at this time I would like to call the meeting to order um Tanya are there any Sunshine announcements um that you would like to make yes chair in accordance with the open public meeting act this notice uh notice for this agenda was posted in the Jersey Journal L special though and outside the clerk's office um and I have the notices or the journal uh agenda to be marked into evidence under A1 C1 sorry B1 okay would you please take roll call commissioner commissioner Baron commissioner Bole yeah commissioner shadid yes commissioner Allen here commissioner zooki here Vice chair aruo here chair Coyle present seven are present okay can we all please stand for the flag salute I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all Bridget can you please swear in any of your staff members that are in attendance that's it I'm in tonight you swear testimony or comment make this evening will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you okay um Tanya are there any correspondents you want to share with us or any adjournments yep uh correspondents and adjournments um so we have um a new agenda that I believe you have but let me go off of the agenda that was sunshine just so there's consistency there's an agenda in the back that matches an update agenda just so there's no confusion um but z220 75 otherwise known as 850 Westside Avenue it's being carried to February 22nd along with Z 22079 otherwise known as 146 to 152 Glenwood is being carried to February 22nd and I believe that is it for the adjournments so uh tonight we have three cases um and I just want to let everyone know that we will not begin any cases is after 10: p.m. so if something ends at 9:45 we certainly will not start only because it's going to go way past 10 p.m. for us if we're in the middle of one of the cases and it's past 10 I'm certainly not going to shut that down okay um so tonight I think we will begin with um case uh number z22 d89 which is a continuation from our last meeting of 128 Glennwood Avenue okay okay all right okay sure okay our first case then tonight is z23 D28 and this is for cian for 312 Fairmont Avenue um so Tanya can you please promote um whoever is presenting us and also present any speakers and be sworn in did you you might have to press it y there we go good evening everyone Stephen Joseph for the applicant um I'd like to confirm we've received notices and Mark those in evidence Mr Joseph we have your notices David Pro service and so Bridget will put that as A1 you've got it in front of you there this will be A1 in evidence 3 yeah all right wonderful good evening everyone uh 312 Fairmont Avenue this is located mid block on Fairmont Avenue it's near the intersection of Fairmont in in Boland um what the applicant wants to do here is expand the existing building uh to accommodate a three-story two family home in the R1 Zone in order to accomplish this we are requesting a collection of C variances um there's no site plan approval here that's why we're in front of this board and not in front of the planning board we have an architect and a planner uh testifying this evening so let's get our architect up here and sworn in um Tanya how do we do the electronic uh no there's an HDMI plug right there and if everything works you should just be able to plug in and it should come up okay if we have a laptop fingers crossed what's okay yeah thank you we uh we don't have a laptop this evening so we're going to go the oldfashioned way with uh with some boards very nice I don't know how to use a laptop either would you swe orir the testimony giv this proceeding will be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes and spell your full name for the record my name is Caroline c a r o l i n e my middle name is mave m AE v e my last name is CCO g r i e thank you um okay so uh as Steve mentioned um the neighborhood uh is mostly surface parking surrounding this building um there is some uh midrise public housing also on the same block uh primary second I'm sorry Joseph do you think you should qualify her I'm not familiar I'm not familiar with her terribly sorry uh yeah so why don't you just give us some background your education and maybe some other boards uh that you appeared in front of in the past and just confirm your license is current and in good standing this evening okay hi hi uh so yes um my license is uh in good standing I'm licensed in both New York and New Jersey um I uh have appeared in front of the Union City and also the West New York board um in the last couple years and um I've been licensed for about 10 years I and in those boards you've qualified as an architect correct okay we we accept your qualifications thank you great um okay so back to the project back to right um okay so uh the side of the street um adjacent to the property uh at 312 Fairmont are two other lowrise residential buildings um there's one other lowrise Residential Building building on the opposite side of the street but otherwise again the the block is mostly surface parking and also um midrise uh public housing so uh the lot is uh a little bit oversized at uh 2780 um there's an existing twostory single family home on this property there's a singl story addition in the back uh that's it just houses the kitchen currently which we're removing and we're going to be adding a three-story addition um the objective of the project is to uh do a single to two family conversion and uh the uh homeowner is going to be living in one of the units the homeowner's unit we're referring to as Apartment A that has uh four bedrooms and uh three and 1 half baths and then there's a rental uh unit also in the back and that's three bedrooms two baths um there's a third story uh with a roof deck that's surrounded by a green roof and we are also um doing quite a few lot improvements in the rear yard um we're adding Landscaping where there's currently just Hardscape uh we're also um removing the surface parking from the front of the building and adding uh Landscaping in the front of the building as well um Steve can you grab the unit plans thanks so I just um actually a suggestion from the planner was just to create unit plans so they're colorcoded so the yellow so I'm sorry so we would need to enter this into evidence this is on the plans already it's the floor plans but it's just color coded on on one page um A2 A2 yeah thank you so this is the floor plans um for the property each floor and it's color coded to identify each unit um so the homeowners unit which is unit a is in yellow so they'll have uh responsibility for the existing seller um also the new crawl space um there are two entrances to the homeowner's unit the first entrance is through the front um will there'll be a common hallway so uh you could either go upstairs to get to the apartment the rental apartment in the rear or um continue into the uh homeowners unit on the first level um there's a second entrance and that's going to be on the side of the property at grade um the purpose of that entrance is that the uh the client um has an elevator in this property due to a um uh ambulatory handicap for someone in their family so they wanted an entrance at grade so there are two entrances but they're both to that uh first floor unit that I'm sorry homeowners unit um up uh Second Story the front of the building is a primary suite for the homeowners the rental property uh is in the back the rental apartment um there's two bedrooms in the rental apartment and um a second story and then in the front again on the third story is the roof deck a green roof and also uh another bedroom and bathroom um I think we're good is is there any way you could bring that closer for all of us to take a look at this I mean do you have any renderings of what it's going to look like when you're finished or what you're proposing it uh look like um so existing and proposed elevations so on the left side of the sheet is the existing uh two-story building and then on the right side of the sheet is the uh the existing structure with the addition why don't you describe the materials that were uh sure so the front of the building is a a medium gray hearty plank material um with black shutters and white trim um the the idea is that the existing uh structure is twostory it's not a new structure it's probably uh built you know Circa turn of the century so the idea was to kind of maintain the character of the existing structure and maintain that two-story structure and then just add the addition on the back in order to get the space that the the family needed for their uh owner's unit so um you know traditional uh wood framed house traditional plank siding um it's you know very in line with the character of uh Jersey City neighborhoods um um and you know basic Lantern lighting and and there have they have some decorative brick at the base of the building can you take bring the original piece up a little closer walk it past us so we can all see it cover page yeah I apologize I thought uh for some reason I thought there was going to be C laptop stand on my head okay just the building I can hear you for the can you guys when you're talking just make sure your microphone's on yeah which um is the middle building in this photo right here the middle building in the photos uh of the streetcape is the the subject property okay so what is the final rendering uh of that project bring that one around have all right let me see how did you get that up on very nice showcasing yeah there is you I just said this is the existing building here and this is the new so technically you're that so you're technically going to build on top of this building is that what you're saying I hear you I got it y um we are building in the back Steve could you grab the other elevations so this picture that you're showing is the back of it this is the front elevation okay this is the proposed front elevation and this is the proposed rear elevation okay so the three-story Edition is in the back of the building so we're maintaining the existing two-story structure I see and adding a three story Edition in the back oh okay okay so you're just kind of fixing the front up and then just adding it in the back yes I believe there's major Improvement to the front of the building yes I see okay maybe you can oh I saw I had my glasses on there my glasses I can see4 okay we're getting it up on thank you okay thank you okay thank you it's it's it's side view the side view shows it best how about that do I get do I get that so that concludes our architectural testimony we're going to bring our planner up next okay I don't we don't have it anywhere you have it Tru the truth I do okay Carolyn worell w r s t l l okay let me and I I assume the board accepts Carolyn's qualification yes she's been before us many times license is still in good standing this evening great all right thank you everyone um so we're here for um uh this this little project here at uh 312 font Avenue um with a couple of C variances um this is a this is a little bit of a legacy project um we're actually applying for this application under the old R1 zoning standards so um I will ask you to just um indulge me as I remind you again what those standards used to be um as it relates to this project um and that just results from the fact that this application was submitted some time ago before the uh new zoning came into effect um so we're here for height variance um if you remember in the R1 Zone it used to be that height your permitted height was based on a sum of the individual floors that you were proposing um and so that created um determined your height and then if you had a flat roof you got an additional 5 ft if you had if you had a peaked roof you had an additional 5 ft and for a flat roof you didn't get that additional 5T um this structure is existing has a has a bit of a peaked roof um it has currently a building height of 25 ft to the peak of that roof um the project um as it's designed is sort of redesigning that Peak it's going to remove the peak roof and it's going to place it with a flat roof on the existing structure and then the new uh rear structure is also going to have a flat roof so we're moving from that peaked roof standard now into a flat roof standard um and in additional there there are certain aspects of the building um uh the height the building height requirements under the old R1 that don't um address certain irregularities in certain types of structures so for instance this building has a Cellar um it has 3 ft between the finished elevation of the sidewalk and the height of the first floor so in this instance we we need some additional height because there's an existing Cellar um and where height is measured um based on your floor to floor Heights and a seller doesn't count as a floor we don't get that additional height um so it it creates sort of this need for this variance in addition we have a couple of um uh areas where the the space between the floors is a little deeper than we typically expect typically on a plan you're used to seeing you've got your floor to ceiling and then there's a foot between the ceiling and the next floor that's pretty standard and typical as you expect to see this application because it is a sort of an Adaptive reuse of an existing structure and then they're adding an addition there is some um spaces where we're seeing some of these Florida the you know the the heights between the Flor floors is slightly larger than 1T so overall essentially we're end up with a building that is 34 ft and 2 in um this really doesn't offend the the need um or the intent of your height requirement um which is namely light and air um overall the proposed height that 34t 2 in is less than the maximum 39 ft which would be permitted in would have been permitted in the R1 district for flat roof buildings that would have been the maximum that you could build for a flat roof building so we're still well under that height um and if if we were to consider this and think about this in the new R1 standards which is not what's being applied here but if we were to think about it we are still less than the 35 ft which is permitted now in the R1 so I really think here that we're not offending the intent of that um uh standard um but we're really allowing for the flexibility of adaptively reusing that existing structure here on this property um and then we are asking for a variance for a minimum side yard setback um we're being a little conservative here uh the existing structure has a non-conforming zero foot side setback along the western side um we are not adding interior additional interior floor area at the zero foot lot line however because we are changing from a peaked roof to a flat roof that sidewall is being altered and so we're requesting this variance because we're altering the wall which is along that 0t LW line but we're not adding interior space um the addition that is being proposed in the rear and the the third floor Story the sort of pent house that's going to be on top of the existing structure both of those are set back more than two they set back at least 2 feet from that lot