##VIDEO ID:DgjKqac9mZ0## um all the um we're calling for no deviations because everything that was already approved as a variance which is noted in our notes um is maintained right um lot area 14,41 Square ft Total Building area proposed 46,6 193 the building is six stories and 66 ft to the top of the roof deck there's 35 residential units proposed 10 one bedrooms 22 bedrooms and five Studios nice round numbers um the elev is obviously proposed so the building is completely Ada accessible and you'll see the first floor which had some uh reconfiguration but we maintain 19 parking spaces a trash room recycling residential Lobby Club room mail package room um residential storage and bike storage um parking is accessed from storms Avenue from that um uh that 25x 100 lot so you can see here I have a series of before and after plans circulation Remains the Same you'll see that we've changed the parking layout a little bit to add some amenity space and I'll zoom in there in a second um just baller lights we're just kind of showing where those are just to kind of remind the board that there's plenty of lighting in the project um trash removal uh the the trash removal plan uh has stayed the same where the trash comes out and will be taken out on that 25 by 100 lot uh onto storms um uh the basement floor has been expanded Ed to include a gym uh a yoga room as well as some additional residential storage so you can see the plan on the left just had a a fairly narrow depth now the plan on the right is a little bit deeper where we're just adding some more amenity and that is uh uh sub Subterranean right below below ground and then the other significant change uh is how we've reorganize the parking we still have 19 spaces you see there was uh a kind of proposal initially where we had the parking uh pushed to the outside walls of the building we've kind of jogged the parking now in the right plan and what that does is it allows us to create some amenity space within that floor some additional amenity space which is uh very important to the client um the green roof on the second floor has also been removed and put back up onto the roof so we have a net uh I think a net uh zero U loss there's there's uh the green roof is kind of been uh reput up there uh you can see the plans uh there's been modest changes to the residential units just because the building code has changed there were some updates to the Ada code uh but again same number of of bedrooms and units and that kind of thing um and then the roof plan you see that um whereas there were two original um sort of swaths of green roof in the front and the back we now have green roof basically everywhere we possibly can and so what we're doing doing is we're managing the storm water by taking that second floor green roof and moving it up to um uh to the the the primary roof which is on the sixth floor um and then there's just been some realignment of the windows so you can see that we had a staggered alignment initially on the west elevation those are more kind of uh uh vertical now um and then U again modest changes on on the side elevation um as well um can you slow down a little sure thank you sure so um as I said on the um on the side elevations which are the north elevations we have a lot of glazing which is really nice um you can see we have a series of um balconies uh that are maintained uh so you can see the elevation there's really not any kind of significant change there and then the East Elevation which is the back of the building um as I mentioned for the west elevation we just took these staggered windows and aligned them more vertically um um and this all um I should say this was all precipitated as Mr pillo said by um a new owner coming in and looking at things and we got into the construction with them a little bit more and these are modest changes that um that they've they've requested I don't think they um uh significantly impact the building at all um building section so you can see on the bottom there's a deeper basement I showed you in the plan and that's it okay thank you uh is there anyone from the public who has any comments about this okay if not Commissioners do we have any comments questions I I have a question I'm just wondering how the so everybody that's going to come into this building is going to come into this sidewalk and also the the uh cars as well yes so and that's that that hasn't changed uh this is as I said a very very odd-shaped lot in the city um and so uh designated a flag lot and so it's a kind of um almost like a letter P in shape right and so we have a 25 by 100 lot which in the R1 District you you could do you know a more than two family house now with the current R1 we're leaving that as just an open drive aisle and so that'll be a driveway access aisle as well as a pedestrian access to get back to the building and then um as I showed you in the uh ground floor plan we have uh the garage entry if you can see my hand here and then we have the building Lobby entry here thank you yep okay any other questions okay um if no other questions um I'm asking for a motion to approve um case z20 you have the oh I'm sorry staff staff I'm sorry just stand yeah I actually um did have one question actually for the applicant are you guys um changing the amount of compact parking spaces because I don't see them on the proposed um post floor plan for the parking spaces um I don't believe we are I think you can see that we have uh uh uh all the parking is dimension so we do have some some compact that make that up and that's on this side um uh these are uh uh full um full 9 by8 spots these are compact spots here and then we have uh compact spots in the back as well okay um staff recommends approval um continu upon the applicant agreeing to comply with the conditions um enumerated and associated with the original approval no issues complying with any of those conditions thank you staff recommends approval okay thank you okay now I'm asking for a motion uh to approve case z202 d58 I'll make a motion for approval can I get a second second commissioner zi yes commissioner Burns yes commissioner shadid yes commissioner Baron yes and vice chair aruo yes and chair Coy yes thank you all very much motion carries all in favor right thank you Commissioners have a nice you welcome take care I would like to recognize that we have a council person in our presence tonight miror prin is here welcome okay uh the next um the next uh case I was going to hear is z223 d19 136 Delware Avenue um but I understand that um most upto-date plans have not been submitted um 10 days not been submitted um and all new information is supposed to be posted 10 days prior to any of the hearings is this the case good evening uh Charles Harrington of conell Foley on behalf of the applicant I it is the case in that we have an exhibit tonight that we we were going to propose a change to the building to accommodate a concern of the community to remove some structure over the parking lot area uh that's that's the only change it was it was in direct response to a uh the concern raised by the condom condominium uh unit to the to the south of of the uh the building but but um the planning board uh zoning board Tanya and her crew have not seen this yet um to see what you're putting in for tonight uh they they have not okay yeah that's a different story yeah I think we have to postpone this thenone this well carry your notices is there anybody in the public here for 136 Delaware okay sorry uh did you see these new plans no obviously not so I yeah I don't know if they the architect has been the the um Point person uh working with the community there's been a lot of back and forth and this as I said it's a it's in response to the comments uh and concerns that that we've been trying to address okay but I I think they have to follow the proper channels and submit the paperwork okay understood so thank you uh carry to February 6th yes sorry um members of the public I I think it's best if it's on the portal everybody sees it and then when you come back you can tell us yeah you like it you don't yeah so but so the record is clear we'll preserve your notices there'll be no new notice and we'll all see you on February 6th good thank you see you then sorry thank you the next case is uh z22 d78 uh 140 Glenwood Avenue um and I don't know who's here okay hello everybody good evening uh Stephen Joseph of casano quigly chami for the applicant Dennis is coming up here now uh we'll find the right uh thing to get his laptop hooked up but while we are doing that I do have my notices here we did re notice for the new year so let's get those entered into evidence you have submitted those yet we we we did review those the notice the affidavit proof of service notice of publication so Bridget for this application will mark this as A1 no all right all right uh wild Dennis is uh getting set up here 13840 Glenwood Avenue um this is an existing four-story dormatory it's in the University zone of uh of Jersey City um the applicant plans to rehabilitate and adaptively reuse the building as a 43 unit apartment um might sound familiar there's been several other applications on the same block very similar University use converting into um dwelling units four of those 43 units will be affordable in order to accomplish this the applicant is requesting preliminary and final site plan approval um with uh D variants for use we do have Dennis deino here this night as our architect we have Sam Bellamy here as our planner and uh Dennis is going to walk us through the plans you ready to go I get let's get you uh sworn in as soon as you pull plans all right right y you swear or affirm the testimony proceeding truth the whole talk about the truth I do St SP your full name Dennis two NS D NN I deino de V and Victor IO thank you all right uh Dennis has been qualified before this board many times I would ask the board again accept his uh qualifications and my license is current thank you well all right thank you and happy New Year to everyone we have uh your messages here we go yeah okay um all righty I think we probably all know the building this is one of four on Glenwood Avenue that St Peters um has sold um and um this is item this is the third one that we're presenting to the board 104 Jeff uh Glenwood was the first 146 was the second and 138 which is this one uh is now the the third um building that were're before this Bo board about uh and again it's mainly about uh the use variants U the area of course is zoned uh for University dormatory is permitted in University I've put this on a record before this board uh and I think it's important to do it again is that uh even though it's a change of use in the zoning it's really it's not a change of use as far as the um the building code is requ is is concerned dormatory is considered a multif family and we are now Al just simply seeking to make the zoning a multif family so I just wanted to uh put that on a record um the building is a uh a block I'll just start with the block 13204 lot 60 um a building was uh constructed in the early 1940s St Peters purchased it uh when it was originally uh constructed it was built as a multif family as a as a um rental uh St Peters purchased it in the early 80s and converted it to dormitories um and um and has now decided to sell it um if uh I think they actually not to plagiarize the uh uh staff report but uh the report is indicates that if this location was considered an R3 it would be allowed to have um 83 uh units per acre uh this particular site at 43 total units comes through 75 units an acre so it's actually less than uh if it were uh considered an R3 Zone um um Mr deino just a clarification the R3 standard is 145 units per acre yeah 145 units an acre right exactly I'm sorry uh but it would be this particular site would end up being 83 permitted to be 83 units an acre right I I I believe so total I haven't done the math but that sounds within the ballpark more than what we're proposing that's so we'll zoom in on I guess we'll get started on um the zoning chart we go so again the variance is that the variance that we're seeking mainly is the C variance which is the um the change of use or the the change from University to multif family uh the second requirement is uh the um or the the variance would be um maximum Building height now the building height we're not changing uh everything is is essentially staying the same same amount of units all the layouts stay the same uh the building uh has uh four stories 44.5 ft so what's permitted in the zone is 40 feet but again it's an existing non-conforming um the buffer in the back of the building is uh required to be 10 ft the rear yard right now uh how it uh exists uh right now is 14' 9 in so it would be difficult if we put a 10-ft buffer there we' only end up with less than 5 foot rear yard so we're proposing a 3 and A2 inch buffer uh that buffer is completely uh um lined uh planted with uh arbiv a dense arbiv to create a a natural buffer there uh in the rear yard we're proposing a areas for