The meeting addressed three interconnected cases concerning the church on Summit Avenue. The first case pertained to a one-year extension for the church’s rehabilitation and expansion, approved unanimously. This historic site, around 120 years old, is set to be renovated with an extension that adds 81 units. The need for an extension arose from the expiration of prior approvals, which occurred because the board did not hear the application on June 5. The board made it clear that this would be the final extension request.

Attention then shifted to the second case concerning a minor subdivision, allowing the separation of the church from the new construction portion. This move facilitates distinct funding sources for each component. A licensed land surveyor confirmed the subdivision’s compliance with Jersey City’s ordinance. The public had no questions, and the case was approved unanimously.

The final case was a major site plan amendment, proposing two separate buildings post-subdivision: 39 units within the church and 42 in a new structure, with parking spaces included. Notably, the original approval featured nine affordable units; however, the subdivision allows for an increase to eleven units, all designated for low-income households at 50% of the Area Median Income or less. The board approved this amendment unanimously, with no public comments during the meeting.

The board spent considerable time discussing the project’s architectural and historical aspects. Architect Christopher Wescott explained that changes mandated by historic preservation discussions led to removing two dwelling units from the church’s gallery space to preserve its integrity. Instead, one unit will be added to the clear story section. Wescott assured that the building facades remained unchanged from previous approvals and that the lofted units maintained their unique design.

The proposal includes roof terraces on both buildings and new stairwells, designed to be less visible from the street. Compliance with green space or solar panel requirements was confirmed as part of the approval process. The restoration of the church’s facade and roof, currently in disrepair, is planned, with old stone being replaced and new slate shingle roofs installed. Although the building will not function as a church, it will feature an open gallery space for public access during specific times.

Addressing variances, the subdivision has led to increased density calculations owing to smaller lot sizes. The two lots measure 16,744 square feet and 11,487 square feet, respectively, with density rising to 103 and 162 units per acre. Despite a decrease in total unit count by one from previous approvals, the recalculated lot coverage increased to 96% and 95%, exceeding the permitted 85%.

Parking requirements also necessitated variances. Bicycle parking is not proposed for the church property, which is primarily residential and gallery-focused, but 24 bicycle spaces will be available in the new structure.

The appropriateness of increased density and lot coverage was debated, with arguments suggesting the large property size justifies the subdivision, in line with municipal land use laws aimed at establishing suitable population densities. The aesthetics of the new structures were defended, emphasizing their complement to the church’s historical cues. A comparison was made to a nearby redevelopment project, showing that the proposed five-story buildings would remain lower than the church’s peak, which is the highest point on the property.

The project intends to exceed affordable housing requirements, proposing eleven affordable units when only eight are mandated. These units will cater to low to very low-income families, priced at 50% of the area median income. The developer highlighted that this initiative exceeded the requirements set by the affordable housing overlay.

A public attendee, Erica Barnes, questioned whether the number of affordable units met the necessary requirements. The response confirmed that the development exceeded the standard. She also inquired about income requirements for potential tenants, prompting a detailed explanation of AMI figures and rental costs. The developers committed to providing more precise figures, as they vary by family composition.

Community benefits beyond housing were discussed, particularly affordable commercial spaces. The applicant mentioned including a gallery space, retaining historical elements, though specifics about public access were not fully defined.

A commissioner humorously suggested restoring the church bell, sparking a light-hearted exchange about its practicality. Following the public discussion, staff emphasized adherence to historic preservation conditions. The applicant agreed to complete the church building either simultaneously with or before the new construction.