line which is the conforming sidey yard uh standard um so all of the new additions do meet the the minimum requirement and so we're just asking for it because of that that change in the um roof line and then finally we're looking for a front yard setback variance and again I think this is a little bit of a a conservative um ask here so the project is proposing a third floor addition on top of the existing structure that's going to be set back 33t 6 in from the front lot line um the existing two-story facade is at 18.3 ft that's the existing setback so there's going to be about 12T between your existing facade and that third floor facade the R1 District standard um states that the primary facade of a building shall match the setback of the closest permitted use provided that the setback shall be closest to the predominant setback of the block um this setback requirement is neither a minimum nor a maximum it means that you have to match it so if you're before if you're closer or you're farther you have to ask for a variance um the definition of the front primary facade in the ldo is defined as the street front building facade which runs roughly parallel to the front lot line for the purposes of yard calculations projecting accessory structures including decks porches balconies fencing Stoops or stairs are excluded um we're proposing here a third floor facade that's set back more than 30t from um the the lot line and it set back 12 feet from the existing facade when we look at this we typically don't really think of it really as being part of a primary facade because it's so far set back it's really not going to feel like part of that facade but it technically meets the definition of a primary front facad and so that's why we're asking here for that variance um we're not moving the existing facade of the first two floors um which are already non-conforming because they don't match either of the existing structures on either side all three of those buildings have slightly different setbacks um so uh overall I think that um asking for this variance we're really not again offending that intent of that front yard setback because we're actually pushing the building back we're maintaining that existing sort of two-story facade here um and so it maintains that character of the street um and I think there may have been a little bit of a note in the staff report um it may have mentioned uh variance for Combined front and rear yard setback um I don't think I think that might have been a little bit of a um a typo and a misunderstanding uh the combined setback here is 18.3 ft at the front plus 25.5 ft at the rear which exceeds the minimum of 35 combined setback required for front and yard under those old standards so uh we don't need that variance and then finally I believe we asked for a variance for bathrooms on consecutive floors so in the old R1 height standards it had a requirement a restriction that said a minimum of two adjacent floors must be connected solely by means of a staircase internal to the unit and provided that only one of the two internally connected floors may have a kitchen Andor a full bath so um in this application Apartment One occupies all three floors the building the master unit um and there's a full bath on each of those floors the intent of those requirement was to reduce the instances of potential illegal uh third unit conversions um and uh that's not the intent here U the the client is intending to provide space for a multigenerational household that needs um that has resulted in bedrooms and full baths on all three floors um however I again I don't believe that there's first of all that that restriction I think has been removed from the R1 standards but even under the um but even the the concern if if there is a someday in the future not by this applicant but someday if somebody were to create a third unit under current R1 District standards this lot which is slightly oversized could permit a third unit so I don't believe that there really would be any um concern or issue with allowing for this variant because under current standards you could have a third unit but again that's not the intent here um I think overall the benefits of this project vastly outweigh any of the detriments of the three uh uh bulk variants being requested um this project is eliminating uh non-conforming front yard parking um and a curb cut on the street which is to be replaced with new front yard landscaping and a new Street tree which vastly improves the street Frontage along this block um it's also reducing the impervious coverage of the site currently you've got front yard parking and then there's a driveway that goes around and then the rear yard is got a lot of um concrete this project would remove the concrete in the rear yard to replace by both the addition but also a lot of new landscaping and a patio um which overall reduces the lot coverage of this lot it's conforming with R1 standards and it adds a partial green roof so I think overall this project includ provides a lot of benefits in terms of removing a lot of that coverage that that exists there today um so overall I think the the project um really advances the purposes of the municipal land use law um the requested deviations will guide the appropriate use of this property which is a two family um in the R1 District uh consistent with purpose a uh consistent with purpose e of the municipal land use law it will U promote the establishment of appropriate population densities um and concentrations again we're pro proposing a new two a two family here in the R1 district and then uh it will promote a more desirable visual environment consistent with purpose ey um again we're removing all of those non-conforming uh front yard um parking uh we're adding the street tree so overall I think this will result in a massively much more uh attractive Street Frontage not only for this property but also for the block as a whole and at the negative criteria um granting the deviations will not result in a substantial detriment to the general welfare um it's two family dwelling it's a permitted use it's consistent with the surrounding neighborhood um there's going to be adequate separation between the proposed addition and adjacent buildings allowing for light air and open space and it eliminates the non-conforming front yard parking really eliminates the driveway and the curb cut um and creates lots of new um open space and Landscaping where today there's impervious C coverage and it likewise will not result in a substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the Zone plan or the zoning ordinance it's consent consistent with the intent of the R1 District to encourage compatible infill development with one and two family homes that preserve the streetscape utilize on street parking where frontages are narrow and maintain the lowrise character of the area so I believe this project really is consistent with the intent of that rwind District so overall I think that the uh variances can be granted and that they meet both the positive and the negative criteria and that that's Le rest of my testimony unless anyone has any questions okay is that the end of the presentations conclude our direct testimony this evening okay great okay um at this time I'm going to ask is there anyone in the room this evening who would like to comment on this project please come to the mic it be possible to have five minutes to review the boards before I make my comments because everything was shown to you but nothing was shown to us out here yes yes please turn that the boards around so they can come up and take a look at the project thank you very much shouldn't be the screen bring a computer should have put the plans up you would think oh wait a second still here for that I told them that it doesn't look good then this and redesigning it look I'm just telling you talk to your Cent there you go what's it yeah why don't we go off the record for five minutes that might uh be better for everyone here especially Bridget it's all your fault and thank you for the accommodation of allowing us to that's much appreciated this is right around the corner I and it ABS the so um it is um actually in listening to the project it was very nice to hear about the removal of the parking the illegal parking that's in front and returning it to a garden there's a lot of positives I can see about this even sensitivity about pushing back the third floor so that this way it's not intrusive on the street when you add addition so I'm not here to criticize but rather compliment that we could have more projects particularly as they bumper a historic district that's one of the great concerns is since the the blocks across the street or backing up against it don't have necessarily those protections that sometimes it's in appropriate development that can take place there and then really impact the historic district so I think this will be a pleasant addition to Avenue um and even though it's a lot of bedrooms or a lot of bathrooms that's fine and you know my concern is it doesn't look like it's so easy to convert to a three family although that's apparently committed could be permitted but it looks like this is a nice two family house that perhaps will continue as such and bring good solid neighbors to the neighborhood so thank you thank you any other one any other individuals from the community that would like to comment okay we'll close out the public portion of the meeting uh Commissioners do we have any comments or questions about the project uh I just had one I think she answered it the uh parking is it the I see obviously the car in front of the door is illegal but it looks like a curb cut with a alley is that illegal parking um uh driveway currently sorry uh it's currently a legal non-conforming condition but it's being removed as part of uh part of the application okay Steph do we have any comments that we would like to make at this time yes um I will not be labor anything I thought the staff uh I thought the applicants planner did a great job um and a report was submitted uh to you from Francisco Espinosa I'll just read in the conditions if you're okay with that uh all materials and color selections shown on final plans um can not be changed and if they aren't changed even if it's required by the office of theod construction code has to be in consultation with planning staff and possible approval by the zoning board all Str all Street Trees and Landscaping and I'll just add the green roof um shall be installed prior to the certificate of occupancy um and the applicant shall provide an affidavit from the architect of record representing that the constructed project is consistent with the final approved plans for the record the the applicant does accept all conditions okay if there are no further comments from the Commissioners I would asking for a motion to approve with conditions case z23 D28 312 Fairmount Avenue Madam chair I like to make a motion to approve case z23 D 028 as a as presented to the board this evening I'll second okay on the motion to approve commissioner Allen yes commissioner Baron yes commissioner Bole yes commissioner shadid that was Commissioners liy yes Vice chair aruo yes and chair Coy yes seven in favor none opposed none abstain motion carries thank you all have a good evening motion now we're going to go back to the first case okay so now we will go back to case z22 d89 which is a continuance from our last me meeting of uh the applicant for 128 Glennwood Avenue evening Madam good evening evening MERS of board Commissioners how's everybody doing this evening we're good thanks so without beling the point where we are with this application currently we had gone through our case in Chief um I believe that uh the uh there was an objector who had brought up a planner and that was concluded and the matter was open to the public my understanding for this evening is that the uh the neighbor has an additional witness or two that they would like to present which we take no objection to and ultimately I would just ask the board uh after um conclusion of the neighbor's case um and after conclusion of uh staff's case if we could as well have the opportunity to respond and to uh to sum up as appropriate if that would be all right but beond that I'm not going to take more of the board's time at the moment and I'm happy to turn it over to to miss aanes okay [Music] oh thank you good evening Madam chairwoman and Commissioners I'm here tonight um to finish up our objector presentation our first witness is Nathan McCormack who is a homeowner at uh the adjacent property 130 Glenwood okay andth or the ttim given this proceeding will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth could you state Nathan McCormack n a t h an last name McCormack is m c o r m a c k okay um so Mr McCormack uh would you um explain to the board how you ended up living on Glenwood Avenue of course um and before I do I just want to thank everyone for your time not only this evening but also at the last session I know you all went above and beyond what's expected of you so thank you very much for your time um so yes I had been living downtown at Dixon Mills with my wife uh she's been in Jersey City for about 15 years I've been in Jersey City for about 8 years and at a at a certain point we wanted some something some space some Greenery and we decided to look in McGinley square and we're happy to find the house that we did okay and how did you decide to purchase your home on Glennwood so we were thrilled to find this uh our house for sale at 130 Glennwood Avenue right next to the adjacent property that's on the agenda tonight and it's uh one of five homes that was built in 1895 uh with historic um qualities and so it was a pretty easy thing for us to realize that we could bring this house back to life and we painstakingly renovated um trying to you know retain the Integrity of all those original details which we were basically able to do okay and and what do you like about living in your neighborhood so the first thing that comes to mind is just um how spacious it is after living to downtown in Jersey City we were really happy to find something a little more calm uh again Greenery uh the the subject property this evening was a community garden right next door to us which uh my wife volunteered at and numerous neighbors had had also volunteered at and you know just the diversity of the block is pretty amazing as well for you know Jersey City is known as the The Melting Pot or the the salad bowl and I feel like you can feel that on our block okay and um you reviewed uh the developers uh plans for 128 Glennwood what's your reaction to the plans so uh you know as much as I appreciate the developers team meeting with us uh to to try and come to a meeting of the minds uh I I feel like it's essentially just too large for for uh our Enclave of historic homes it's uh you know to be to be blunt it feels kind of like a bon box with some Victorian details but at the end of the day it's uh it it will absolutely box Us in and create a