a dog um dog run as well as um the other variants that we're seeking is the bicycles are required to be inside and we're proposing for them to put on the outside again this board has seen two other applications where we made the same proposal and we put the uh bicycle racks ins inside of a U or underneath a shelter the shelter design is is in the application is in the in the drawings and Dennis that's a result of uh it being an existing building and and not having an adequate accessible location building well you would have to put the bike rack in the basement that would require uh the proper Headroom it would require pulling bicycles up and down stairs and when I move forward a little bit um this building has been designed when it was originally designed it's designed in five separate sections there's five separate entrances uh each entrance covers uh either nine or or or six units the center entrance there's a total of six units that that entrance um accommodates the other four sections or quadrants if you will they're a nine one in the front left there's actually 10 cu there's one unit in the basement that's a three-bedroom which would be the three-bedroom that would be designated to one of the affordable units so we have a total of 43 um and uh that would mean that we would where where would the bicycle racks actually go you wouldn't want to put them into each individual quadrant or each individual set of stairs so we felt in order for it to be in a neutral location as well as maintaining outside and what we testified before is that there is always this concern about bicycles and electric bicycles having um you know some a fire hazard so we prefer to put them outside we created we felt we created an adequate shelter form so that is uh what the third variance uh is requesting we um total of 43 units um uh again there's no change in any of the layouts um there is a total of uh four um s uh 12 two-bedrooms 31 bedrooms and then the and then the uh the one three bedroom in the basement okay I'll just kind of sorry yeah know uh okay site plan like I mentioned most of the workers that is being proposed most of the changes to the site are being proposed to the exterior of the building we're showing a total of six trees actually I was out there today five trees have already been planted by the city or by the by the community so we'll be either either adding a tree or um um see if we can fit in a a six tree the other change that uh the community board had recommended was that we provide some sort of area for um delivery so if you notice right here right in this location right here a little bit more space here yeah I apologize my uh here in this location right here there is a an area that we're proposing to put uh deliveries that area is going to be shared by both 138 and 146 building uh we're proposing to the the existing front uh gate or fence is 7 feet 6 and 1 half to 7 feet into the right away we're proposing to take that fence down bring it into uh on on the property line G giving that uh sidewalk an additional 7 ft uh in width uh and that basically is the the the changes to the front of the building and as you can see to the rear of the building we're showing the the dense line of the vegetation on that 3 and a half foot buffer and uh the bicycle rack is the bicycle rack is uh over to the right rear right corner of the of the site and the remainder of the rear yard is is used for either dog run or or private use to the to the residents um we get this a little bit bigger yeah I had this all on a uh PowerPoint but PowerPoint wasn't working so uh this basement unit you can see there's a three-bedroom in the basement I did want to briefly show the board there's you can see one two three entrances uh in the courtyard and a total of five entrances in the courtyard and then two in the in the wing on the right right here for a total of five all right and all the all the floors are identical they're stacked except for the basement where that extra unit is there's no change in the roof lines and there's no change in the facade and Dennis the changes in the flooor plans if any how significant is is that from what's there now well there there AR aren't any changes proposed no changes except to did you make any changes to meet uh Ada just um the well the the three-bedroom already meets the ADA requirements and the wherever the um wherever the Ada units will are proposed I mean wherever the um affordable units are proposed they'll be 88 a um compliant thank you the building is completely sprinkler that was done when uh the uh School bought the building in the 80s uh completely um uh fire alarm uh system and so I know that and so as far as the facade we will be making whatever repairs are necessary to the fac to the facade uh and uh maintaining the existing windows any existing shutters so there's no change historically to the building denn you did work with the historic preservation officer on on any of yeah well you're making yeah we're not there aren't any changes to to the building so historic is um is um is is okay with u with with the application as far as I know uh as far as mail rooms um we felt that the best location would be actually again there's only nine units uh in each Quant and six in the center we felt the best thing to do is be just to locate M uh and in the in the individual right inside the uh individual entranceways and uh underneath the stairway because once you go into the entrance way you make your way up the up the um the building there's room for packages underneath the stair and there's room for mail room underneath the stair in in each uh quadrant that's there all the uh um presentation for the building sounds pretty simple Dennis um there's any questions for for Dennis or if you want to hold questions till the end we'll hold questions till the end all right let's bring up Sam now to give uh some planning testimony good evening you raise your right hand do you swear or ask about his credal yes I and your full sure Samuel Bellamy last name b e l l a m y and my Mr B you've been before the board many times we ac my license as a professional planner is uh current and in good standing great thank you great so getting right into my testimony tonight um as Mr deino stated we are asking for a D1 use variance for the multif family conversion from the current dormatory use um we are located in the University District of the city um it's mainly for St peters's University which kind of anchors this area um from Glenwood down to Montgomery Street to spanning um to JFK and uh Westside Avenue so that University Zone really encompasses that area um to the south of the subject property uh on the North side there are interspersed uh the University District as well as the R3 District um this property as being a dormatory use was zoned within the University District uh as Mr deino stated um it was constructed as originally a multi family Residential Building at 43 units um I think that was included in the tax card that was in the staff memo um prepared for this for this project so we're actually proposing the original density that was constructed on on the property I think that's evident through the minimal work that's being proposed here and really just the kind of onetoone transition from a dormatory residential type use to now a multifam um rental rental building um so in terms of the use variants I do think this site is particularly well suited for the proposed multifam use again this this building was constructed originally as a multif family use um really there's minimal work to convert the building back to that type of use within the building besides the addition of the three-bedroom unit in the basement to meet um the affordable requirements um for this building um we are consistent with those inclusionary zoning ordinance which requires a 10% affordable uh unit requirement in this building um as Mr deino stated this this property is was deemed by the historic preservation office as being historically significant so it's not able to be demolished and really since the university sold it at from the former dormatory use I think the most appropriate use for the property is a multif family uh unit building as we're proposing here um the units will really be a mix between one and two bedroom units of adequate size um within the existing building footprint we're not proposing any additions or or additional um you know improvements the interior of the building um in terms of the uh the size of the property we're at uh 24,8 56 Square ft um that's a substantially large size so in the R3 District the minimal minimum size for a multif family property is 6,000 square feet so we're well beyond that um for a lot of this size the R3 District does have a maximum density requirement of 145 units per acre um so I think as stated previously that would um yield approximately 83 units on on this property um so our proposed 43 units is much less than what would otherwise be permitted if if not this property being for uh in the you University District rather than the R3 District um and also as I stated that's consistent what was formerly uh constructed on this on this property um I think overall just the the transition between a a similar dormatory use that's was residential to multif family um the size of the property and the minimal changes required all support the um particular suitability of the site for btif family use um we are asking for a couple of bulk variances um one related to the location of the um bike parking we're proposing it to be outdoor rather than indoor interior to the building I think given the unique nature of the building where there's five different essentially entrances and really no common location for Bike Room the outdoor location is appropriate um it's behind the building out of the site and there is direct access along a gated alley way that provides for direct access to the street and and for um residents to to utilize that that bike rack location and it will be covered to protect the bikes from the elements um so I think overall it's consistent with what the intent of the requirement is um we're also asking for a a bulk variances for the buffer to residential zones again we're actually proposing a residential use the requirements really to buffer more intense University type uses from residential zones and properties and we're improving the condition by proposing a 3.6 um putot buffer with plantings along the rear property line to provide for a little more separation and uh buffering and screening to the Residential Properties to the north um I think overall the the requested bulk varant just do meet the C2 criteria where the benefits would outweigh the detriments um overall the project does promote the purposes of the municipal land use law I do think this is an appropriate use in development of the property um it's consistent with other multif family uses and densities in the area um it's nearby to the Westside Avenue commercial core and also Lincoln Park so there's other provisions of amenities in the surrounding area as well as the courtyard space on the property that provides for outdoor space for the residents of the building um as I stated we're not proposing any additions to the property so we'll maintain adequate light air and open space consistent with purpose C and overall the Adaptive reuse um type project would um conserve the historic structure and materials consistent with purpose J the municipal land use law um overall I don't see any substantial detriment to the general welfare here again I think this is a a appropriate project converting um the existing dormatory to a multif family use um that was previously um and historically on the property will meet all current building and fire codes as well as meeting the iso by providing for affordable housing I don't see a substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the Zone planner zoning ordinance as I said the surrounding area is um both University and residential in nature so I think this project will fit directly in and really it will be a seamless transition from the dormatory use to the multifam use um with that I think the uh project meets both the positive negative criteria um and I would be happy to answer any questions the board might have thank you all right um that that does conclude our direct testimony just a few you know final thoughts before we get into any questions or anything I I think I think what's important to know here is that the building has no current utility it's University's own and the university didn't want the building they sold it it's currently a vacant building used to be an apartment building my client's proposing to convert it back into an apartment building it's less density than what would be pered permitted in the R3 it's exactly what would be permitted in the R1 for his ially try to get a little closer it's exactly the density that would be permitted in the R1 for historically significant building um it's it's really the the least intense use for for the site we're not