers the lock Hearts the witer shines the gra grainers the Grans the carps across the street we were a little neighborhood we helped and supported one another it broke my heart when the bulldozer knocked down the wall the beautiful trees and bushes and then the home next door at 124 it really brought tears to my eyes I'm sick at heart about the developers other plans to build a multif Family Residence at 128 where we had a beautiful community garden for so many years the developers should not be allowed to build there we need Green Space the air we breathe gets worse and worse we need more trees more plants more vegetable gardens in Jersey City we need to keep our garden spot on Glenwood Avenue to grow vegetables to feed people to grow plants and to feed feed the soil one minute we must protect and enhance our neighborhood in his poem trees Joyce Kilmer one of New Jersey's greatest poets wrote I think that I shall never see a poem lovely as a tree I pray that we will keep our community garden that's my mom thank you thank you my name is SRA Riley I'm the second daughter of India Edwards a lifelong resident in Jersey City former social worker and a current experiential learning educat minute okay yeah go thank you my roots in Jersey City are strong and deep beginning at the turn of the 20th century when both sets of grandparents moved here due to the booming railroad industry with my parents I moved to Glenwood Avenue in 1957 leaving home due to college and marriage my husband and I have lived at 122 since 1990 I am speaking on behalf of my entire family when I say that we object strongly to the plans for 128 Glenwood a multif family residence would have a delerious impact on the quality of life would further impair the already insufficient infrastructure we say no to the proposed building and Stand United in our advocacy for Green Space specifically the return of our community garden the proposed building I believe we believe is not an appropriate land use and will not promote the health safety and general welfare of our area the size scale height length and width of the 128 Holdings multi-residential unit are out of character out of align and incompatible with our historic homes the unique and lovely string of mayew terorist cottages built in 1895 this unit will not provide a desirable visual environment because of this misalignment the proposed building we view as a cruise ship it would dwarf our neighbors at 1:30 effectively blocking out sunlight shrouding their home in darkness during the afternoon hours constricting their access to adequate light air and open space rather than promoting the establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations that contribute to the well-being of persons neighborhoods and communities and preservation of the environment the proposed building will do just the opposite there are many quality of life issues involved in this project which they've approved would have a Toxic effect upon us all the proposed building would result in there being fewer trees diminished Green Space already the developer has destroyed a beautiful tree several bushes and plants that for decades had adorned the front yard of our neighbors at 124 we need to retain the little green space we have especially from 120 to 130 Glenwood Avenue minute to we need to reestablish a community garden in our unique Beloved Community a garden that was once a magical place of growth and a source of food and Beauty a place that offered Solace and hope to all who ventured there thank you thank you thank you next is there anyone else who would like to speak from the community where is the council woman oh I'm sorry hello I do right yeah my name is Natalie cback n a t h a l i e k a l BAC and I'm here for the Jersey City landmarks Conservancy oh 19 Bentley F I would like to express deep concerns regarding the proposed development which does not Advance the existing um structure the Mayu Terrace cottages at 120 to30 Glenwood F constructed in 1885 by William coffin are not just historic houses there are architectural Marvels with profound cultural significance coffen both the developer and an early Glenwood a resident designed these houses to complement the elevated terrass forming an organic harmonious hole this pattern reflects Jersey City's building history where developers first built homes for themselves before creating adjacent spec houses driven by a commitment to preserving the character character and Aesthetics of their surroundings yet these houses transcend architecture they are integral to our City's history especially within the africanamerican community as we just heard Miss India Edwards 105 years old and residing at 122 Glenwood F has lived here since 1957 her family is deeply tied with the civil rights movement of the city being active in the NAACP with lawyer and civil rights activist Raymond Brown furthermore Miss India served as the first black director of Social Services as Christ hospital until her retirement at 76 and she cared for her neighbor Miss Ella Ella barkdale residing at 120 Glennwood F Miss barkdale and her husband John Brown were pivotal figures in the Civil Rights Movement Brown a Pullman Porter whose name appears just today in the city's social media co-founded the City's first blackowned bank the couple participated in anti- lynching protests Al burkdale