Sawtooth pattern on our block it won't sustain the Integrity of the streetcape on our block uh and I feel like it does not complement again our home our our our our section of five historic homes okay and um is there anything else you feel it's important for the board to understand just essentially I just would like everyone to realize that you know when my wife and I bought our house when um four years ago we uh actually five years ago we we did it with the idea that you know Jersey City is our home we we wanted to try and contribute something to the neighborhood a lot of people have complimented the work that we've done and and you know have admired the work that we've done on our house and saying that it has you know beautified the block and you know at the same time we're we're just sort of regular hardworking people um I have a I'm a civil servant with a government job my wife is an artist and we both worked hard and we're thrilled that we were able to afford a house in Jersey City at all and so we're basically hoping that you know again with a meeting of the minds that we can come up with a solution that not only we're happy to live with but that actually can benefit the residents of Glennwood Avenue okay okay um so thanks very much Mr McCormack and our our next witness is sharan mccormac you want to a chance oh uh if you want to yeah sure sorry about that wait until after I'm here now whatever whatever you prefer if you want to sure all right so if it's okay with sure don't just a couple of questions evening Mr good evening good to see you as always and uh just to start thank you for acknowledging we made every effort to meet with the public on several occasions um think it's very genuine and I appreciate that um you mentioned in your testimony that this is a block of I think six Lots five of which are historic homes I believe um there actually homes with historic quality to there are currently four homes with historic quality um up until five six months ago there were five homes with historic quality so we're determined to make sure that number stays the way it is okay so you mentioned there were five there's now four correct if you could just let the board know what happened um absolutely so uh if I'm not mistaken your client purchased the the fifth Property um at 124 Glennwood and um basically the house was um was raised and uh and I I believe that's actually something that's going to be you know in the next year we'll see something new next door or four doors down from us and next door to our neighbors who were here this evening okay and uh to your knowledge and you might not know the answer to your knowledge uh do you know if they got a demo permit uh to demolish that structure at 124 to my understanding they did okay and did historic weigh in to suggest that the home should not be demolished for having historic qualities to my understanding I'm trying to recall historic I I can't speak to that I'm not sure yeah I don't I don't right I don't think he's competent you know yeah I'm not sure I'm not sure that's fine um you know just judicial notice that obviously to get a demo permit it has to pass through that process so you know it was determined that it's okay to demolish um really my only other questions for you have you made any attempt or has the city made any attempt to actually uh designate any of these remaining homes as historic we are in discussions right now hoping that the city will work with us to protect um whether it's our Enclave of the four historic homes or the block either way we are absolutely wanting to work with the city to to um you know to protect our block and make sure that no further homes are are lost and are you familiar with what the U zoning bulk requirements um would allow in terms of massing on this property uh I'm only aware of what your particular project is proposing not but not specifically for the I can't speak to to the university zoning okay yeah are you are you aware that the four stories that we're that we are proposing is contemplated within the U zoning uh no I'm not okay all right well then that's been explained um the other properties are you aware that they are zoned R3 the other properties in this on plave I am aware that there's a a mix of zoning on our block that actually if anything speaks to how much we do need the city to work with us because it really sort of defies logic as to which homes are designated you zoning and which are R3 it's very inconsistent so yes I know there's a mix of R3 and university university on in our Enclave of homes okay and then lastly just to your knowledge again this as long as you've lived here this has remained I believe community garden most recently do you know what it was before commity Garden you might not know if you weren't there um I was not there but I thanks to my neighbors and tax records from the 1930s have come to find that there was a house that was the same size as our house uh same scale as our house which is really all we're asking for uh right next door to us that has I believe not been there for a few decades so so you're asking for the same scale as your house but knowing that the other houses within this little Enclave are not all within the same scale as your house that's not true the other houses are were all built by the same developer um in the same year and they're all the same roughly scale okay if that's the case then uh so be it I did have an opportunity to take a look at and I believe we showed plans that indicate that there are different depths to each of these but okay that's it for my question Mr M okay I just had one redirect question so um you heard Mr wine asked you about the home that was demolished at 124 Glennwood do you feel it was worthy of historic protection I have to object I don't know that Mr McCormick is qualified I'm asking him about his feelings I mean not about his an expert opinion so to be clear as a non-historian a non-historic expert sure yeah then I have no issue with that yeah I mean it's his subjective feeling so can I answer the question yes certainly thank you yes as someone again who has done quite a bit of research into our historic Enclave knowing that these five homes were built by the same developer I genuinely believe that if our home currently existed within the historic district it would absolutely qualify and I think anyone would agree if they saw the the streetcape of our home so have to just object on the basis of I I I don't mean it's an opinion all I don't mean this personally it's just suggesting that something would qualify for as a contributing resource within a historic district is not within your perview so I think that that's got to be clear for the record no noted I mean I mean I think it's more Mr leagle you asked him what his feeling was yes and his feeling was or should be it shouldn't have been knocked down right that's right not the answer that's my answer yes I thought so I heard something else but I thought that was going to be the answer thank you that's that's simple yes that's right okay thank well thank you thank you all for your time appreciate it thank you I I am going to try to plug in a my computer because Miss Miss McCormack has a or Mrs McCormack has a couple of visuals that she wants to display so um well actually Nathan oh maybe we want to go off Nathan can you help me yeah he's it person yes this is computer do you have the USB stick you I have let's we'll take a break for the moment till we get this straighten down yeah unfortunately I'll be of no help because yeah I think actually Mr McCormack's a court reporter MC is what he's a court reporter so he's oh you're kidding yes Where Brooklyn Supreme Court oh great but I don't think this is actually the right oh we we've done it before there's a yeah there's a a thing too okay thank you I'm a not a tech guy okay that's good good so I that she's almost ready to go I have everything up that you might want to refer to I didn't know if you wanted to include um the journal Ben's not objecting to that so it's kind of you if you thought it was you want I don't know we'll see I guess we could would hurt but what so we're in a similar situation that we were last week and I'm not really sure it's either way um I'm just saying that that's not coming up oh okay it's the same thing that it was before but I don't know what happened on Tuesday that was so different than right now um I do know that on Monday Maggie was able to use the the HDMI over the document table table I don't know if that's something you want to do so that might work otherwise um Das 3's HDMI Works does it work now good okay can you see anything now okay I guess we don't need it yet right it's like Brooklyn right Mr M oh oh no wait it did it did um okay so which one would I want to chastises I brought paper I brought paper copies too but I just think it's easier for you all to look at your screens yeah a really hard time there you go okay so but I don't think we need to show anything okay okay I think we're it is yes okay I'm gonna have to start a testimony okay I can't even ra your right hand you swear or affirm the testimony proceed yes thank you and please my name is Shireen McCormack s h i r i n m a c c o r m I'm um Good evening Mrs McCormick good evening thank you Commissioners for this opportunity okay um so you reviewed the plans for 128 Glenwood very closely what what is your biggest concern the plans are out of scale they're for massive infill that simply doesn't fit the proposal engulfs neighbors homes it burdens aging infrastructure it impairs resident existing resident well-being scale was the number one priority in community feedback we're talking about three to four times higher density than surrounding um buildings five 858 Square ft versus 1600 11 bedrooms versus three a rear setback of 44 feet versus 78 that's half a depth of 77.5 ft versus 37 that's twice as much four Stories versus 2 and a half four units versus one a small one small New Growth curbside tree replacing a treescape of 100-year-old endangered Elm trees that are groundwater mitigating backyard trees in an area that's already had terrible flooding the lot is on a small oneway Street in the University Zone the West Bergen East Lincoln Park historic district ends just a block away the dorm the former St Peters University dorms on the same block were deemed by the HP office as historically significant we believe that our Enclave of homes is as sandre Riley said last meeting a neighborhood within a neighborhood we believe they're special and we believe they need to be protected we believe that the historic architectural and sociocultural significance was somehow overlooked they comprise a row of queen and victorians the first and last of their kind in the city north of Montgomery known as the Mayu Terrace Cottages they were built in 1895 by William W coffin 129 years ago one purpose of the University Zone from my research because I read Master plans now and I read up on the zoning is the zone is to protect the existing residential neighborhood and its quality of life from buildings like this one these plans even demand a side buffer variance of under 3 fet or 10 is required people spoke to all this at the last meeting people expressed how that's not enough to get people out they're not going to jump out the window and there's no room for a ladder if there's a fire every inch the community came out they came out again tonight because this is to our detriment and it's every inch for every dollar being sought on land not zoned to allow for this okay um M Mrs McCormack do you have any observations that you feel are important understanding the plans yeah I do I do yes the streetscape image that shows the building and relation to neighboring homes feels very misleading um there is small print at the bottom that says that the picture is not to scale and it's not accurate its numbers may be correct but the visuals completely misrepresent so it looks smaller than it would actually be in relation to the context of nearby homes and the plans disregard the number one priority of community feedback which was about scale we just asked for the scale to match surroundings this building is a impressively giant I've read the master plan um I'm a novice but I've read it and it discusses the aim to preserve pattern scale and continuity of form in rows over 50 years old and ours is 129 the sitb back the front setback is also a problem their porch the front porch begins where mine ends if you've ever been down my block you've probably noticed my front porch guard Garden I work from home so I'm there a lot and I sit on that porch I keep it green I keep it blooming these plans mean that my entire front porch would be cloaked in Shadow No Light No flowers it would destroy my experience of home and never mind that it has a rooftop so okay and um do you how about the height the height of the proposed has been adjusted to make it look like it fits in there's no way that the four story building would be more or less equal in height to a neighboring 2 and a half story especially since it sits uphill exacerbating the extent that it would Tower over and dwarf over my home I'm a designer so I do have experience looking at these types of things but when you look at the drafts the plans anyone can figure this out just by looking with a naked eye it just doesn't add up the roof depictions are also off their roof is a 40ft tall solid rectangular box versus neighboring homes that are 30 ft at their tallest receding gabled Peak those Gables the drawing misrepresents our roof to look like it's a solid box like theirs as if the whole front side is filled in with the building where in reality our Gables and our setback cross Gables actually allowed a lot of light air and open space all around them so this was troubling me and I decided to take the same information from the plans and make my own images these reflect my attempt to understand and visualize the proposal in relation to surroundings I'd like to walk you through my thought process yeah I I don't know what happened yep I C hi there was um um Cynthia is this if you go to Adobe um I just I just HD I just made it go down so like is it this I just made I just collapsed it so it's one of these it's still open it's still open it's just one of oh so it's not that one it's number one no it's number three Street I make it take the whole hold on let's get rid of that hold on let's get rid of that the green one we'll maximize uh we need to maximize Okay Go Okay um but then how do I get the pages I oh the toggle okay so um so um Shireen before we uh go through this would you just explain what it is um uh yeah this is a an image that was taken directly from the plans from the developers um streetscape study okay and then what are the successive the images after this what are those oh so it's my trying to understand and process what the plans entail can I ask a couple questions about the exhibit yeah sure okay is this the exact image taken from the plans that were submitted yes this is there were no additional property shown on the