making any changes to the building we also have a favorable historic officer report uh because it is a historically significant structure we're making minimum mod modifications and I thought the staff report was favorable as well but you'll hear from staff later so if the board does have any questions um for our team we're happy to answer those now okay thank you um I think we'll hear from the uh public first is there anybody anyone in the audience who wants to make any comments okay please come to the mic um you have to state your name address um and make your comments and just raise your right you s the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding will be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do and St name and address yes Nathan McCormack n a t h an McCormack is m a c o r m a CK my address is 130 Glenwood Avenue uh Jersey City and actually my home is visible in the first slide of the evening so um thank you all for your time and your attention I'm sorry I I just want to repeat that you have three minutes and Mr Shahed will be the timekeeper and he'll let you know when you have a minute left appreciate it thank you okay thank you all for your time um there were just a couple um inaccuracies that I wanted to point out uh that I that I noticed in the staff report so in the application background and the proposal on page one it states that the proposed plans about the R3 um it fails to mention that the entire of the proposed project ABS the R1 Zone on Highland Avenue on page four the diagram for the block and the neighborhood analysis is also inaccurate lot 59 my house next door to the site and lot 58 are both zoned University not R3 as it shows our home at 1:30 Glenwood Avenue is also emitted from the spreadsheet entirely which is a single family home so again the site literally abuts our single family home not zoned R3 and the backside entirely AB buts the R1 uh while I am supportive of this property being adaptively reused I am mostly concerned about the track record with its owner thus far uh we met with Steven Joseph several times to discuss the proposed changes as a community and after several virtual meetings his clients agre aged to address the concerns of the community such as not adding a fifth Story uh his clients agreed to many of the changes however to date he has rescinded most if not all of those revisions and simply seeks to move forward with the variance my fear is that once these variances are approved he will flip the property to someone who will try to add more stories um and as an aside Hershey wiin stock has flipped several properties on our block after assuring us he was here for the long term our small one-way Street of Glennwood already faces higher density than most streets okay thank you uh faces higher density than most streets our size we ask that the board impose conditions if possible to how many units be allowed at this property please don't let this variant simply be a spoke in the wheel that allows this to become an even bigger building whose owner already has shown a disregard for the basic upkeep and maintenance the sidewalk was not shoveled during this week's snowstorm the garbage is constantly being reported on C click fix my wife has literally been chased down the street by a squatter in this building again we welcome new neighbors but we hope the owner is someone who actually maintains the property if this owner can't maintain it now why would we create a pathway for him to potentially add more units that will surely be neglected as it currently is thank you thank you thank you is there anyone else who would like to make comments from the public happy New Year or affirm the testimony yours given proceeding will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes your full name and address Charlene Burke B K and it's 56 Duncan Avenue and I'm the president of the Westside Community Alliance which has been involved in this project or attending these meetings now since the beginning and one of the Grave concerns I have not only with this but many projects like this with Developers who acquire properties then look to in this instance make a zoning change so that they can resell it is that the property sits there unsecured St Peters when they owned it they had their security system in place via cameras and their security guards 24/7 as a college this guy nothing broken windows open access through doorways I would like to see when we have developers that have properties like this one of the condition should be securing the property all entries must be secured all first floor Windows must be secured from the interior so that we don't deal with the very recent Fiesta problem that occurred on Westside Avenue where a developer converted the whole thing into illegal apartments for people who are desperate for a place to live so to me as as a community leader for the west side we have this all too often as a problem and I would really like to see this board make as their constant condition that these properties be secured properly and then add a security system they can pay for Wi-Fi if they there's electricity in this building put a security system in a camera system that has uh alerts when there's movement so that people can be caught entering this or the police could connect to it but either way because this brings down our neighborhood when this becomes a problem and it becomes us who the community that has to become the police and the enforcers or notifying the police or the building department and let me tell you enforcement is very very very difficult in this city to get people out here to make sure that it's done secured and properly closed so I would like it to be done from the beginning rather than us be the policers so thank you if you could make that a condition thank you thank you anyone else from the community um here to speak tonight you swear orir the testimon about to the truth the whole truth truth I do my name is Kayla want me to spell it uh k a y l a last name Burl b r e l l and my address is 197 Duncan Avenue Jersey City New Jersey okay good I'm the vice president of the Lincoln Park north neighborhood association and we along with McKinley Square community board as well as whsa have met multiple times over the course of a year working with the applicant who listened to our feedback and made thoughtful changes we worked towards what we trusted were common goals and then they suddenly adid those plans at this property and seem to just seek the variance which will yield millions of dollars of profit potentially with very if little Improvement to the neighborhood the notion that using a 1940s Residential Building is a simple conversion to a modern Residential Building doesn't take into consideration how much life has changed in the last 80 years there's no longer street cars uh we depend more heavily than ever on automobiles uh so you know maybe the density is the same as it was and that worked back then but I don't believe it works now uh also as mentioned this owner has neglected the property consistently filling it with garbage not of our sealing it um and they couldn't or wouldn't meet with us after changing the things that they agreed upon on our plans it's become a real eyesore and it's become dangerous um I want to thank you for your time and that's what I have to say this evening thank you thank you thank you is there anyone else no yes okay you swear or affirm the testimony proceeding be the truth whole truth yes I do Shireen McCormack s sh i r i n m a c c o r m a c k 130 Glennwood AV thank you community supports the Adaptive reuse of this historic asset uh we originally planned to speak about the error in the staff report about uh there being no trees there uh we did because of our community work um and working with councilwoman mea as well as sustainability and Forestry get those 10 trees planted in the fall of 2023 and those six trees that are in front of the property we would like to remain there protected during construction and for six new Street trees to be planted Elsewhere on the Block the required trees planted Elsewhere on the Block if those trees cannot stay there safely during construction we like them moved to another place on the Block and replanted there and then the still required New Street trees be planted in front of the property or on the Block um so um we also seek a condition for the courtyard to remain open to the public as it always has been not gated and private this would also help to serve along with the other conditions we're asking to preserve neighborhood stability and residential quality of life respective to the purpose of the U Zone especially its surroundings uh another point is that a large pile of blue stone or flagstone currently is on the front yard of the property for which we seek a condition that it be used and repurposed to create new sidewalks in front of 1381 40 Glenwood furthering the efforts of sustainability and also preserving the historic character of the property which the HP report acknowledged we would also like a condition considered for the applicant to fund the HP surveys for the property as well as the other properties that the applicant already bought and flipped at 104 Glenwood which the community spoke to support and at 146 Glennwood um they he had flipped them as others mentioned after claiming he stay longterm finally and most importantly we seek for it to be noted that many of the structures on the Block including but not limited to the m teras Cottages from okay on this block including but not limited to the Mayo Terrace Cottages from 120 to 130 Glenwood built in 1895 preate by 44 years the structure at 138 to 140 Glenwood built in 1939 um these adjacent neighboring properties predate current zoning and any and all zoning they are 1 to2 unit structures much less than the R1 Max allowances some were rezoned to R3 and to University in 2001 to encourage the university to be able to grow and consequently our small oneway block has been upzoned to become much denser than others of its size such as Highland Avenue to the to the north which abuts this property um so um we believe also that a 10- foot side buffer should always be retained no matter who comes to own the property to further the purpose of the zone and um you know R3 zity is consistently mentioned in the application and we' be very grateful if the board can please note that number one the zoning on Highland abing the property to the north is all R1 along the whole block same size as our block and number two my adjacent um property at 130 is a single family impacted heavily impacted by anything Varian is granted here and three granting this application to convert the building from former University use ma'am time is up your time is over okay thank you thank you thank thank you we hope that um the last thing I will say please is that we are um hoping that anything is that that nothing is applied for larger um than the parcel at this time thank you thank you are there any other speakers okay she um you will not be limited to three minutes yes Mera m i r a priner p r i n z hyphen a r e y you swear or affirm the testimony to given this proceeding will be the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth I do great so chair Commissioners thank you for the time to address you tonight happy New Year to everyone um I'm here in support of the residents that are here speaking on this project tonight I've also been involved in these meetings over the last year with McGinley Square community board Lincoln Park north neighborhood association and the Westside Community Alliance there has been a lot of work back and forth so I understand their frustration with the sudden change or not rather maybe not sudden but with the change in the plans from the progress they were making moving forward so I'm um supporting them asking you all to consider their thoughts and their conditions As you move forward to vote on this application thank you thank you thank you um are there any other individuals to speak okay I will then close out the public portion of this meeting um and I was going to have the Commissioners or you have something else you want to add right now questions okay um okay Commissioners do you have any comments or questions that you would like to make person I would like to know what you guys going to do about security and cleaning and how that can be a condition sure yeah it's I mean obviously unacceptable I haven't been to the property myself but I I did text with my client as I was hearing these comments he said that there are monitored security cameras that someone does call the cops every time someone trespasses on the property um but it is a vacant property and uh you know apparently the garbage has gotten out of control the squatters have gotten out of control it's it's it's not acceptable it's it's not acceptable um Jersey City does have a vacant property registration ordinance where these properties are supposed to be secured and registered with the city if they're not occupied um my understanding