06:32:039Key among the discussions was the case of Annette Carter from 137 Arlington Avenue, who sought a C variance to allow parking between her building and the property line. Carter, who bought her home in 1995, has faced ongoing parking struggles due to a prior agreement with a builder that fell through after the builder’s death. This left her without the blacktopped driveway she expected. Over the years, Carter attempted to resolve her parking situation but encountered repeated misinformation from city officials. Facing safety concerns and a $15,000 fine imposed by Jersey City courts, Carter implored the board for urgent approval of her parking variance.

The board engaged in a dialouge with Carter, probing into her circumstances, including the history of her curb cut and the timeline of her efforts to secure parking. Carter clarified she had created a curb cut only two to three years ago and had not blacktopped her yard. The board explored the broader context of front yard parking regulations, which have evolved over decades. Despite current prohibitions, the board acknowledged the complexities Carter faced and approved her variance request, recognizing her unique situation and the potential hardships of denying her application.

01:14:57Another topic was the contentious case involving a staircase project where procedural lapses led to unauthorized construction. One board member expressed frustration that the applicant had previously received approval for part of the project but failed to adhere to guidelines for subsequent requests. Despite being clearly informed about the necessary steps, the applicant proceeded with construction without submitting plans for approval. The board member stressed the importance of procedural compliance, stating, “he should have brought the plans here first.”

01:27:26During the discussion, the applicant’s representative highlighted adjustments made to the staircase to ensure it remained within the property line, emphasizing safety and compliance. However, the representative’s arguments about common encroachments in the area and the potential benefits of the project did not sway the board. The board remained firm on upholding zoning standards and voted unanimously to deny the variance request.

28:40The meeting also addressed a site plan amendment for a property on Broadway. An attorney representing Avenue West Square LLP presented minor amendments to a previously approved project, involving interior layout adjustments and retail signage. The architect, Bruce Stevie, detailed the changes, which enhanced the project’s marketability without affecting existing variances. The board approved the amendments unanimously, recognizing them as improvements that aligned with the original approval framework.

01:03:05In another case, the board considered a proposal for transforming a dilapidated building on Beacon Avenue into three three-bedroom units, requiring a density variance. The applicant’s representative argued the project would revitalize the block and reduce non-conformity from a six-unit structure. The planner emphasized the alignment with neighborhood characteristics and municipal land use law, presenting the project as beneficial for public health and safety. The board agreed, approving the project unanimously and highlighting its potential to enhance the area’s livability.