streetcape um I think that at some point there were the two properties that are sort of Darker in color at 124 which is the darker one on the right and then 128 the one that we're talking about tonight on the left and um these two projects were sort of presented to my community as like um a collection of projects like a collection of two so at some point I think that the 124 property dropped off of the plans but I put it back in um exactly to scale of how it was okay but there were no additional proper Beyond this group of six no additional building shown um not to my knowledge no I I think I feel like the records reflect that that is inaccurate as I mean I don't have those in front of me I don't have those in front of me but this is the part that's concerning to me because this is the row of homes that we're talking about M I understand but if you're going to enter something into evidence and claim St directly off I just to be clear okay so let me let me just try to clarify then is this is a composite image where you you used plans for 12 that were presented for 124 Glennwood and you combined the street streetcape that you had on that one with the streetcape that we had for 128 one speaker you finish that yeah so so it's a the streetcape that you had on that with the streetcape uh on on 128 Glennwood on this application yes so again and not that I'm objecting to entering this as an exhibit I just want to be clear this is not this is your compilation of demonstrative examples of what was taken off multiple sets of multiple PL yes this is my um trying to visualize the proposal okay I have no problem with that I just wanted that to be clear okay thanks okay thank you thank you so first we have um images that are from the developers streetscape study and that's this picture and then I wanted to show how proposed infield to the best of my knowledge would actually look um so if uh it didn't go to the next slide oh is it huh it's not proceeding yeah I tried both I'm sorry one more question as you're figuring that out about the slides to come so the slides to come oh I do just to confirm the slides that come are completely based on your interpretation of what might be not based on scale plan based on me looking at the plans and to the best of my knowledge making my interpretation of the plans okay the same as your clients is so to be clear that's not correct my client utilized okay proper math and scale that was Ted a PRI okay uh I now I need to clarify because actually there's a notation on the plans saying they're not necessarily accurate or to scale yeah it's in the bottom corner I need one speaker he explained what what was utilized but put that note there correctly um to indicate that it was not a proper scale but it was under uh laser and topographic and maps that are available through the city of Jersey City okay okay go ahead go ahead okay so thank you thank you everyone um so that note is that there in the bottom corner about it not being to scale but that is the um the image and then um here oh hold on hold on I'm sorry I just have to okay it was on the wrong page so here's the the first image then I wanted to show how the info would actually look in my opinion bigger now let's adjust the roofs of the surrounding structures um so that they would be seen from street view not as solid gray boxes so if you look at the roof lines that's what you would see from the roof from the street now let's omit the various measurement lines because they're sort of boxing in what is open space gabled roofs oh it looks quite different doesn't it there's mine there's mine okay then and and you're showing the two the two infill projects as as significantly taller what what made you interpret things that way yeah um just looking at the plans and the um the scale it just the numbers seemed like they were right but the scale looked off okay what numbers though the all the the height the night the numbers for the height okay all right um so um Ben do you have any objection to my moving this into this exhibit into evidence now that I have an explanation of what it is I actually do have an objection I mean it is and don't take this the wrong way it's a very nice art project glorified art project that has no basis in architecture no license behind it so I have no OB if the board would like to consider it as an art project but I I do want to put on the record my objection would be to giving it any expert weight um weight whatsoever as I think this board and I and I I don't mean to pontificate but this board is very well aware that my client is bound by the scaled drawings that have been drawn and any construction should this application be approved would have to follow the plans that are signed and sealed by licensed professionals um so I just want to make that clear but if you'd like to it for the sake of um you know showing us what you came up with then I I I don't even know if I have an OB I mean it's not being presented as an architectural rendering it's being presented as a as a novice you know a lay person's visualization let let's stop let's stop rather than debate it like a pingpong we take it for what it's worth thank you thank you thank you okay so um so now okay let's move on so H uh now let about the I know you wanted to talk about the depth of the pro project yes the depth the rear setback my backyard is 74 feet and the backyard of this proposal is half of that at 37 because the building is way too deep it would destroy our backyard experience So currently I can see my neighbor kids playing in their backyard they call me auntie up the street I can see the Edwards Riley household barbecuing um we wave we say hi I can see Miss India and Edwards on her front porch we wave we say hello and this building um would be creating a wall of building um destroying that experience that William coffin intended for the house to have for the the row of houses to have it would create this wall sandwiching between our homes boxing Us in and interrupting the cohesion of The Enclave it would destroy the light and dark in the backyard it would deprive airl in open space and cast us in our backyard and and Shadow all day additionally there's side windows um and they're all the entire structure side windows are all imbalanced located on only one side of the house the side that faces mine so um obviously that would destroy any semblance of privacy okay and um do you have other concerns about the plants um yeah the the number one priority in in in community feedback um was a smaller building to m um the statements made by the historic preservation office's letter that future infill should match the scale and the density of surrounding homes sorry what historic preservation office letter okay that was my next question thanks Ben so um would you explain what you're referring to thank you both um there's a letter of significance um that the Jersey City Historic preservation department wrote um dated August 19th 20 22 about 124 Glenwood and that its future infill should match that of surrounding homes within the 1895 historic Enclave of Mayu Terrace Cottages we think that since we are within the Enclave or series of homes that that information that letter applies to 128 Glenwood 2 where is that letter here's the letter yeah and um so it Rec the memo recognizes what is special about our streetcape and it makes recommendations of the scale of infill that should be allowed this letter recommending um what that everything should be anything future infill should be the same scale it gave us hope okay and um Ben do you have any objection to our entering this memo into evidence I do for a number of reasons and I won't belabor it but are you aware that uh determinations of significance have been held by the courts to uh when seeking to demolish to be unconstitutional um I know there was a court decision about our ordinance um but I I I think this you know this memo says what it says okay but you are aware that it was determined that these memos are unless there's a a property located in a historic district um or designated as historic that it is not proper uh to require an applicant to submit for determination of significance you are aware I I understand the ordinance was stricken down by by in a court decision but I I I I don't think that that invalidates the fact that this memo exists and was posted on the public portal as part of your application materials when you submitted your application for 124 Glennwood no for 124 Glen it's it's a it's a public document it was part of the public record on an application that you represented the same developer on so I don't I don't know how you could be objecting so so again I don't object to it being treated for what it's worth just like with the last exhibit I just think that msana says you do seek toenter exhibits I do think it would be a little bit more appropriate to qualif them for what they are um because again I don't and I'm not suggesting at all anybody's trying to mislead but my concern here is that this is for a project that is not for this property and it was done at a time when this was the process in Jersey City which is found to be unconstitutional by court so I I have no objection to its inclusion it is certainly a public document but I just think that it again should be qualified for what it is yeah now that's all that has been said want want to know what I think yes I do I don't think it has any relevance to this okay I I don't first of all I don't think that the that this Law whatever Mr wi said is unconstitutional I don't think that's accurate that's right but I don't know what the significance of this paper is on your particular property I haven't read it but it's it's keyed to 124 so okay can we just mark it for purposes of identification as opposed to moving it into evidence and what good would that do us um in in in case this sends up in court [Laughter] later sure you want to market for identification but we're not considering it so I I I understand okay so can you are we marking this for identification let the record be clear I wouldn't think so I say no okay all right the letter talks about the surrounding streetcape well let's just let's we're okay we're fine yeah we accept your decision okay okay thank you um whatev exhibit did we actually Mark that because I didn't hear any marking O2 the uh the drawing O2 did yes yeah okay okay so let's move on and maybe we should take this down since the board doesn't want to look at sure okay um so okay and there there were some decorative changes how did how did you feel about those decorative changes there were Decora to the project yeah um they met with us twice um and after we showed up at some of those board meetings and begged for a meeting um and we do appreciate them meeting with us thank you and we do appreciate the um attempt at trying to make them fit but honestly you could put the Cosmetics on and it's still out of scale they're just giant boxes so um okay and is there anything else she would like the Commissioners to understand yes please um this was this is not a vacant lot it was not a vacant lot it was precious rare Green Space within the city the so-called vacant lot was occupied by a community garden filled with volunteers students people from the church up the street um affiliated with the university people like myself and we grew crops for to benefit refugees and immigrants it was the heart of the block um it signified hope joy and abundance and you know in an area where the Sens is tract reveals lower income it played a meaningful role in our new home being our Dream Home a home that we have worked so hard and saved so much to make happen um you know we love this city we love this neighborhood and we set down Our Roots here we invested here and we even started the McKinley Square community board the MCB a new neighborhood group um in the face of this proposed detriment we have through that come together through adversity but we've already improved our neighborhoods so much by connecting different neighborhood groups with each other by connecting with the special Improvement districts and the West District police with St Peters we now have regular meetings with St Peters when before there was no relationship there we've established close relationships with our elected official and um you know it's Black History Month the jclc uncovered significant black women's history in this Enclave of homes um you know we um we connect Community um Lincoln Park north and mscb have started a whole campaign for hybrid meetings because we want inclusivity we want Kayla who works you know as a flight attendant to be able to attend and have freedom of speech at these meetings and and and we also want India and Edwards to be able 105 years old to be able to still participate in hybrid meetings okay okay great so um thanks M Mrs McCormack uh did yeah just a couple questions so um I just wanted to say a few more sorry I just think it's really sad that we lost two of the original six houses and the community feels ripped apart and you know it this project is to the detriment of our neighborhood we're rooted here and we care we're about Building Bridges not walls and you know it's sad that the developer doesn't seem to care about the Community Vision with the out of scale structure um never mind all the detriment that all my neighbors spoke about already we want sorry this is not public comment um I'm sorry I I I don't want to object but at this point it's it's these are just comments it's not really we're we're here because we want meaningful growth that's what we're looking for so let let but I think the bo heard they've heard a lot from a lot of different people so let's let's bring this to a conclusion this evening um did did you have any questions coule I won't go along on on this but just a couple so first um would it surprise you to know that the um that the bulk requirements within the U District would allow for this building depth to technically extend all the way to the end of the property there's no rear setback requirment would that surprise you would it surprise me yeah I'm not sure that it would so in other words you it would not Shock you to know that despite the fact that you were discussing this being 45 ft set back versus yours being 75 ft set back in fact we could construct a building under the University District zoning that extends 100% of the property de it was my impression that um when the planner spoke at the last meeting that it was um arrived at that it wouldn't be possible given the setbacks and the buffers required that was not the testimony um it would it would be possible to extend to the rear there was no rear setback requirement there are coverage requ is there a question well I I don't understand she would be surprised to know that would you be surprised to know that four stories is permitted for this property as well I don't feel comfortable answering that question I'm not answer how about a question this way do you know that there could be four stories in the University Zone on this property I'm aware that