is my client has complied with with that but it it's clearly been a nuisance in the neighborhood so will be added as a condition we're happy with that yeah absolutely um respect to the trees somebody brought up something about the trees you comment on that too so we're we're happy to agree to that condition um I believe the condition was in addition to the trees that are already in front of the property to plant or make a payment in loot to forestry for six additional trees on the Block there's no issue with that and to do the best possible to protect the trees that are already there and if we can can't to move them or replace them okay were there any violations uh given to your client the owner of the property for any of the things that they mentioned before garbage or anything that police calls nothing speak I apologize police calls or anything like that no not to my knowledge I do know that there were violations during St peters's ownership of the property okay because that's um that's part of the city's housing code enforcement as well as well as some of the other stuff that uh obviously I like the idea of I don't know if we have the power actually when it comes to our applications to being able to insist that that happens when there's already stuff on the books requiring them to maintain this already so it is a matter of enforcement but um maybe in a future thinking about that or even councilwoman maybe there's something on the city level sounds like you could sponsor to make that a requirement of applications coming forward if possible it's a good idea okay so um I have a question um one of the speakers or two had mentioned that there were some agreements made and then when you're looking at the proposals or the plans things have changed um can you explain that to me as to what has changed and why sure the the original proposal was and we're going back two and a half maybe three years at this point and we've been working with a bunch of different people on a bunch of these properties for quite some time now so the original proposal was was more intense there were 53 units here um there were ders proposed in the property there were other modifications proposed to the property um and there were a lot of requests um from the community based on based on that level of intensity and and it it got to the point where my client could not agree to all the things being requested such as public access to the Courtyard um and and more affordable units and all of this stuff so when my client chose supposed to do instead was reduce the project um another big request was parking find somewhere to provide parking even though parking is not required and impossible to provide when you have a building you can't demolish um so my client chose to remove all the additions to the building and reduce the unit countdown to exactly what what's there now and what was there prior to the university taking ownership these plans were circulated um this has been on and off the agenda as this board knows quite a few times already um I don't think it's a these plans are new or sudden or or anything to that effect but I was listening to some of the comments and have you had discussion with the um individuals in the neighborhood about some of the things that they were talking about tonight like the trees the stone that they were talking about that maybe they could be used because it's Stone that's original or something of that sort they were talking about the stone I don't recall but yes the courtyard yes the trees um yes parking yes utilizing Courtyard for public use those have all been discussions throughout the process um the trees were happy to agree to a condition on that my client's not willing to make uh the private areas of the building accessible to the general public um I I don't know where to begin with the utilizing of the blue stone I I don't know what's there now I don't know if that could be incorporated into the public sidewalk and it still be 88 I'm I'm not sure happy to explore that with with staff I I just don't know I don't know what's there now I don't know what they're referring to with that um so I can't I don't think I could agree to that but you will agree to the securing that building right now absolutely okay I have a yeah my question is you're asking for a variant on height so um what's what's the intent of uh the intention of your height so we're not we're asking for a variance on height it's a it's an existing non-conforming uh Condition it's an existing building we're not changing the height of the building you're not okay cuz I see here variance height yes a d variance for height that was about the height D Varian is for use this is a D1 use variance related to the fact that the university Zone currently does not allow multif family residential I see okay and also you mentioned parking so okay you keep mentioning parking what are you going to what what are the tenants going to do about parking are they going to do street parking or how you going to how is that going to work out they're going to do street parking or they're not going to have cars and use public transportation um there's no feasible way to provide parking here for for this building um we're not able to modify the building to provide parking on site and the parking is also not required under the zoning my client did explore uh renting parking from St Peters but there was there was Prior litigation between my client in St Peters related to this property so those those discussions haven't gone anywhere mhm um and in addition to that you mentioned you have a 10% affordable um housing that's 43 units that's four units only you're going to have that's four units is that going to be four units that that's four units um that's two moderate two low one of those units is a three-bedroom um that's actually why that three-bedroom is in the location it is in the building because the affordable units must uh the architect signs a a a form that says the the units are ADA Compliant do you have any intention to kind of up that number other than 4% other than the four units we we don't I I do know that a a fee has to be paid for the for the three um that's that's what's required that was the application that was filed with affordable housing 10% 10% okay any other questions from the Commissioners um just just for the record cuz it seemed like some of the public has some concerns that um that if this property was flipped that there would be an ability to increase density height and all that they would have to come back here in front of this for any of that to happen period there's no way that could happen so I'm sure your client if he ever did try to flip it would make that very clear to the person who was purchasing it but you would have to come back to this board and obviously at that point you already I think see uh where some of your the obstacles would be if that were to occur and then I'm assuming that the um um these things that they all mention will be put down as conditions that that we talked about yes certainly and um has been noted and um and for certain cases where um it's not apparent whether certain things are feasible a condition can involve exploring like I I'm not an engineer and I don't know enough about sidewalk standards to know whether incorporating the blue stone is feasible or not so you can incorporate and condition involving having a discussion with staff about that and figuring out if that is feasible yeah that's why I was going to bring up how do you actually get to that that's that's like the issue like we could have wonderful discussions but like where does it does it go anywhere so would that be with I don't know would that be with engineering or something that be with engineering or something like that regard this side um so as part of review agents for projects we have um the division transportation as well as the division of traffic engineering review all projects and so we do have in-house staff expertise so rely on them then then you guys use them when you have to and just one other question about the trees are these trees that have been there for years and years are they protected by the Forestry Department or anything like that or that are in the front of the building I think they're fairly new they just PL are they I think the community was very active in in getting them planted staff or maybe even Dennis might know better than me but I I don't think they been there a very long time okay if there are no other questions from the Commissioners I'd like I just have one more um I think someone mentioned the windows weren't covered and uh you have vagrants coming in and out of those buildings is there any way you can cover those building the the windows especially on the first floor so that you don't have anybody coming in and out yeah in between you getting the the everything done absolutely yes I'm not sure what the current condition of the building is um what I know from what what my client has texted me during this hearing that the building is actively monitored um by security cameras so if the windows are not covered we agree that they'll they'll be covered between now and beginning construction and otherwise secured however else needed okay okay can we hear from the staff comments um certainly um so um the applicant is applying for a D1 use variance to allow a multif family residential use in the U Zone the Zone um currently allows the dormatory use but not the multi family residential use and the distinction there is um dormatory use specifically refers to living facilities for students um while multif family residential involves living facilities for anybody um and so subsumed under that D1 variance or the 2C variances um so um sort of at the top of the board's consideration here um should be whether that D1 variance um um meets the positive and negative criteria so a D1 variance um has to meet something called a medich standard um which refers to that the particular site in question is suitable for the proposed use um though in addition there are two aspects of this project um that meet the um P standard for what's called an inherently beneficial use and there's reduced scrutiny there related to both the provision of affordable housing and the historic preservation aspect of this project um so um uh Mr Bellamy and his testimony um went over several forms of public uh positive criteria including the fact that this site was originally multif family um it met the original density it's of the appropriate size for adjacent residential zones um it's within the R3 density requirement with of adjacent uses as well as within the the density requirement for historic um preservation uses within the also adjacent R1 and so it would meet the density standards in this case for both the R1 and the R3 um which are the two residential zones that are adjacent to this project um it's consistent with the adjacent neighborhood um it's currently vacant and is a bit of a blight in the neighborhood and returning this building to productive use um contributes positively to the character of the neighborhood and the intent of both the university zoning and the master plan in general um alongside that positive criteria comes the responsibility to prove that the um to prove negative criteria essentially that um the benefits here outweigh the detriments um and so that would involve um you know talking about um the courtyard space um making sure there's adequate light and air um the fact that they're staying within the existing footprint to not increasing the bulk or the size of the building um two things Mr Bellamy did mention in his testimony um with regards to negative criteria I do have one question for the applicant involving um the particular sort of suitability design structure with regards to unit sizes in this building and how that relates um if uh maybe Mr dinino could answer that question um where the average unit size is what do they look like in terms of square footage bedroom count and um and the suitability design of the structures related to the property lines and adjacent neighboring properties of the rear and side yards so um we've been we worked on uh multifamilies for quite a few few years in Jersey City and um we can uh if we look at the the average size of a a one-bedroom in this particular uh project it it's over 72 735 square ft that's for one-bedroom most of the one-bedrooms in the town um the average have been between 650 and 700 so I as far as one bedrooms I I believe that the um the um the square footage for one bedroom is adequate and and within uh the rentable use in Jersey City uh two bedrooms range from uh 850 to um to 1,000 square fet so um again I know this board has seen uh many multifamilies come in and uh come by uh before the board and those Square footages are you know exceed a lot of the large uh multif family and highrises that they've been putting in um in uh downtown and in Journal Square so I'm certainly um feel um that the and remember it it it was constructed in the 40s when then all these