wrote a column for the Jersey journal in the 1920s about the life of African-Americans in the city and she introduced African-American history to our Public Schools there's more but fre minutes cannot just list all these contribution contributions we must also acknowledge the impact of the proposed development on the former community garden which formed at 128 after the cottage that once stood there was demolished this Garden was more than green it was a unifying and healing space that contributed to this neighborhood's holistic tapestry 30 second ago the developer just recently demolished the house at 124 with mature trees and a historic wall and disrupted the mayho terrorist's unity the city must ensure any new project respects the community historic Fabric and adds value eing William coffin approach let's preserve our City's Rich history especially our African-American Heritage and ensure new developments enhance our unique tapestry instead of erasing it thank you thank you um councilwoman uh Prince aray if you would like to come forward and speak I'm sorry I didn't call you before perfectly fine okay Mera Prince Ary um m i r a p r i n z hyphen a r e y okay councel woman we given you five minutes not three I you guys have already gone over an hour than we did last night at our council meeting so I will try to be as concise as possible to respect everybody your time take your time um so thank you all for the opportunity to speak with you tonight um I'm here supporting the residents of Glenwood Avenue and their disagreement that this um variant should be granted um the one thing I would like to point out is we're talking about the city's master plan is that part of the master plan is the open space master plan in the U Zone one of the permitted uses are parks and playgrounds and based on some of the testimony I've heard tonight I would think that one of the reasons why St Peters did not develop this property for dorms or office space is because they realized that this park was a value and it was a permitted use so if you look at section three in the open space master plan it's to balance amenities across I'm sorry on my glasses the open space facility and Recreation systems section 31 add or renovate Park amenities based on local demographics national and local Trends field permitting and programming needs and geographic distribution and section 3.2 transformation of pocket parks in popular neighborhoods or neighborhood locations with more active programming now in in this part of the city the closest park to this neighborhood is Lincoln Park it's a beautiful Park it's one of the best parks in the city however it is longer than a 10-minute walk from this neighborhood so I would just say that parks and playgrounds are conforming a permitted use in a U District and to consider that as you evaluate this program and this property thank you thank you thank you than work good evening I'm Eric Blair Carter my last name is spelled c a r t r my address is 59 Glennwood Avenue I do this is not a small variance that they're asking for this space in is and has been uh excuse me this space is and has been nature to us this space has been a community garden run by St Peters um and used by the community I'm not reading that this is a space that gives us Refuge it is provided pollen for the pollinators it has provided food to our neighbors it's the only green space we heard it earlier there are no Community spaces on Glennwood Avenue I watch the children who live in the neighborhood currently swing on the Gate of St Peters because they have no place to play there was a garden that they could go and work in at one point that has been taken it was purchased by a developer why because they thought they could make profits I ask this board to put people before profits when you buy a piece of land that has been given to the community or used by the community and you think well I can take this develop it and make money off of it and they're going to give me permission to do that that's that's taken things for granted I ask you all to not think about do we need need more housing yeah the nation has a housing shortage right now but building this monstrosity out of scale with dense with with what 12 bedrooms in a space that was once a one or two family home if they were building a one or two family home it would be less of an objection but this population density the deepness of the building my neighbors will be in darkness we may not have the community garden anymore but their backyards get sunlight so they won't have private Gardens I bought my house on Glennwood in 2020 If Today somebody came in and as he said oh they they're they're done for zone three or R3 you could build a bigger structure if someone came in and did that next door to me right now and blocked my sunlight and blocked my quality of life I don't know what I would do one minute okay I don't have a whole lot more to say other than please put people over profits they bought the property knowing that it was zoned you they're now asking for a variance for that you have the ability to stop that thank you thank you yes Charlene Burke C h a r l NE e b u r ke e good evening um and you were address oh sorry 56 Duncan Avenue thank you good evening Commissioners good evening good evening firstly I was going to talk here about change of of uh design of