that that the Zone allows that I don't think it's right for this property all right would you do you know to use mrag language do you know that all of the other smaller residences that you're referring to in The Enclave with the exception of yours being in the R3 Zone would also permit for stories to be develop can you repeat the question do you know that the r three zoned properties which are all of these except for our subject property and your property would per four story development that all of the R3 properties I it's a mix of different all of the R3 properties you testified so eloquently before about how this is a mix of you Zone properties and I'm just trying to understand your question would you be shocked to know that the R3 which is the other properties you reference the other in your little Enclave right do permit for story development we believe that this building is is too large for this space given the circumstances and its surrounding homes some of which are zoned University formic that does not answer my question well you asked her if she was shocked and then I she's not going to be shocked do you know if you don't know tell us if you do know I'm aware of what R3 allows okay that's good all right I'm also aware that this is not our three okay that's why I asked you first you know what the U Zone allows in terms of I'm somewhat familiar with the U Zone I've become um more familiar than ever in the last um year I think I've made my point fairly clear um okay you you had mentioned that you don't feel that the three foot being proposed on the side of the residential building is appropriate for fire department access is appropriate for General Building separation um am I accurately paraphrasing your testimony uh the public comment who uh commenter who spoke to that was a fireman so um yeah I mean I think that's been covered by um our my planner and also um some of the public but but you brought it up so I'm asking you with that in fact paraphrasing your testimony I'm not sure what you're asking me the three fee your testimony and I can ask you miss lberi to read it back if you want but I'm not looking to do that was your testimony something to the effect of the three-foot sidey setback or buffer separation is not appropriate for fire code or building code I think it's one of many features that's not appropriate of the proposal for this lot okay so really my last question on this topic would you be shocked to know that 3 feet is the standard for detached residential development in Jersey City in fact two feet on one side and three feet on the other I'm not shocked okay so is it fair to assume that the fire department does not issue with all of Jersey City development yeah I you know I I feel like all always in never are um yeah sort of extreme this is a specific case in a specific lot so it is your nonexpert opinion that three feet separation is not appropriate for fire Cod on this particular property The Proposal is not appropriate on this property that's my opinion for fire that was my question that's what your testimony was if you can't answer that's okay but then I can answer it's not appropriate thank you thanks for clarifying yeah um I I at this point I will rest on this witness okay can we stop at at that cythia because I see you about to open your mouth to to I'm happy I'm happy was ending Cynthia said she was ending yes I'm I'm happy to stop thank you m MCC thank you thank you very much I appreciate your time thank you okay um and since we had public comment uh and closed it out at the last meeting there will be no public comment at this time need that so uh Cynthia you you you finished we we that that yes we have finished presenting our our objector you fact Witnesses yes thank you okay so now we're left with oh I have quick summation but you want to hear from Staff first or do you want to sum up what would you like to do I don't know I what do you what's up okay we normally hear if there are any comments from uh the Commissioners and then we usually hear from staff so uh do the Commissioners have any comments at this time probably wouldn't say a few things but after yeah the staff does their things so they may be hearing the same thing twice okay Tanya do you have any comments is was there a closing I'm sorry that's what I was missing a closing the objector has finished her case okay and so now we're up to you Tanya staff okay so um I had a report that was uploaded it's probably it's dat to 8 10 but I'm sure that I uploaded it a little after that um you guys have not had the pleasure of going through this with me yet you've only been uh having to deal with Francisco so I apologize in advance but let's talk about D variances um the D variances which is just references the state legislation the ml um 70D that's all that it really means is like we're going to the area where the L use law has the D variances D variances are considered more um substantial in their deviations from what the regulations of the zone are and when you're looking at the variances you're supposed to look at them with a little bit more scrutiny um as to how they might impact uh the Zone um the property the surrounding properties and the master plan that's putting it just kind of like overall but when we're looking at positive criteria for D variances um the D1 the use variance in particular there's a couple things that you want to do first you want to see are the purposes of zoning Advance now in the very beginning of the ml um there are a number of purposes of zoning that are listed and that is really just saying the purposes of zoning so when you hear the planner talk they'll say oh it advances the purpose a advances purpose B uh one that you'll hear a lot is purpose eye which just means aesthetic Improvement um but that's one that you'll hear pretty frequently um the other is that and this is important for use is the site particularly suited to the property and why this is separate for use is because when we're looking at other variances Dev variances um you don't have to be as strict with them necessarily you could say does the site does the does the use fit in the property can the property handle but when it's a use variant you have to say is this site particularly suitable for this property for the use and then you have to kind of also reconcile either why the zoning or the master plan didn't consider the use in the first place and if the planner who was presenting made the case efficient enough one that you you think it advances the purposes of zoning you think that it is particularly suitable that the site is unique the situation is unique and that granting that variance would not cause detriment either to the Zone The Zone plan the purpose of the Zone plan or the master plan um so those that's just an overarching thing of what you're looking for and use variances um so I I I don't want to be labor because there's so much been said on the record and I know most of you have read the transcripts um just so you know the university zoning as far as I know has been in place since at least 2000 I don't know if it was in place prior to that many of these properties were owned by St Peters which was why it was zoned for University I believe there's a couple of other cases before unite um tonight and then maybe next meeting which will be in a similar situation which is um former St Peter property that was sold um there were conversations there's been conversations probably since I've been working here as to whether or not University should be rezoned but it's always been um more of a a plan to have a master plan for the St peters's campus not necessarily anything else um but when we did our master plan this last time we looked at it and um we met with St Peters our Consultants did at least um talking about how we could basically improve upon the university zoning because there are some instances where there are single family homes in the University District and we needed to recognize the fact that even those single family homes wouldn't be able to improve and expand because they wouldn't be permitted uses and they'd have to seek uh expansion of non-conforming uses variances for one two family homes um so we knew that there are some things that we kind of had to um figure out how to fix um but the suggestion that was made in the master plan I think mostly was about an overlay zoning which was kind of to um take into consideration that there um was a um a mixture of uh smaller frame homes and then some larger buildings um whether those are apartment buildings or uh former dorm buildings this block is actually pretty diverse um across the street definitely are matching uh two three uh frame story homes but um East and West there are some larger apartment buildings as well some of them are zoned in the R3 um I think actually it's all R3 or university zoning um so I know that that maybe helps you maybe doesn't help you what I'm trying to provide is guidance for you for when you're making your decision you're making it with um established case law established precedent for how you can decide on um whether use variance should be granted and some of the things you should be taking into consideration so I did put on my report some conditions to consider if the application does get approved um I can read them in or we could just this report has been in the record for so many months I don't know if I necessarily need to read them in except to say if you read them and you accept them I'm fine with that I believe they were chiseled onto a stone when this report was written but I I take no no exception to those conditions okay thank you Tanya so Commissioners do you have any comments that you would like to make before we take a vote hold on well I think the attorneys wanted to sum up so we can wait until after comment I just want to make sure we don't skip the no you can Su up let's sum up and let's move on yeah and then we'll decide go I think um Mr wine wanted to have the last word so um so I just thank you everyone for your for your time and your attention and keeping an open mind and listening to so many people and I want to thank the community for attending and commenting and I think it was probably has not been lost on the board that the people who showed up and commented on January 25th are really they're their community members and and many of them are are really like pillars of the community and we had um one of our Council people here uh supporting the people on Glenwood and we had uh Council Council person's Aid here also um so this is this is a special group of people Glennwood is really a special place and this is a special Enclave of homes in the neighborhood within a neighborhood as my client put it um so the applicant has the burden of proof and I think everybody said uh what the applicant has to prove and to me they have to prove a lot of different things but the key thing they have to prove is particular suitability they have to prove that the proposed site is particularly suitable for the proposed use and sometimes people get hung up on the word particular it's it's sort of sounds like planner kind of gibberish um but our our planner use the word ideally and I think that's kind of a good way to think about it it has to be uh something that really is I ideally suits this lot um what is being proposed so reflecting back um the applicant's planner testified that the building was designed to be consistent with the R3 Zone and she was basically asking the board and the applicant's lawyer has also asked the board to treat this lot as if it is in the R3 Zone and that really sounds an awful lot like zoning by variance um it's it's it's not proof of particular suitability saying well R3 is nearby you should treat this like R3 so from my perspective the applicant hasn't met its burden of proof um and at one point the applicants plan or even testified we're proposing a four family which is a permitted use it's not a permitted use that's why they need a use variant so it seems like she she backtracked effort that but even Mr uh wine in his questioning of Miss Mrs McCormack when he's saying well would you be surprised to know we can do a four story well you you can't you you you you can't that's why you're here getting a variance and even if you were doing a university use guess what you have to have a 10- foot buffer on either side which on a 20 foot five 25t wide lot leaves you with five feet of a buildable width so you you can't just put a university uh use on a larger on on this this 25 by 100 or 140 foot lot without a a variant and you can't just put a four-story residential building here without a use variant so there's no entitlement to four-story building here um now on the other hand you heard from from our planning expert Colleen mcer and she she talked about this concept of building typology and that certain building types work well on certain types of lots and she talked about how this is a narrow elongated lot and it would lead to poor layout it would lead to small side yards um it it it um and it doesn't work that well this type of four-story building doesn't work that well on this type of LW a 25 by 100 lot she thought it it it probably attached homes work better or a smaller scale building um so she said you know she she used the word shoehorned or shoehorning this large four-story four family building into a site that's too constrained to properly accommodate a building of this size now what does the master plan say the master plan and and Colleen mcer specifically referenced our uh a section called Urban Design framework in our master plan um and there were three provisions of the master plan she mentioned um she said um or or the master plan says review that new development proposals should be reviewed for scale typology and Architectural character uh the master plan says that we need to consider we I guess collectively Jersey City needs to consider consider long-term impact of all new development on larger neighborhood street life and pedestrian movement and then the master plan says even though some buildings and neighborhoods may not be designated as historic every attempt should be made to preserve them and reflect their unique architecture scale and character in neighborhoods um I just want to talk about the zoning um so so when you but think about those provisions of the master plan because that will tell you um is does this project substantially impair the master plan um zoning we're in the University Zone one of the purposes of the University zone is to preserve neighborhood stability and our planning experts said well every time you try to stick a a a a building that's double the size and much taller in between these smaller scale buildings that's destabilizing the neighborhood so this is a project that does not meet the purpose of the University Zone it destabilizes the neighborhood now we're now residential quality of life is another purpose of the University Zone and I think you heard a lot of public comment uh you heard my client's testimony that it's going to be tough for them to enjoy their