um units were of substantial size they they were designed to accommodate families not necessarily uh single people or or or um uh dormitories when um St Peters purchased it they realized that it it was because of the the large size units it was adequate for dorms and they can put more than one person in one bedroom uh so these the uh the unit size are are more than what we've seen in Jersey City in the last few years and Dennis I think you pre previously testified that the actual the site uh the site improvements that the the existing conditions have improved from from that you are going to improve the the existing conditions so for example there's currently encroachments into the public right way and there's uh less landscaping and and you're improving the relationship of the building with with the street and with yeah so as I testified earlier um the there's a currently there's a a 4 foot or 5 foot fence um in the front yard that fence is about 7 feet into the right of way well years ago we were you know the city was okay with with uh encroaching in the right of way uh so that fence is going to be taken down salvaged cuz it's it's in um it's in adequate shap adequate condition and brought back to the property line that's going to add 7 feet to the sidewalk to the front right away and so uh it it creates a um a much um um you know appealing approach to the building appealing uh streetcape so that additional 7 feet uh I'd would like to mention about the courtyard and the public access the um the original when it was a dormatory uh there was always a security gate uh so it public really didn't have access to the Courtyard there there was a matter of fact you can even actually see it in the photograph it's still there there's a security um Booth uh that kept that courtyard secure and the fact that the initial the original design of a building like this and the c-shaped design one of the main intents the of that c-shaped design was to create security and privacy into a courtyard uh by taking that away you kind of lose the initial design intent of a c-shaped type of structure so I although it um you know I understand uh why the uh you know neighborhood is looking for additional Green Space and additional it would it would really DET have a detriment to the security aspect of of of of the uh of the project thank you Dennis and uh as Dennis is looking at his presentation that was also on the on the screen there's a photograph on the first page uh that has no Street trees in front of it that photo was probably taken three years ago two and a half years ago so the was a question earlier about how old are the trees currently in front of the property two or three less than two or three years uh thank you Mr dinino thank you Mr Joseph um staff substantiates Mr doino's testimony there um regarding that um regarding the modern and comfortable nature of these units as well as the appropriate use of the courtyard as private dispense defensible space as opposed to public space being the appropriate use here um with regards to the 2C variances um so um with regards to the residential buffer um so that buffer the intent of that buffer in the zoning is to make sure the more corporate institutional uses of the University have some separation from the residential uses to manage the you know the types of noise and traffic impacts um obviously the proposed use here is not those institutional uses but a residential use um so um I believe you know in Mr Bell's testimony he pointed out that not only um is the condition not impaired here this actually improves the condition because right now or well right now the building's vacant but previously you had a college dormatory adjacent to family residential now you're going to have family residential neighboring family residential um and so you're actually seeing a more compatible use where um than the than what the zoning would allow as a standard um that north side of Glenwood is predominantly residential um the U Zone I think was essentially extended to every property that St Peters owned at the time um to streamline their institutional Master planning um that property is no longer a university property um and um perhaps the um highest and best use of the property here is misaligned with the zoning on the map um with regards to bike storage so um as Mr deino mentioned this is a um a courtyard building with what you call a point access block um so in a modern Residential Building under the standard New Jersey Building Code you would have um two entrances leading to a corridor with rooms off to the side this building is not like that you have a single entrance with a stairwell leading directly to entrances um it's a style that um one was traditionally very popular within Jersey City in the Northeast um two is very much a part of modern European building codes um and um but is not typically is not compatible with the modern New Jersey IBC building code so modern buildings don't choose for that layout it means that there's less common interior space but therefore more private interior space and often you have larger more spacious units with more windows um and so that point access block layout really really precludes the um space for bike storage inside um I think um staff thinks the proposal for covered outdoor storage in a secured area outside is very appropriate and certainly mitigates um we'd rather staff would C I think the city would rather see that than not have bike parking at all um with regards to um several comments made by the public um first staff would like to remind the board that um the concept of who owns a property is not within the jurisdiction of the board to judge in terms of approval um where the question is the what what is being proposed here and does it meet the standards to be granted the variance or not um you know I can't speak to the character of the applicant but the character of the applicant is not um under the jurisdiction of the board here um um there are with regards to parking um so as Mr Joseph mentioned um there is no parking requirement at this site All Pro projects that trigger chapter 187 the inclusionary zoning ordinance are exempt from Ball parking requirements um therefore um there is no Nexus to impose conditions related to parking here um additionally any sort of conditions related to historical preservation of other buildings in the neighborhood also lack Nexus um any conditions have to relate to um the purposes and the topic of the subject at hand which is the granting of the use variance for this building um some other potential conditions proved fruitful and I believe the board mentioned several um staff is satisfied that the positive and negotive criteria me recommends approval with conditions in the staff memo plus the additional conditions um mentioned by the board Okay Okay I uh I I would just like to list all those conditions uh just to make it easier on the record when the resol if a resolution gets drafted if you don't mind um so there's the staff conditions the standard conditions that are within the staff memo there's also the hpos report dated October 23rd 2024 that imposes U historic condition any alterations have to get reviewed by the historic officer and then we discussed this evening um a condition for the applicant to plant six new trees or make a payment in Li for six new trees in the community to protect the new trees that are in front of the property during construction um and move them or replant them if they become damaged or if that's not feasible to secure the property immediately cover all windows um to protect it from uh squatters the there's a pile of of blue stone in the courtyard the applicant will work with planning staff to figure out if it's feasible to use the blue Stone currently on the site and incorporate that into um sidewalk features in the area um and I think that's uh I think that's all the conditions I think there was one other thing about keeping the property clean that maybe this person who owns it has to send someone at least once or twice a week to make sure that garbage is not all over the property and in the street secure the property immediately immediately and maintain it and maintain that um through construction okay we we'll work with that yeah that's not on the record not on the record yeah I'm sorry I apologize for okay okay are there any other comments from the Commissioners or the staff okay um so I would like to um get a motion to approve case z22 d78 with conditions can I get a motion I make a motion with conditions can I get a second second commissioner Burns yes commissioner shadid yes commissioner zi yes commissioner Baron yes Vice chair aruo yes chair Coyle yes motion carries all in favor thank you all have a good evening thank you take a do you need a break right now you want a break okay at this time we're going to be hearing uh whenever you're ready Bridget I'll take my time you tell me if you're ready you ready okay um at this time we will be hearing case z202 4-2 uh which is 37-43 Wayne Street um and Mr Harrington um is the attorney yes uh for the record Charles Harrington of conell Foley on behalf of the applicant and we already have your notices Mr H I think so I'm trying to find our copy do we have okay we have checked it but I I I thought we Mark something here but in of marking it Bridget let's just put on the record that the notices are on the portal we have reviewed them they comply the affidavit proof of service is that what you're still looking for Mr Harrington yeah I I my assistant usually puts them in here I don't blame it on your assistant no that's not that's not that's not good that's my job to check before I leave yeah you know buck stops at you right so Anye bridg yes it's on the portal we we have reviewed it and so it'll be marked as to A1 once we get a copy in the office okay thank you that will be A1 yes okay so yeah this this application before you tonight we think it's a really great project unique project it's um uh it is seeking some um uh C variances as part of the application and and there's a d variance for a use variance but it's um it's in a van vorest historic district uh and it's it's an old church a former synagogue uh with a park a former parking lot uh directly to the west of it and and what we're proposing to do or I say we the Royal wi as my client is to uh adaptively reuse the church um and and have five five units there five residential units there and then build a new structure uh a new town it's not a townhouse because it's five units uh directly next door on the existing parking lot and the um that will tra what we're what we're doing is is proposing it as kind of a campus um so we're not we're not building on on two separate Lots we want to merge the Lots so it's 10 units on one lot that triggers one of the variances here for two principal buildings on one lot uh it also kind of works on the parking variant if we had come to the board and said we want uh we want to propose a five unit building on on lot a and a five unit building on Lot B we wouldn't be required to have any parking uh but because we're putting them together with 10 units on one lot that triggers uh parking in the historic district um then there's a few uh SE variances that are a result of uh existing conditions the height of of the existing um house of worship or former synagogue and then there's uh that that triggers also um a rear yard setback issue um as a result of the existing condition of of the house of worship um but we we do uh believe it's it's a it's a good project we have presented to the van vorce historic preservation uh committee twice once to their executive committee once to their full committee we also presented to the uh historic preservation commission for a certificate of appropriateness and that was granted uh at their meeting meeting in December um so you know we've kind of got got the blessing from um you know the the respective community and and more importantly the historic preservation Commission on on what we're propos proposing tonight um so uh with that said I I have two witnesses tonight we have our architect um Nicole Robertson's will present the the architecture and then Katherine Gregory will take you through the respective proofs okay she's I don't remember recognize her so you ask your questions Mr Harrington I I don't recall this young lady coming before us have she oh yes I believe I have really I can it's I'm getting old the memory is going but really no worries um you raise your right hand sure of course do you swear or affirm the testimony your about to giv this proceeding will be the truth the whole truth I do and if you could spell your Nicole n i o l e Robertson r o b r t s o n she's the better half of Mr Garber oh you see her earlier that's right oh well yeah we did a little oh is that see Richard he leaves you somewhere else he doesn't want to bring you in here does come more often yes Miss Robinson has appeared before this board and the planning board many many times really yeah it's the first time I'm seeing