the house but I really loved the greens space talk because the university had it as a commity community garden there's opportunities in this city to purchase this and perhaps transform it we did it with Boyd mcginness park on the corner of Duncan in the boulevard when a developer wanted to build a huge building next door I was part of that convincing the city and also the county to participate it's there's unbelievable opportunities to create Green Space here that we don't have and especially as our count councilwoman uh mentioned there's a long walk to Lincoln Park and you don't have um these green opportunities St Peter's university which is my alamada their Plaza is completely concrete there is no green space even amongst that University so this would be an incredible asset if you you turn this down and the developer actually turned to the community and I would be very helpful here to convert this to a park scenario and I have mentioned this before even to the community that maybe that's an opportunity and Green Acres has lots of money available for urban spaces to be bought and created into green spes because they they know Jersey City New York Patterson we're doing big buildings but nobody's making Green Space except on rooftops and that's only for the people in that building what we need are where those people are going to meet the neighborhood people that already exist minute so I was here really going to first say the reason we became I'm involved with the historic district West Bergen East Lincoln Park and we became a historic district for for this very reason of building a house that's so out of scale with what should go there that we have an enormous wall on that one building that I used as an example to the state to get the grant for the city to create the historic district so I mean let me tell you there's a lot of people that know that kind of building doesn't belong and I ask you please do not consider consider allowing that building to go forward thank you thank you thank you thank you good evening boy um Michael Manzo yes I will Michael Mano 82 right Avenue Jersey City I kind of I'm going to start at the end and maybe I'll get to the beginning and uh I see a lot of this tonight was based on testimony with opinions and feelings and I didn't know quite the read on it until I got to the point where the two enclosed stairways were fire rated for and after within a third of the distance from here and there but the question about the windows from the bedrooms and a ladder and can they get out and no one answered that question and then the alleyway the buffer to be just about enough to be ADA Compliant that poor person in the wheelchair will get their Knuckles busted up in a wheelchair by the time they get to their destination so I hear that but I also hear people that are sitting here that call themselves a neighborhood a community this is their home and I've heard them loud and clear and I hope the board has heard them as well thank you you thank you thank you sir please raise your right hand do you swear yeah let me just see if I can I I would like this I don't want to hold it yes Sergio stiffelman s d f l m n evening truth yes and your address please 419 phont Avenue Jersey City New Jersey uh uh I had to mind a couple of comments here but given what I heard tonight I I I made a a few changes and I would like to uh initially uh respectively ask the board to to address uh the fact that uh this developer uh like many others uh bought uh a property uh zoned you to build our three right he knew that why I ask you to please frustrate that expectation do you know why because we have ordinances we can't go on like this ver Vance and this I spoke with Matt Ward right when we were walking with Tanya doing the the master plan and w b and I ask him Matt why is it that you know there are certain restraints whether by means of ordinance or by means of whatever that certain buildings should be built or are expected to be built a certain High all of a sudden they can build the double of the size of it what's behind all this you know what the answer was a judgment of your peers I suppose he was referring to you I don't know but the point is they don't address the Merit of anything it's all this and that right do you know why I've been attending to these meetings online and I am happy that I'm here in person because I haven't heard this far one single attorney for the developers one Joseph Mr wine others I don't remember the name defending any of these on the merits they can't and that's what I mean look chapter 345 of the zoning uh uh uh the zoning uh ordinances right artic article one okay says right here uh the purpose of this is like the constitution of the ordinances right this is the the the the general Provisions one minute too and uh and it says right here that that to promote establishment of appropriate population denses and concentrations that will contribute to the well-being of person's maintenance of the character of the neighborhoods preservation and the environment quality of life none of this is being address is is is a pro is an issue here everything that is here in many other parts right it's just not the basics the basics are not the Constitution is not being followed this is and then it says here where the provisions of this chapter impose greater restrictions than