front yard or their front sitting on the front porch it's going to be tough for them to en enjoy their backyard I think um one of the neighbors who lives next to the other project on 124 she used the word toxic and shr I think shrouded in Shadow so um uh and and you heard everybody talk about how they feel that this is not going to be good for their quality of life and a lot of the public comment you heard there was like this sense of loss like they they're they lost the building that already got demoed they're losing their garden and what's what are they getting they're getting something that they all agree does not fit in uh I just wanted to talk about the buffer that there so there's this 10- foot buffer require m in the University Zone um and and you heard sort of contrasting planner testimony um and I I think the applicants planner said you know and it's a D1 use variance that the tendency is to say that other variants are subsumed into that use variants and her opinion was that well you only need the buffer when you're buffering a university use from a residential use now you have a residential use with a res residential use you don't need the buffer anymore our planner countered that and she said well there's a logic to this buffer which is that you want an intense in a more intense use which which this project will be you want to buffer it from a less intense use so her position was you still need a buffer if you're going to put a four-story uh tall building with four units and 11 bedrooms next to a smaller SMI scale uh house I I think um I think I'm in I'm anticipating what what my counterpart may say because he's he we've talked a lot about the nature of compromise and um he he feels his client's been very compromising but he could talk about it himself we've this community has already experienced a loss they've come out and forced to to express how they feel about this project to the board and um I don't know that there is a great compromise here I mean I I think a I think a smaller building may work but this one it's it's nearly double the size it's much taller it's too big it's too bulky it's going to negatively impact the homes on this uh adjacent to them and the streetcape so with that I think I've covered all my points and I I want to thank you very much thank you Madam chair Commissioners as Miss hajan so astutely put it really nothing can be developed on this property without a variance as she indicated and she's correct that by its very nature as a University's Z it does require a a 10-ft buffer on each side no matter what is constructed by the language of the University Zone that's why we're here because to develop a 5- foot wide building is obviously not developable so no matter what we would propose at the end of the day we would be required variance relief that's that's just something that I think is worth putting out there was some talk about the design of the building um and and I think as Miss haj's clients had correctly indicated this project has been going on for a long time whereby we went back to the community um formally with two separate submissions but that was formally we had discussed multiple different facade options multiple different roof options and we even did so through the uh through the councilman's office uh based on comments that we received back from councilman Bojo's office so what you're seeing here this evening and two weeks ago was not developed in a vacuum with respect to facade design we also reached out to City Planning with respect to facade design and said there are design standards within your ordinance um do you feel that we we conflict with any of those and if so let's work on them so this has been a very fluid project with respect to design and I would I would ask the board respectfully to consider the design element perhaps a little bit separately than the actual use variance element which is what we're here seeking tonight for the uh for the residential use on this property should the board have any comments um when they go into deliberation about design as I said at the beginning of my presentation and I'll reiterate now that's malleable that is something we wanted to work with the community and the design we came up with was based on the best feedback that we could ultimately Garner between City Planning and the community without substantially reducing the actual scope of our project with that I'd like to to share a few words in closing the variance before you this evening as I said is for a D1 use to change the underlying zoning of this property effectively from the use Zone into a residential zoning use whether that is the R3 which makes the most sense We Believe given its proximity and the remainder of the properties on the Block that are not us owned or whether in fact that's R1 um which has been floated about and was floated about at Community meetings nevertheless even in the R1 the density would be the four units that we're ultimately proposing based on our lot size the R1 has recognized as of the new zoning ordinance that it's it's a density based calculation rather than a strict one to two family um marker and uh specifically in that instance we would be permitted a three family building in the front with an accessory dwelling unit sitting right on the rear property line just for some context additionally calling this a use variance application is technical in nature as you've heard from our planner some of the uses that are actually permitted in the University zone are by definition residential the dormatory uses um for those of you that went to college way back when fraternity and sorority houses probably shouldn't have been residential but a lot of people fall asleep in them anyways so nevertheless the U Zone contemplates that that residential use is something that can be appropriately had within the district obviously we're here seeking the use variants because your ordinance defines dormatory use separately than straight residential and that's why we're here this evening um no issues there you've also heard from the objecting planner and attorney stating that this property is better suited to a 1 to2 Family Residence under the municipal land use law and I don't need to tell you this this is more for me just getting this out there we don't spot Zone and I think everybody knows that we should not impose a different standard on this property than exists in the rest of Jersey City as I mentioned four units on this lot size no matter which zone you're in which across the city any Zone that permits a lot of this size to have residential would be permitted for units on that property we chose the R3 for obvious reasons given the remainder of the block and that's why we developed the massing that we developed which is still under the massing that is permitted both in the U Zone and the R3 we've worked diligently for over a year to appease the neighbors we've changed the architectural design multiple times adding and removing features at their request we even removed a bedroom from each unit and reduced the building depth by nearly 30 feet resulting in a structure that is substantially smaller than what would be allowed as I said under the youth or R3 zoning we've made these significant changes but obviously it's no secret you've heard that uh there are a number of neighbors who still don't feel that that is adequate the master plan does State and I'm quoting Beyond revisions to the U District another zoning mechanism to explore would be the creation of a university overlay Zone as you've heard the existing U District sets uh set a line where the campuses and where residential areas are an overlay Zone would allow the universities to continue to grow and improve facilities within a defined area surrounding the existing campus without rendering existing residential or other non-university uses non-conforming this property is no longer owned by the university as and as per the master plan it's to the public benefit to allow it to be something that from a use perspective fits a lot more uh in cohesion with the surrounding University uses and the surrounding residential uses the objecting planner and many members of the public had pointed out that the prior use on this property before it became um vacant and then a community garden was in fact residential in nature we do not know when the original house was demolished um and I believe commissioner shadid had brought that up but it does further prove that a residential use which is the variant we are asking for this evening a residential use would be appropriate with the neighborhood makeup and it would conform to the original aims of the zoning of this property while solely speculation The Logical conclusion is that this lot was zoned you simply because it came under ownership of St Peters the legal standard for use variance comes from the medich case and in order to justify that D1 use variance the applicant needs to show sight suitability how it promotes the general welfare through the positive and negative criteria analysis and that there's no substantial impairment of the Zone planner master plan looking at the surrounding properties we can easily meet the site suitability St we can easily meet the site looking at the surrounding properties we can easily meet the site suitability standard as every property on this side of Glenwood is a residential use two properties to the left is a very large student housing structure and to the right are the R3 zoned properties which have been talked about at length the citing question is sufficiently sized to accommodate the proposed residential use as evidenced by the lack of any bulk variants necessitated under the R3 standards you've already heard from our planner as to the positive criteria and the lack of negative criteria of the project and I would remind the board that the bar is substantial impairment to the Zone plan and master plan and substantial detriment to the public good there's also the question of the better planning alternative than the permitted use as you've heard from our planner as well as miss mcer the objecting planner this lot is undersized for many of the institutional uses contemplated by the uone for example student housing or fraternity sorority building which would allow construction of a building of four stories and 40 ft with 60% building coverage and an unlimited number of bedrooms admittedly as has been discussed that use would require a 10-ft buffer between any use and a residential use however that standard as has been testified to is there to give sufficient separation between the expected nuisance of a higher density student use and the surrounding residential as explained in the Poo case bulk requirements are intrinsically intrinsically linked to the permitted uses in the zone the buffers we are proposing are appropriate between two residential uses as evidence by meeting the standards that would apply in all the r zones we are proposing a much more modest structure with 12 bedrooms and 40% building coverage this is undoubtedly a better planning alternative for the neighborhood and a better match with the Zone plan and to this there has really been no opposing testimony um with respect to our justifications despite the objections that ask this property to be left vacant or developed with a one or two family home every single residential Zone in the in Jersey City deems it appropriate to develop this size property with multif family as far as leaving it empty this would be inappropriate as indicated in the case of Kramer versus the Zoning Board of seagert where the courts decided that if the permitted use on a property offers no economic utility whatsoever to the owner that is itself deemed a special reason to Grant a variance and leaving it as green open space I think we can all agree would do that I will close with the following our appearance at the Zoning Board of adjustment this evening is the opportunity to properly plan this site for decades to come it is our position that a use identically aligned to the surrounding R3 zoning standards is the way for this board to get it right we hope you agree and ultimately that you vote to approve our application so I thank the board for their time over the last two weeks city planning for its time over the last at this point close to a year and a half and I do thank the public for their input because I do believe that it designed really helped design the project that you ultimately see before you this evening so thank you and I would respectfully request approval of our application thank you um at this time do the Commissioners have any comments yeah I actually have a few questions and some comments uh Tanya If This Were a fraternity house or sorority house and was built like a house is that 10t requirement on either side still there if it was like a house like this yeah the 10 foot the 10ft buffer is for residential and I believe on both sides are residential but for the any kind of BU one one story two story three story or building like a dorm building just yeah it just say residential so it's kind of vague at the very least term the the way we've even treated mixed use um we have a similar uh situation on Palisade where it's a mixed use ground floor commercial with other residential um and there's a residential buffer and we've still said the residential buffer applies cuz I'm trying to grasp the uh the university 10 foots on either side I could totally see it if there was a dense building multiple dormitories because of obviously getting out in case of an emergency or fire but if it was a house like a frat house or even a private house that somebody offered for University students and it was built like this like a house with that 10 that 10 foot buffer just doesn't sound like it makes sense but you answer that so that's that um it sounds we talk about borders in the news and everything else but um you have on one side the R3 over the other side the university Zone yeah and when you look at everything that's been presented I mean the common thing is four stories is there and this for my opinion I mean four stories is allowable either way um however um in terms of the neighborhood the the university purpose there obviously it would be more beneficial if there was a residential component there if I was a neighbor living there I would want a residential thing there cuz I'm right there I won't want this University thing then another residential on the other side of that that's really a wall if that happens um so in terms of the height uh and looking at staff's me um notes on University zoning what's required and what's being proposed a lot of criteria met um but one issue I think that's been coming up um is there's still uncomfortability with the design I know the Commissioners have mentioned this last time um I I think a lot of it makes sense in terms of I think everyone thinks there should be a residential component there it just makes sense um the fact that it was a park in the past I mean I wish it could still be a park that conversation probably had to happen