The Hamilton Park historic district was the focal point of a controversial proposal to expand a historic farmhouse. The applicant, Mr. Harrington, with the support of his engineer Mr. Chan and architect Mr. Vander Mark, presented plans to restore and renovate the existing structure, increasing the number of residential units from five to eight. Although the project had already secured approval from the Historic Preservation Commission, it faced scrutiny from board members and the public regarding its impact on the historic district’s character, stormwater management, and potential effects on neighboring properties’ stability and water safety.

Public testimony brought forward concerns about the excavation and regrading processes, along with questions about the project’s compliance with building codes and stormwater management requirements. Neighbors expressed fears about water penetration and drainage issues, particularly due to the proposed permeable pavers and their effect on natural drainage and building foundations. The board engaged in a review of these concerns, with a representative for the project assuring compliance with the building code and oversight from the Municipal Utilities Authority during construction.

Another hot-button case involved the property on Bower Street, where the applicant sought a D1 use variance for a mixed-use development in a residential zone. This ambitious project, presented by an architect and a professional planner, proposed adding two stories of residential units above an existing commercial building, focusing on facade improvements and a green roof system for environmental and aesthetic benefits. Despite concerns raised by a public member, Anthony Nitki, regarding privacy and safety impacts on neighboring properties, the board voted to approve the case with conditions, acknowledging the challenges posed by the lot’s size and layout.

The most debate of the meeting revolved around the property on Clifton Place. The board grappled with a violation issued against apartment 2A, which was deemed illegal and ordered to be removed. The property owner’s attorney provided evidence of the apartment’s long-standing occupancy and registration as a residential unit, asserting that no new units had been added to the building. Board members questioned why only apartment 2A was targeted and probed into discrepancies in tax records. The zoning officer insisted on the importance of adhering to zoning regulations, and despite the owner’s appeal for dismissal of the violation, the board left the matter unresolved, seeking further review and clarification.

In the University District, a proposal for a four-family residence on Glenwood Avenue sparked intense deliberation. Despite efforts by the project architect, Thomas LePort, and lead designer, Martin Moreno, to comply with zoning standards and community feedback, board members identified multiple design standards that would need waivers for approval. Public comments from individuals like Sandra Riley and representatives from the Jersey City Landmarks Conservancy, like Natalie Kalbac, emphasized the need to preserve the neighborhood’s historic structures and green spaces.

Other cases discussed included a minor site plan and D1 use variances for a residential development on Glenwood Avenue, a vacant lot previously used as a community garden, and a dispute over a violation for an allegedly illegal unit at 17 units. The latter was resolved by the board voting to dismiss the violation.