those imposed by other law and ordinance this is a greater restriction than what we're seeing here regulation the provisions of this chapter shall control that's it I don't think I have to say anything else Mr wine when he when he won I don't the first he lost and then somehow he won 124 his basic argument I I saw it I heard it is that it was an R3 R3 Zone R3 Zone time's up I'm sorry your time is upset what 3 minutes are over thank you thank you hello I'm I'm Pam Andes from councilman Rich Boo's office from City Hall a nde s addresses uh at City Hall 28 Grove Street I do good evening everyone I'm tired so I hope I make sense I just want to make sure you are presenting a concer yes okay so take your time councilman boano uh voted against the master plan that was presented why because Glennwood was forgotten that's his exact words and we kept on saying please wait consider Glennwood Avenue because there is a cluster of historical homes there and what does boano say what's happening we're destroying historic homes what's happening here with the lawyers and the planners they do a great job I plan to be a millionaire but life happens right and construction happens so whatever they say they was respectful it was it was great not on the mark necessarily but what they say here doesn't necessarily happen when they begin construction and that's what happened at 124 Glenwood we we unfortunately had this trust Factor but the Builder and the developer destroyed our trust the second thing is um zoning um if it's not historic cluster that we've been trying to to get for Glennwood Avenue um with the beautiful Mayu Terraces please get a chance to meet India Edwards if you can or watch the oral history project um zoning it should be R1 R2 um that gentleman there did not say that he's in a one family if you look across the street you you see these one two one or two family homes so the height does matter the purpose of variants um to request zone change is to promote General Welfare I think that's what I heard you say and you have to see if the detriments outweigh the benefits well there you're hearing a lot of detriments here um and so I want the Commissioners to really put that into consideration um again we've had a lot of problems with this developer um with uh when they stopped the water flooding began on the other property um I know Mr wine you'll say it's your fault where the historic wall would be retained and then it was knocked down by the contractor so that's an example of here we see you know what said here is respectful but what really happens is this construction is killing us so if you well if you know councilman boano he's out there at every construction site trying to stop illegal construction so I I do ask that you put that in consideration thank you very much it's been a long night thank you everyone thank you thank you is there anyone else from the public to speak really all right we'll close the public okay if there is no one else to speak I'm going to close the public portion of this meeting um and we will adjourn okay and we will adjourn at this time um and bring Cynthia and her Witnesses back and have hear the rest of the the agenda item on February 8th if okay yes so yeah thanks very much for staying so long past 10:30 so can I get a motion to some resolutions car can we vote tonight we will carry this till February 8th okay pres with preservation of notice okay um so we can the mid have resols to make okay so we have more witnesses or we can vote tonight and finish with it we have to he from C want to come up right night right yeah of course okay another half hour so we have some resolutions we need to vote on so once the public they can stay oh sure can stay and listen but um we already made a motion to carry this to February 8th we'll see you then why I know yeah to St p and the can we just do three resolutions to memorialize and then we can go home this is this is a good way okay what we did that right okay ready yes yes three resolutions the first two were heard on November 9th present on November 9th was uh acting chair aroyo commissioner shadid Bole zii Allen and park the first case um both of these cases uh passed uh six in favor and un opposed the first was case z22 d010 gng holding to LLC the address was 344 Randolf Avenue it was a uh an application for a c variance all in favor of memorializing that is I I and the second resolution uh of November 9th uh Tanya you have to uh wherever you are Tanya you have to just change the the the uh the resolutions uh they have the wrong acting chair they have the wrong chair on this resolution but anyway in this resolution again same six Commissioners this uh case was Z 20 23-16 Emanuel gome 309 Chapel Avenue it was an application again for a c variance that passed six in favor none opposed all in favor of memorializing that and the last one October 26th uh this resolution pass seven in favor none opposed uh acting chairwoman aroya was there again and Commissioners shadid Brown Patel Allan Bole and Zi were present the cases z223 d003 the junto club it was a D3 variance uh for a Devi deviation was uh 292 Barrow Street again that pass seven in favor none opposed all in favor of memorializing that is so can we have a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn we second it good night all in favor hi meeting adjourned okay thank