with St Peters before they sold it at this point becomes something much more complicated for that to happen and costly because obviously the minute something happens here and we approve something the value of that goes up and as a result of that it becomes much more expensive at the Public's you know uh in the public pocketbook um still leaves us with the at least me and I know some other Commissioners it still leaves us with the issue of design I know uh commissioner Coyle chairperson Coyle mentioned uh ones before about in some of these presentations we see more of a visual graph like an artist almost as if we're looking at a photograph as opposed to a drawing and obviously the drawings were used by both sides here a little bit making it bigger making it smaller and it made a little more complicated and sticking to the purpose of of why we're here um I think you meet you met a lot of what you needed to meet in terms of what had to be say but there's still some uncomfortability with this design and I think think you know if there was a a way to see something you know more more visual uh and we see other Architects bring it in so I know it's doable um maybe it'll make us feel a little make me feel a little better I'm sure maybe some of the other Commissioners um I think everyone vetted whatever they needed to vet in this whole thing so far and I think there's a lot of common stuff everybody wants a home there people wor about their neighborhoods the size a little bit this this a little bit that you do have a right I mean the owner of the property has a right to build under certain circumstances what zoning permits but is what you could do and then there what you should do and that's how we work things you know that we try to work things out as best we can so I would just like to and this is my my saying uh I think much of this is sort of like my mind's made up on but I still feel little uncomfortable with the design a little bit and I would feel more comfortable if we had another chance just and we got to this point now there's nothing else to talk about we did we did everything I think at this point just to talk about the design a little bit maybe there's a way that some things could be tweaked and changed a little bit just to make people more comfortable maybe more so but I just wanted to say that and I need to understand a little bit about the U that 10-ft buffer but you answer that for me zoning probably should have been changed in the past and this should have been dealt with a while ago to protect and maybe turn it all into R3 zones or to divert it once it's sold into something automatically like a sunset kind of thing just to preserve the houses that are there because those houses should stay there and I would V you to work on that ASAP to make sure these things don't happen going forward but we've dealt with the Cs we've dealt with so just trying to hopefully see if there's a way that we get one more bite at just making this even a little bit better and a little more palatable for you know us up here otherwise you know decisions have to be made just upon what we have right now so just want to let you know that Mr Zuki I thank you the only thing I will put in the record um and I know you're in you're in comment but I do believe that we did enter a rendering into uh the exhibits but as I said at the beginning of my closing if there was specific Design Elements you wanted to see I don't I don't think it's subjective but I don't think we take any offense to that or objection to that do any other Commissioners have uh any other comments okay Tanya I think we need to we're ready for a vote anybody make a motion we don't have a motion oh I'm sorry I'm sorry can someone please make a motion to vote on case z on case uh z22 d89 Madam chair I'd like to make a motion uh to approve KZ 22-0 89 as presented to the board this evening can I get a second second T please make sure your mics are on y everybody make sure your mics are on um on the motion to approve I assume that's with conditions is that what you have yes yes yes okay sorry uh commissioner Baron no you got your mic on no okay commissioner Bole no commissioner shadid no better turn that mic on commissioner zi as I said if we didn't have the design ability to look at this just a little bit more then I have to vote no okay uh commissioner Allen um I I I I agree with commissioner zck zck excuse me I need water Z have trouble no no I agree with cuz commissioner Ock if we had like a different design or something that made the public happy you know this would be difference but I'm a no Vice chair [Music] ruo um I say no but I agree with a Ply um we definitely need something different a little more lively a little more in tune with the rest of the housing um so like that it doesn't stand out as much maybe a couple of more pastel colors I don't know something but I say no and chair Coyle no so the motion fails um no in favor seven didn't no so none in favor seven I don't know what I'm saying the motion fails seven voted no zero voted yes no abstained no nobody abstained sure right so Madam chair if I if I may and I and I thank the board for their time I really do uh the comments that I heard at least from the board members now really for the first time and that's to no fault of the board members I understand this is the process but really there were a lot of comments about design and with respect and I've done this before at other boards and I I I don't see legally it's permissible so I will defer to the board and I will ask and then I can follow up with Mr leaga I would just ask on if the issue is really comes down in a lot of ways to design um there's an issue of coming back with something similar that is just a different design there's an issue of rest judicata and I don't want to be in a situation where by the board we come back with a slightly different design maybe the board is happy with but they don't have the ability to actually hear the would that be mine and your decision as to whether so so where I'm going with this I'm sorry talk over one another goad I was talking he talked over me I did I did I did I was saying that wouldn't that be a question for you or I in planning you bring a design and we decide whether it's substantially different wouldn't that be what where we going it it it would be it would be and so what I would respectfully request in that vein is an option and this is available to reconsider the application rather than filing and starting from scratch and getting back in the queue for the sake of judicial efficiency if we could reconsider and we will certainly continue to work via City Planning and Mr leaga if he's interested um on a perhaps a new design that we can then present to the board well let's put it this way you have the public here who's already moaning about that I don't know whether we can reconsider something without knowing what we're reconsidering absolutely so this has to be a team effort with Miss haanas the public planning me and you and then we decide what we're doing okay okay I would just like to reserve that as my request but I I thank you for your time and we'll certainly work with Mr leagle and miss miss aanas and miss Marion to hopefully get get back quickly okay thank you thank you now Bridget needs a break we'll take how many you need 10 minutes at least bridg 10:15 10 10 minute break Joseph hello good evening everybody Steph Joseph for the applicant again um Dennis is going to get set up and he has a laptop he's going to plug it in so everybody could see everything this time um 104 Glennwood Avenue this is located on Glenwood Avenue in the University zone I'm sorry trying to can I ask a question why are there no computer like we're not getting projector on the screen or things of that sort I mean this is difficult for us to no the the the laptop's not connected yet we have everything you are going to do that though okay fine I'm just in the way right now okay um all right so this is a it's an existing four-story building um which the applicant desires to renovate and convert into a multif family dwelling uh was formerly used by the university um for various different purposes and before the university used it it was a a multif family apartment building um the building will have 21 dwelling units two of those units are going to be restricted as affordable housing one of them is going to be a three bedroom unit at a very low income level um no expansion of the building at all is being proposed existing building existing square footage uh the building's not not changing in that regard we are doing uh Rehabilitation to the building so we did receive a letter from the historic preservation officer that says the building is historically significant um the the plans that you're going to see tonight were reviewed by the historic preservation officer and a uh and a letter was issued on February 88th uh 2024 that confirms the historic officer reviewed the plans and the proposed work appears to be consistent with the rehabilitation of uh historically significant buildings outside of historic districts um in order to accomplish all of this obviously need a use variance it's not a university use uh it's going to be a multif family apartment building and we need a c variance for the location of the bicycle parking because of the nature of the existing building we're locating the bicycle parking outside in the rear not inside of the building um let's bring up Dennis get him sworn in and he'll walk you through the plans you know Mr Joseph I was outside for a moment we didn't mark your notices did we oh I'm so sorry uh yes this this was carried many many times actually we we do need to Mark notices into so we have them Bridget is affid David proof of service notice of publication so we'll mark that as A1 for this application if you want to bring it up here thank you great Joseph Mr deino has appeared in front of this board many times uh yes we recognize his ex expertise we assume his license is still in good order yes it is great and if the board would just bear with us a couple minutes while Dennis pulls everything up and make is working show that off for a minut is we can't do it here this is going to come up here in a minute what I was saying I little note to Tanya Tanya do you think it's appropriate that we has for resolution to approve no right said I didn't think so but I I wasn't paying attention when you said you said that you you always said that you have to somehow sometimes look to my light yeah don't just because you're make a motion to app you could vote against it yeah we're just moving it along as you can tell by seven nothing against it I can't open this one no yeah what historic can't I can't open whatever I'm supposed to open how much 21 how many dorm rooms are there now okay I think we're ready thank you for your patience okay sorry about that okay I'm ready do you swear or affirm the testimony your basket in this proceeding with the good truth the whole truth or nothing but the truth I do please St spell your full name Dennis Michael deino D NN i s m i c h a l deino d v is and Victor IO thank you well again thank you thank the board for hearing our application um so as um Mr Joseph um indicated that this property is in the U Zone and actually sandwiched between two r3s we go again so uh the r two R3 uh buildings on either side are actually six-story multifamilies um this I wanted to make sure I put the uh the building facade the building photograph up there so we can all see and reference this is a six-story and opposite side is another six-story multi family um building uh from the historic records that we obtained was initially designed and built in the 1920s uh for 100 year old building the building has fared very very well um it um sorry Dennis we go I'll want me start over was it recorded or should we just no no I'm here yeah okay um built in the 1920s uh you could tell it's a art deco um style building uh Art Deco is noted for a lot of uh symmetrical Styles it used a lot of uh um um large um vertical masses in order to identify specific um elements such as a main entrance so you could see in this particular building how the um how The Deco style was conducted in um in the masonry use uh there's a lot of repeated patterns in Deco and you can tell again from um let me get over to here you can see the a lot of repeated patterns um and brick work in a deco style structures um this particular building um was really uh very ornamental brick um very elegant uh brick work um the reliefs of the brick were done at the windows uh and under the windows you could see actually at the very top and underneath the first floor window the brick work is substantial there are dentals that they were used and you can see at the again at the main entrance how the vertical um large um vertical components identify uh I'm sorry can you just uh exp a okay or you put in slideshow mode if that's easier whatever so like a lot of uh brick buildings in Jersey City this I believe Falls within that category of um of uh iconic um it um it we we I live in Jersey City we all live in Jersey City we drive these roads on a daily basis and we're amazed at the at the uh the craftsmanship of the brick work that went on in the 1920s so uh moving on um we got approval we got actually the first historic a significant letter uh April 28th 2022 with historic so we we have been working on this project for quite some time to get it before you before the board um that you could um blow this up right here this was a again St Peter's uh uh property um hington Hall I believe they called it um it was various different uses um the building was when it was originally designed and constructed it was actually designed and constructed as a multif family building which when I when we go through the floor plans you can actually see uh how the individual floor plans of the individual units are very Sim simar to what the floor plans are that we're using because the way it was initially laid out you can tell the building was built and construct uh designed and constructed as a multif family uh we met with the community board several times um I think we met most of their concerns there was uh like I think maybe two or three pages this particular building uh as you know we have other uh the applicant has other buildings that they P that they're purchasing from uh St Peters this one had very few comments um we really it's a 70 the lot coverage is 70% right now I think we're going to 74% only because that front area that's uh the vegetated area that's in the front is going to actually be converted to allow light and air to come into the basement will be converted to a to a patio area uh the bike the other uh percentage uh is the additional percentage is the the pad for the uh outdoor um bicycle storage um quickly a couple of comments that I believe are worth from the community board that are worth noting is one was parking um I mean you can tell that there's no no place to put parking in the building it's as I said with 70 plus% loot coverage um so parking