you would you like to your yes please sure um I have an undergraduate degree from Princeton University 1995 and UCLA master of architecture um 1999 and I've been a licensed architect since 2003 so going on more than 20 years and I presented before this board maybe less so but um planning board as well several times good great we accept your qualifications okay thank you nice to see you again nice to see you too I know it may have been a while so no worries okay um all right so uh as as uh Mr Harrington introduced uh we have presented this project to um the historic preservation commission um and we've also worked very closely um with the planning office to um come up with a scheme that was you know amendable to the goals of both of both of those groups as well as the community um this is a kind of preview rendering of the project that I'm going to present tonight which is um the Adaptive reuse of the existing Church um which is well known to this neighborhood and um the creation of a new construction building adjacent to the church on what is now a vacant parking lot so this is a rendered view of what we're proposing um the location of the site is on Wayne Street uh between Grove and Jersey um where're the the site is about 100 foot by 100 foot lot which is currently occupied by um church it's in the van vorce Park historic district and this is a um site plan of the existing Church which shows the building footprint and the adjacent uh parking lot which served um the church we have here a view of the existing church as it is um it actually has gone through quite a transformation since it's um uh you know original uh construction but this is what it looked like about a year ago before we started a process of um exploratory demolition uh these are some maps which show uh what existed on the site formerly uh so when the church uh was first built in 187 1873 is the date on this map when was uh the Dutch Reformed Church and adjacent to it um was an old well it was it was referred to as an as an old lady's home um adjacent to it uh in line with the other Brownstones along Wayne Street and then later um we see it as um the uh a United uh Brotherhood synagogue in 1928 map and these are images that we have of the church when it was the first reform first Reformed Church of van vorest in 1870 the historic photo on the left you can see it looks quite different from what it looked like about a year ago um uh the uh Koopa had been removed as well as the um a lot of the architectural detail at the cornice in a very articulated uh pediment and then on the right hand side is a historic photo from the um 1938 uh tax tax map um or tax photos when it was the United Brotherhood synagogue where it also went through some transformation um for for its use as that in that purpose as a place of worship um but those features a lot of those architectural features that you're seeing in both of these photos were were removed um and there was a kind of um white stucco that was applied um to the outside of the church and the and the architectural details removed this is a photo um also from the 1938 tax photo of the uh Brownstone that had existed um a residential building on where what is the parking lot um today and this was um demolished I don't know the date of when that was demolished but that was no longer there and that lot has been used as a parking lot for the church uh for some time so our zoning tabulation chart here I've highlighted uh the variances that we are seeking um first is a variance for uh principal permitted principal uses um because we are um it's an existing parking lot an existing Church we're proposing multif family residential on both Lots which is um not permitted so requires a variance and then uh two principal structures are proposed on the one lot which also requires a variance but I think as um Mr Harrington outlined after working with the planning office we determined that the the way to kind of reduce the number of variances we were looking for was to um merge the lots and really treat this as a campus um so that um we would be more compliant with the with the zoning um requirements um we have a minimum rear yard uh in which we uh you know the church the existing Church goes right up to the rear lot line so it is an ex a pre-existing non-conforming condition but our rear yard setback for the proposed new construction does comply at 30 ft um the minimum Building height or maximum Building height excuse me of the church currently exceeds so again it's it's a pre-existing non-conforming condition and that's why we say that it does not comply because the church is 41 um75 ft tall and we're allowed uh 40 ft but the proposed new construction is 39.75 ft tall so it complies um parking was another consideration here um uh because we have 10 units we're required to have 0.5 parking spaces per unit so that would be five spaces are required um but we are not proposing parking for this project um we looked at a lot of different possibilities for that and um if these were treated as two separate Lots it would actually not be permitted within a historic district um so anything below 10 dwelling units uh parking is not required so we're kind of right on the edge of that but I think working with the um historic preservation office uh it was felt most appropriate that we not um include parking in the project because it would not have been part of um the historic district and then lastly is um permitted rear yard encroachments we do have a small encroachment um 4 feet Max is allowed into the rear yard so we are complying with the 30ft rear yard setback but we do have a little bit of stair which I'll explain in the plans that does project about 3T further into the rear yard setback okay so the um the main key points I've I've kind of um been through and I think are probably best um looked at in the plans um but one of the main factors that we had to consider here with the conversion of the church into residential was the base flood elevation because the existing Church um the existing church is actually at uh uh 9 ft the base flood elevation here is at 11 so there's currently a um an occupiable basement in the church which is used for you know which was used for community services and things and we actually looked to um use that for residential we initially sought to modify the church as little as possible um that was really the goal but working with D um it's required that you know this conversion to residential requires that the uh Living Spaces are above 1 foot above base flood elevation so had to be 3et higher than the level of um the existing basement so that was one of the fundamental kind of design uh uh factors uh you know driving um you know our decision making on this project um but uh so that Bas flood elevation was critical and I think I can explain that best in the plans so this is a a demolition plan another kind of important point is that there is a kind of a one-story appendage on the existing Church which we which we are proposing to demolish um historic uh agreed that this was not a sign a historically significant part of the church it served as a kind of um uh Annex utility space and it's um this it's this kind of rectangle here at the rear of the church which um also butts up against the rear lot line we felt it was a positive to remove it and actually highlight the kind of um more important uh overall form of the church and um and it also kind of alleviates some of the um pressure that uh little structure was putting on the rear lot line in its close proximity to the neighboring properties um okay so this is the existing site plan um the um orange rectangle there solid shows there's a vehicular access gate there and then the empty triangles um show where there are pedestrian access points along this fence this is a fence that we are keeping and actually repairing Ing and restoring um so in our proposed site plan we are maintaining only pedestrian access and we're actually um restoring um and uh keeping the existing fence and restoring those pedestrian access gates our um proposed site plan um as Mr Harrington described has five units proposed inside the church and the way that we've organized them um well actually it's probably best shown when I zoom on another on another plan I can quickly just touch on lighting um we have a a proposed lighting plan which you know allows for um adequate lighting around um both buildings and especially um Illuminating uh the kind of walkway that um uh is between the new and existing uh buildings okay so the first floor plan on the left you have the um existing church and parking lot and then on the right hand side is our proposed uh site plan I'll zoom in on it a little bit so that you can see so the way that we've organized um the the church is into five units that are um cut uh east east west um so we're working with the existing geometry of the church Windows which are very prominent on the facade and we use that to organize the units kind of crosswise almost like you know slicing it um sideways so that we would detract as little as possible from the exterior of the church and then um the new construction on the right hand side you see there's they're buffered by a kind of walkway that um would serve pedestrians the main this is really the main entry point to the campus um we have here on the right hand corner of the church this is a common um space for utilities trash mailboxes bike storage um electric these kinds of things and then the rest of the space is dedicated to residential um so most of the units have their main entrance points off of this uh walkway which is 11 and 1/2 ft wide um Unit B entrance is here you enter into um the unit go up the stairs and the main living space is on the second floor there is a bedroom here at the rear of the unit which then you know and then there's access to a private um outdoor space at the back so each of these units be A B C D and E are all organized in a similar kind of way um with some internal variation just for you know uh uh diversity and Unit A is is really the only exception um in that you know in order to accommodate some of these common utility elements in this right hand corner or um of the church uh we're accessing Unit A from a private walkway um through their private outdoor space and into a door which is on the I guess the um east side of of the church and these doors are repeated along the length of the church these are all existing openings that we're just reusing and adapting to the new residential um use on the right hand side we have the new construction and what we've done is um we do not have a unit at at least at this level at ground level at the front because we are matching the um first floor level of the existing Brownstones along Wayne Street but the units two and three are one-bedroom uh one story units which um are essentially on grade they're at that 12T elevation so just slightly above and um and then above that we have uh three units units one four and five are all Triplex units but the unit up at the front um that fronts on to Wayne Street uh there's a crawl space space below it so that's what you're seeing in plan here um another feature I just want to point out is at the rear we have um a private uh what What's labeled here as unit five rear yard this is how unit five enters um their uh residential areas through a gate and up exterior stairs which then lead to what is the second floor of the building is the first floor of unit five so this was um this was this uh stair that I was referring to um we are allowed to project 4 feet into the required 30ft rear yard setback which we are meeting but we do have um about 3T of stair that is projecting beyond that 4 feet and that is um really because we're not able to push the stair any further to the right um by building code we're not allowed to be closer than 10 ft that's what this Dimension is um okay the other um thing I want to point out out on this site is that we've located all of the condensing units at the rear of the property um they're um essentially where that little accessory structure had been but we're locating them outside so that they're easy to access you don't have to you know go onto the roof or anything um they're uh protected and uh concealed by a gate or gated uh fenced in area that surrounds them and the entire site is actually um enclosed by a 6ft tall uh fence that g gives privacy to the units so this is this is private space for unit 5 and all of the units have um some form of exterior space uh private exterior space with the exception of units 3 and two which um have you know a small kind of planted area right in front of their entryway okay so that's the first floor um this drawing just points out um the setbacks we have our 30ft rear yard setback and then the new construction matches the front yard setback of the adjacent existing tow houses that front on Wayne Street and then the church is existing to remain we're not altering any of those setbacks we have the utility areas highlighted here um in Orange