The most topic of the meeting revolved around the fire escape design for a building featuring a glass curtain wall, which posed unique challenges for compliance with safety regulations. A witness clarified that due to the platform’s height exceeding 12 feet, a staircase rather than a ladder was required for safe egress, highlighting that the glass wall could not support ladder brackets. This design decision was central to ensuring compliance with fire safety standards.

The board reviewed documents and photographs. Witnesses asserted that the design adhered to safety standards.

The meeting also addressed the project’s compliance with the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) conditions. The HPC had previously expressed concerns over the visibility of a rooftop addition and the accurate restoration of the building’s facade, including signage. The applicant’s failure to communicate deviations from the approved plans prior to execution was highlighted as a point of contention. The preservation specialist reiterated the importance of submitting written requests for any deviations, a protocol not followed in this case. This lack of communication led to confusion and delays in addressing compliance issues.

The board scrutinized the project’s adherence to approved plans, particularly the unresolved matter of the building’s front signage, which remained a primary concern for the preservation staff. The historic preservation officer confirmed that the signage, a critical compliance element, was yet to be installed, despite being a condition for the certificate of occupancy.

Additional scrutiny was placed on discrepancies between approved plans and the constructed building. A focus was on the egress options, which generated confusion over their design and implementation. The original architectural plans included gutter ladders as a means of egress, yet these were not constructed as initially shown. The architect explained that the egress was designed to extend down the back of the building, leading to a driveway access point, but the board sought further clarification on the means of egress and its implications for safety.

The architect faced questions regarding their involvement and knowledge of the construction process, admitting limited site visits and engagement due to the project’s extended timeline. The architect emphasized that while listed on file, their retention was not practical for continuous site visits over several years, leading to periods of disengagement. This lack of continuous oversight raised concerns about deviations from the approved plans and adherence to safety standards.

George Weiner, involved in addressing the fire escape design, described his late involvement in the project, specifically tasked with creating a viable fire escape solution. The design had to navigate the constraints posed by the building’s glazed rear walls, which precluded traditional fire escape installations.

The timeline of the fire escape’s design and approval became a focal point of the discussion, with discrepancies noted between stated timelines and documentation. While Weiner confirmed approval from the Hoboken building department, the board sought to clarify the sequence of events and ensure the accuracy of records. The importance of clear communication and documentation was repeatedly emphasized to align construction practices with approved plans.