sprinkler room electrical room gas meter room all of these spaces trash room mail room and Bike Room are all shared spaces between the two buildings so it just reinforces that kind of Campus structure and trash removal is also handled with a kind of common um trash room and then trash would be brought out to um the sidewalk on pickup days second floor plan um so on the left hand side the second floor of the church is the um uh main kind of Nave and and worship area um which we have converted into residential by inserting a series of demising walls and this this plan actually probably shows it most clearly the organization of the units from front to back and how they relate to the existing um window openings that are on the east and west sides of of the church that was really what was um driving the design um same as this kind of tower portion that projects a little bit for unit a makes it um a little bit unique um and then uh on the new construction you can see the first level of unit one unit one is a Triplex which is accessed off of Wayne Street um it has a stoop that matches um this the Stoops that um you see along the street we actually went out and measured it and made sure that it was you know matching that we're able to match the floor Heights that our Windows would then um also uh be similar in size and and location and then we have um the first level of unit four which is accessed from the stair that is coming up um um from below that comes to the the first level which is the main living space of unit 4 and then we see the main living space of unit 5 um which is also on the second floor of the building uh third floor plan uh is you know we're utilizing the tall space of the church to um create a level with uh bedrooms that front on the east and west sides and then we put the more private uh spaces which don't require natural light in the middle as well as the stairwells and then in the new construction we have um bedrooms basically organized to take advantage of uh natural light and then the darker spaces are on the um lot line and then the fourth level of the new construction uh just shows a kind of a primary bedroom suite organization with walk-in closet large bathroom so these are um you know these are luxury units uh they're really intended for uh families so that they can stay in the downtown area um units of this size are actually pretty unusual for um for this part of Jersey City so I think it's you know really meant to encourage um families to stay and then uh this drawing here is a roof plan which shows the roof plan of the existing church we are introducing skylights into the roof of the church they're not visible from any public RightWay they're like flat um skylights which don't interfere with the Gable of the church um historic did reinforce to us that the Gable is you know a very iconic aspect of the church so we did not want to interfere with that um but we do have skylights so that we can just you know because the units are so long um they do get a little dark in the middle so we have skylights um there that bring natural light into the space and then on the new construction uh you can see private um roof deck space for units four and four and one um which are accessed by a um Sky door which is like a low uh Skylight type door so it's not a large stair bulk head or anything that would be visible from the public right away it's like a you know popup Sky door that has um um access via VIA stairs and then we have um a green grid modular green roof that runs the perimeter of that roof so these are our existing front elevations you can see how um the church uh the the um decorative detailing and kind of architectural features of the original Church were totally stripped and covered by a kind of white um stucco like material um we've removed that during a process of exploratory demo um working really closely with historic on that and we've been able to expose a lot of um kind of uh almost like through a forensic process we've been able to expose and reconstruct um the detail of the original church so this is our proposed elevation for the church um which uh you know we're looking to basically um bring it back reconstruct what what it was um in the detail of the cornice and and these architectural features like the fan window and the restoration of the stained glass um the entry door also um you know was diminished quite a lot so we're um creating uh you know recreating creting this large entry door although it is not operable it's really um not just for um kind of restoring the look of the church and and the steps and then we have our new construction which um really Echoes the rhythm of um the existing Brownstones along Wayne Street we're using a red brick which I have here um so we've found that that's the closest match to what we found on the church so the brick on the church is being um basically exposed and repaired and restored and then we're using a similar color brick for the new construction um all of the details are kind of dark dark brown color um we have Brownstone elements we've chosen different colors of mortar to highlight the front facade of the new construction so that it pops versus the um the side facade so we've um worked through a lot of details um and trying to um create something appropriate for this location existing rear elevation is pretty nondescript we're not touching the rear of the church at all except to expose the brick and then the rear elevation of the new construction does have large Windows to um to take advantage of you know as much natural light as possible the other views um of this new construction uh we really did not want to detract at all from the church so we're having the largest windows on the rear where they're not competing with one another um existing elevation of the church I'll just um move through this I know there's a lot actually this is a very detailed drawing set which we went through in great detail with historic um but I can um basically highlight that you know the existing Windows of the church that were still there although infilled with glass block um we maintained those openings the width of the openings we did um we are proposing to make them taller in order to make that um third story of the um adaptive reuse of the residential space actually meet the requirements for natural light so we've raised the height of the um the window header um so there has been some adjustment to that but overall we feel that you know keeping the um rhythm of these windows and proportions is is most critical our so the elevations are quite similar the East and West elevations of the church are very similar and you can see the um the proposed windows with um you know divided lights operable um operable panels and then we have um the glass doors below which um align uh the ele proposed elevation for 43 way street which is the new construction um Echoes the organization of the church and that we're um keeping with the width of we're using a similar width to the windows um that you see on the church here similar idea but a more modern uh kind of expression using a casement window and then uh a fixed uh side light and lower window and then a metal panel in between but overall we're trying to emphasize the verticality of that and its relationship to the church and then on the side facing um kind of uh Alleyway we have a stucco treatment but we are wrapping the brick so that when you're walking down Wayne Street you do see the brick is wrapped um I think it's about 10 feet and we have an elevation block elevation here which shows the effect of our um proposed design uh the church restored to and we maintaining the void spaces around the church which we felt was really important to kind of framing framing the church as the most important building and then we have our new construction which is very similar in size to the um four units at the at the um corner all the way to um the the the West on this elevation and you can also see that the proposed Windows uh for the new construction are very consistent with um what you see along the block we have site diagrams which which just demonstrate um how we're not able to see any kind of Bulkhead or structures on the roof we made every effort to um you know put the condensing units on the ground and not have any um any stairs or anything popping up um onto the roof uh we have our building sections which show um this condition that I had uh initially mentioned about the basement level being at um 9 ft um in nav uh so minus 3 fo 6 if our average grade is at zero the basement was at um minus 3 fo 6 and we um are raising that level so we have a building section which shows how we're infilling and we're raising that floor level to 12T so that we're out side of the um the the flood the flood zone and we can have um usable uh residential space as is required by D and what everybody you know it's more secure of course um and this is a building section of our uh new construction which shows as I was mentioning this idea of the crawl space that we're creating um for the unit that fronts onto Wayne Street because we're matching the um the the floor Heights of the adjac recent um buildings on Wayne Street and then our units that are um in the middle and rear are at grade and these are just um we we did a lot of um drawings of the space just working through how we were um changing the floor levels of the church and then um you can see the section through the new construction as well we are not affecting the existing Gable of the church or any of the amazing um existing roof trusses we've crawled all over that space it's very cool this is what the church looks like about or looked like about 3 months ago during exploratory demo um so we all of this kind of rubble here is um the white Stucco Material that was removed in order to expose the original uh brick and then um you know we created a on the left the left hand drawing is the existing conditions which we drew in detail and then on the right hand side is the proposed condition and these things do align this kind of shows the the shift in the facade that occurs due to the raise in floor levels um and then lots of detailed documentation of the existing opalescent glass window um we have our proposed details I'm just going to go quickly through these but um it was a very interesting process to um measure and record um all of the um kind of features of the existing church we were able to you know by taking off that stucco we were able to expose this amazing profile of the cornice and that's how we're able to reconstruct um what was there and I think you know I've I'm not sure how much I need to go into these details but we have um given a lot of thought to the material selections and um design of of all of these elements these are just some quick street views just to test visibility um oops we've done Shadow studies to show um how oh where are we sorry I'm like oops Yeah I mean it's you know the church itself was casting Shadows um OB we we're casting Shadows that are similar to The Shadows that are already being cast by other existing build bus nothing out of the ordinary um and that was the rendering oh this is this has the tree so you can't so we are proposing Street trees but um they obscure the view of the church so we do have a rendering that shows it without the street trees but of course there will be um trees and I think I'll I'll leave that at that if there's any questions I'm happy to go back to any of the details yeah okay thank you thank you I unplug okay now I'll assume we'll hold all questions till the end yes okay and so we'll move forward now with our planner Katherine Gregory please you swear or affirm the testimony or abouts given this proceeding would be the truth whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do St Katherine Gregory k a t HR y n Gregory is g r g o r y my business address is 96 lywood Plaza number 350 in Fort Le New Jersey and Mr uh Miss Gregory I I recognize my memory is coming back yes yes I'll offer her for as an expert in planet yes please thank you okay Catherine take it away uh great um so Nicole got to describe the project to you and now I get to justify the variances associated with with I believe to be a very beautiful project um we're actually here for a use variance tonight uh it's interesting because if you see the context in which our Architects has designed the project the intent is that these are more like tow houses which are permitted in your Zone but based on your ordinance a townhouse can only have one to four units and we have five in each of the buildings uh so therefore we get kicked over to the multif family status and therefore we need the use variants now I would argue that I believe that the site is particularly suitable um in terms of particular suitability what you also need to do is distinguish the property from the immediate area and as shown on the architectural drawings you'll see the aerial we have the church building and then we have a parking lot and if you look at the context of the street there aren't any other properties like that in in this immediate area so we do have a very unique situation we also have the fact that we're doing the Adaptive reuse of the church building we also have the fact that this is oversized for the Zone uh we're proposing 10,000 square feet for the combination of the two lots we're 1,800 square feet is required uh also we are under the density even though we need this multifam use I put that in quotes again um we are under the density for the zone that is actually permitted uh so think that there are many reasons that lend itself to why this site is particularly suited for this particular use of a multifamily which I feel like is a a fine line given the context of this project um in terms of the bulk variances uh Nicole went through those with you as well uh and I would say that this is probably really a case of a C2 variance where I believe that the benefits are going to outweigh the detriments um we have the two principal buildings on one lot which is not permitted sorry we have the two principal buildings on one lot I'm sorry I know I speak fast um which is technically not permitted and yes we are combining two lots to have those two buildings but as was explained this is a unique situation since we do have an existing building which is the church building which we are doing the Adaptive reuse and the desire to create a campus and to create more of a townhouse tle style uh where we have that common Cor Corridor and then we have every unit having its own entrance uh so therefore we believe that this site lends itself to having the two buildings on the one lot we also need a variance for the rear yard setback uh that's an existing condition of the church it's it's existing at zero feet the public is already accustomed to this we also need a variance for the building height of the church this is also explained by our architect uh 40 ft is permitted and 41 .75 ft exists for the church building but again the Public's already accustomed to this uh we also need a variance for the encroachment of that stair into the rear yard um our architect also described to you the reason why we have that is that the stair cannot be closer than 10 ft to the property line because of building codes so we're kind of wrestling with the zoning code versus the building code but I believe that in this instance the safety of the building will override the zoning code in this particular issue we also need a variance for the number of parking spaces I think this was also explained really well by our architect uh the fact is that if we had one less unit on this entire site we wouldn't need any parking and again if we still kept it into two separate lots and we had five units on each lot we wouldn't need any parking it was also described that our applicant has met with um the store commission and they believe that having parking on the site would not really lend itself to the intent and purpose of the historic district uh so we believe that that variance is also warranted um and last but not least uh our building coverage variance 60% is permitted and 67% as proposed uh but we actually are under on our lot coverage so I think that that balanced it each other out excuse me um and so I believe that that variance will also be warranted so in terms of the special reasons or the positive criteria for the granting of both the use and the bulk variances I believe that we do promote purpose a which talks about promoting the public health safety morals and general welfare um one of the reasons I say that is we are doing that adaptive reuse of the existing structure which actually goes another step further because we're also talking about going into sustainability because we are not knocking down an existing building and we are reutilizing a lot of the existing structure that exists um so I think that that's an important part of this particular project as well as maintaining that historic nature of the street I also believe we promote purpose e which talks about promotion of appropriate population densities as I stated earlier we are actually under the permitted density for the district with the proposal that we have before you this evening I also believe we promote purpose I which talks about a desire able visual environment uh the architect has really I believe designed a really great project and uh respecting like the historic nature of the entire district and bringing that church building back to its original character and just as well putting in a newer building but having the street it the streetcape itself reflect what was there before and the buildings that are located along Wayne Street uh also purpose J which is a pretty easy one uh promote the conservation of historic sites and districts obviously that's what we're doing here um and then in terms of the negative criteria I don't believe that there's any substantial detriment to the public good by the granting of any of the variances we are promoting Redevelopment of the area we are promoting adaptive reuse of an existing historic structure um I don't believe there's any substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of your Zone plan and zoning ordinance by granting these variances a number of the Bel variances are existing I think we meet the intent of the historic district better with what we're proposing on the site rather than having a parking lot located right in the middle of the block um and actually uh according to your planner report um which I identified some of the the same uh goals that were located in the master plan that we promote which would be uh one to continue efforts to enhance residential neighborhoods I believe that we're doing that here uh ensure the city's available housing is balanced and meets the needs of all current and future city residents and also to recognize and promote the richness of the city's historic assets and cultural diversity um I do believe we promote these three goals of the master plan um and like I said before I believe that we meet the intent of the purpose of this particular Zone the historic district the vanor historic district so I think that we meet both the positive and the negative criteria for the granting of the variances associated with this application this evening thank you thank you okay that would uh complete our presentation so if there's any questions for either of the professionals okay um first I'm going to see if there's any comments from the public is there anyone here to make any comments okay can you come forward oh no no he's he's my client he's waving he's waving he supports it great okay uh do I have any comments from the Commissioners or questions no uh staff would you like to make any comments uh very briefly um staff agrees with the applicant's testimony uh for the D1 use variants even though it is a use technically because it is more than four units and so it doesn't fall under the town house definition the proposed uh new construction conforms with the bulk requirements of the historic Zone and the existing Church of course is going to be re rehabilitated and maintained and um the whole project itself is still under the maximum permitted density and very quickly I would also like to add that I do believe this project does further the purposes of what's defined in the ML and B to secure from uh fire flood panic and other natural and man-made disasters rehabilitating the existing house of worship will bring the building two current building codes which will provide a safer area and also located in the back of the property is a bio retention area for in the back of the new construction specifically and I also believe it furthers the purpose of C to provide adequate light air and open space since uh windows will be expanded and the skylights will be added to the existing church WIll which will improve uh the churches is access to light air in open space and with that uh planning staff would ask that the applicant agree to the conditions that are outlined in the staff Momo dated January 7th 2025 yes we would and planning staff recommends approval okay thank you okay so without further Ado I'm asking for a motion to approve case z202 4- 00002 which is way street with conditions can I get a motion I'll make a motion to accept this project for approval with conditions with the conditions yes can I get a second second okay commissioner Burns yes commissioner shadid yes commissioner zooki considering the public actually didn't even show up when it comes to a project in that area of the city you checked all your boxes apparently so obviously my answer is yes commissioner Baron yes Vice chair ruho yes chair Cole uh under one condition that you let me know when they're ready so I'm looking to purchase again in Jersey City and this looks like a great project yes thank you motion carries six in favor none opposed okay okay thank you thank you before I leave the podium uh just for for the record two 2011 Nork Avenue is that being carried car to February 6th yes with preservation of notices and I assume on the 6th you're going to tell us what the correct date is yes we're we're working on a special meeting date but that's that is kind of the interm measure holding pattern exactly kind of like flying over Kennedy right another drone drone a drone over the before I make um great thank you thank you before I make any motion to during this meeting I did um Overlook that um Eric was going to we were going to have a discussion of the annual zoning board report do you want to do that tonight or do you want to hold it to the next meeting would you like to do that now um I think we can do it tonight that's fine yeah if that's okay with uh is it is it brief what well what time is it it is approximately 910 I'll make it brief okay I'll make it thank you let's have this yeah three minutes three three minutes Shah okay so okay so time him time him okay so the the former Secretary of course uh drafted this up um I'm just presenting some of his findings and um something to note uh that I found important to uh State on record here is there's been a significant decline or at least comparing 2003 or 20 23 to 2024 there's been a significant decline um um significant decline in our zoning board applications um in 20203 there was 63 applications um in comparison to 38 applications in 2024 um so that's a very steep decline um which is actually a good thing that means the ordinance is doing its job um and also um the approval rate has actually increased by 3% in comparison to 2023 um to 95% um uh as far as the residential unit mix that was approved in 2024 uh roughly 2000 or 241 residential units was approved in 2024 and about 20 of those units were designated as as affordable a lot of the variances um that were brought to the board and approved um were within the R1 zoning District which is to be expected um and a lot of those variances were consisting of C variances um about 12 D variances came to the Zoning Board in 2024 and most of them were approved or at least most of the C variants or D1 use variances were approved um only one of them were was denied um but still um we had 12 D variances that were brought to the board some of the recommendations or a couple of recommendations uh from staff is that uh we continue to analyze the data to implement future phases of the Jersey City master plan recommendations as well as possibly converting um or changing the university Zone into an overlay um and that's pretty much the um annual annual report for uh 2024 try to be as quick as possible oh my God a minute left you still had a minute left okay um we do have some resolutions make a motion to approve that to approve yes a motion to approve the annual report can I get a motion make a motion to approve the annual report with conditions no I'm just kidding with conditions just kidding I a second okay okay commissioner Burns yes commissioner shadid yes commissioner Zuki yes commissioner Baron yes Vice chair ruhul yes chair Coyle yes motion carries six in favor none opposed okay and lastly we have the memorialization of resolutions there's two resolutions the first is case number z22 d79 the address was 146-152 Glenwood Avenue it was an application for preliminary and final major site plan with d and c variances that was heard on uh July 25th 2024 wow present that evening were Commissioners Allan aroyo shadid Baron Bole and Zi that passed five in favor one opposed the one opposed being uh commissioner shadid all in favor of memorializing that I hi and the last one is casee z 2024 d 0027 198 Freeman Avenue the applicant the applicant was Janelle pay that was for a c variance present on December 12th was Commissioners a Royo Bole Baron zi Burns and shadid and that pass Six in favor none opposed all in favor memorializing that is I I and uh that concludes the resolutions okay and hopefully that concludes the evening correct okay and with that said can I get a motion to adjourn the meeting motion all in favor hi hi hi thank you this was an early one believe it or not and we got a lot done tonight was