unfortunately and and as uh Mr Joseph indicated that we actually I think we're exempt from parking because we are putting two um um two affordables in the building one affordable is a is a two-bedroom and the other is a three-bedroom uh one another comment from Community was uh bird friendly Windows there's couple of different ways to to try to um protect birds from or try try to uh stop birds from flying into to glass one would be interior um window treatments uh another is there they actually have glass now that has textures to it uh additional Mullens in in Windows uh stop birds from flying in so bird friendly basically what we did is we added a note um and that we will when we get to the construction document phase uh we would make sure that the all the windows that we use are are bird friendly the other comment I believe was pollinator friendly vegetation so we added that note to our drawings um the the variances that we're seeking as again Mr Joseph indicated is a use variance because we are in a u Zone and um we are you know proposing a multif family and the bike um the variant for the bikes not putting them inside I think it's better these days not to put bikes on the inside uh one of the comments I believe from traffic was they wanted to see a detail of of what that bike's uh a detail of that so we are uh proposing 21 units 29 bathrooms two Studios 11 one-bedrooms 7 two-bedrooms and I mentioned uh one three-bedroom the two bedrooms a the studi is average 330 Square ft the one bedroom's 575 the two bedrooms 830 and the one bedroom is 945 squ ft uh the um next slide is uh the site plan you could see that we are proposing uh two new Street trees in the front um this uh there's some substantial repair work on retaining walls on either side of the property because there are some large unfortunately mature trees that are damaging retaining walls so in order to maintain the grade change from from this piece of property here to the to this three and 4 and 1/2t walkway on the side of the building is prob about 3 and 1/2 ft and which is um held back by retaining walls those retaining walls are damaged so they would have to be repaired um we have a a 10- foot vegetated buffer in the rear the rear yard is existing rear yard we're not changing it's 30 ft 10 ft of that 30 will be a a substantial vegetated buffer you can see in this slide where the bike rack will be uh this is an interesting I don't obviously can't see it in this slide um I wish I had been able to give you a photo of this but this pathway here which is used for egress because this particular building only has one exit uh the the second means of egress were Through Fire escapes uh so these two Alleyways and right at this point right here is actually a little tunnel that goes through this first floor of the building and goes into the backyard so the fire Escapes in the back can exit through the tunnel and exit back to the street so we will actually be utilizing the fire escapes again uh we are adding a exterior egress stair in the back uh that will take people in place of the fire Escapes in the back there'll be an egress stair in the back so um I think that's uh there is 5 556 ft of green roof which is this area and this area uh as permitted we allowed uh a th000 with with the zoning with the Zone allow is a th 1,65 ft of deck space which is here uh the only volume that we're adding in the building is just to to bring the stairs up to the roof and the bulkhead the rest of the area is blocked off for mechanical equipment so uh there won't be any uh if this hopefully gets approved you won't see any people hanging out over the the front of the building everything is oriented towards the rear and towards the vegetated roof area um let's see okay the front as we can see on that uh we are uh just really cleaning restoring the facade uh changing out lights uh you won't obviously see any of the um any of the uh air conditions sticking out of the windows this all the units will have um individual heat and air conditioning and uh we will be repl replacing these lights these obviously are not original lights they're very industrial so we'll be replacing the the light fixtures uh okay so we have four units let me see four units in the basement the Bas is there's also an amend of the in basement a small workout room um there is of course the building is not sprinklered now it will be sprinklered and this The Boiler Room a refuge area and a new electric room which is right blow that up which is right here electric rooms fire protection room Refuge room and and other and boiler hot water heaters and that such the front units have um patios in the front these two front units and the back units are here so we have four units in the basement five units on the first floor uh one two three and four and five and I wanted to I wanted to show you kind of like way compare how the building was separated from the start you can almost tell that the entry doors were here a apartment unit was there there and then two more in the back uh so it it very much is in line with what the building was originally designed for oh sorry about that first floor second floor is six units on the second floor this is the the second floor is where we will be putting the three-bedroom which is right here in this corner and then um there's six units again as I said on the second floor um the the third bedroom is actually now turns this corner unit into a one-bedroom when we get to the next floor that you'll see that that turns into two two bedroom units one there and one there and so Z10 is the elevations I think this is probably important so the board can see all the windows are being changed out uh you could see fire escapes are rear fire escapes are being removed we have an opportunity to put an egress St in um and then uh windows we have new energy codes today um so there is a substantial upgrade in the energy code that warrants not you know new windows all new um um Installation System so um so that's pretty much all we have we not again not changing the building uh forade at all so so just before we move on from the front elevation um you were referring to basement and units of the basement just on that on that elevation can you identify the floor that's the basement just so we get a yeah if you see this line right here that's the basement level Bas base base finish floor is just about level with grade so we call it a basement but what we are calling this a four-story building not not a three-story and and Dennis the basement units are actually have out access to outdoor these two yeah these two front sorry what was the question uh the basement units have access to outdoor patio area just the two front basement units yeah like I I think you can tell from here and you look at the photograph that heavily vegetated overgrown area in the front is now being converted to two patios so in close closing um I mean what we're really trying to do is just bring the building back to its original um uh original use um residential um restoring uh a very um brilliant and um iconic structure so um that's that's all I have if I have any questions we hold we'll hold yeah okay thank you want leave okay so we'll bring up our planner um who was already sworn in and remains under oath so good evening everyone I am going to go back up here it's down here this is very strange okay um so good evening board um it's pleasure to see you all again um we're here this evening uh for no you haven't just a couple couple minutes older um yes okay so we're here this evening uh because we're here seeking a D1 use variance um in order to allow uh this existing structure to be adaptively reused uh for a uh multif family uh development um as well as a uh C variant for the location of the bicycle parking which is going to be located in the rear yard um just again as a reminder so this this actually sort of misidentifies our lot we are actually this lot in here so we are a uh U lot that's in between two R3 Lots um uh so these are a series of uh multif family uh dwellings uh that are of probably somewhat similar age and um uh to our our structure that they're probably over 100 years old um and so this is uh part of the uh existing fabric of this block oh I did not know I could move that okay so let's look at the picture of the building again so um the Zoning Board of adjustment uh as you are all aware has a jurisdiction to Grant D1 use variances um with um under the medich case when you meet the certain criteria Pro use promotes the general welfare the property is particularly suitable to accommodate the proposed use and the proposed use can be reconciled with the zoning ordinance so uh and when looking at site suitability for this project um as mentioned this property is in the U District which permits college and universities parks and playgrounds dormitories fraternity or sorority houses or meeting Halls uh the subject property uh was owned by the university has been sold um and so it no longer serves a sort of it's former University use um you know it's it's can't really be a a a you know a meeting Hall it's not a um office building it's not uh a lecture hall um so it it cannot it no longer serves that function U because the university no longer owns it uh the uh existing structure on the site is has been considered significant um and it's not really eligible for demolition to make way for either a new building or to serve as a Parker Place playground um so right now we are again looking at trying to decide what is that better planning alternative when we have a building they cannot be demolished and it no longer serves the function um as a university use um there are other permitted uses the dormatory fraternity house or sority house again these uses are very residential in character they have include bedrooms bathrooms laundry rooms and eating facilities these are all the different types of functions that uh residential use would also house um so this use uh is very similar to those other permitted uses in character um however unlike a typical residential use there's no maximum density um furthermore I think that this project really is um more consistent with the character of the block which makes it more suitable to be a residential use because it allows for that wider range of occupants um including families and young Professionals in addition to students so I think that that makes this conversion of this existing uh uh building a a better planning alternative than for it to be strictly um like a dormatory or or fraternity shity house use and then as was mentioned as as uh my colleague uh Dennis had mentioned given the existing layout of this building adaptive reuse of the structure as a multif family residential use is appropriate um there are existing walls that are being reused that sort of were create sort of the um the framework in which we've adaptively uh created these new unit uh units um and it the existing structure originally was developed as an apartment building so we're merely uh returning this building to its former use uh we're not proposing any expansions of the existing structure only uh other than the one um bulkhead to reach the roof with the stair um but we're not changing the facade you know we're not pulling the building close to the street we're not increasing uh into the rear we're not increasing on the side so the existing structure of the building is to remain and really the focus here is on interior renovation and other necessary improvements to build bring the building up to Modern building code and fire code standards and then the site is also particularly suitable for this use given its location between two other mid-rise multif family buildings that are in R3 District um you've heard extensive um discussions already this evening about University use and R3 um but the the fact that this site is located between these two other R3 buildings um really makes this an appropriate sort of infill site um and the fact that there is an existing building on the site that is not going to be altered really again makes the site very suitable for the use that's being proposed here um the density uh we're proposing is uh 21 units um is also consistent with the character and the density of the adjacent properties um so there are the multif family properties on either side of us um have very similar uh unit counts and density uh so one this was proposing uh 21 units at about 125 units per acre 100 Glenwood which is um I believe in this picture to our uh right would be is 33 units at 125 units per acre 10 Glenwood which is on our other side is 36 units at 215 units per acre 110 Glenwood Avenue is 25 units at 119 units per acre and 114 Glennwood Avenue with 25 units at 10 is also 119 units per acre so as you can see the the number of units and the density of proposed here is very consistent with the density of the other multif family dwellings that are on this block that we're in buildings that were developed at probably about the same time that this one was originally developed uh furthermore this project is providing that 10% affordable housing um so we're we're you know providing that additional affordable housing um where you know if we were in another District of the the um if we were located elsewhere um you know we could potentially use it we can use that affordable housing overlay which allows um buildings to elim density requirements as long as they meet um the bulk requirements within the Zone um and in this case we're adaptively using an existing structure um and we're providing uh uh units within that structure um uh without changing the the physical character of the the building and then we also look at whether or not it the the development promotes the general welfare by advancing purposes of the ml um so again you think you heard about this a lot already this evening um you know there's this purpose a which is to encourage appropriate use of a property that will promote the public health safety moral and G General Welfare so in this case I do believe this project meets that standard uh we're re adaptively reusing an existing structure um we're going to create a residential use with it between two different residential uses on a block that has a lot of residential use so I believe that this as an appropriate use for this block um it uh will promote the public health and safety with this Redevelopment we are going to be um build bringing this building up to Modern building and fire code standards so we are going to be creating a safer condition than there is today um so I think that's important to to keep in mind and then we look at um purpose C maintaining um uh proposed adequate light air and open space to surrounding properties so again in this case I I do believe we meet this standard this is an existing building we're not changing anyone's access to light air open space there will be no impact from this development application beyond what there is existing today the project will promote a desirable visual environment um again I do believe that this project will meet that standard um that's standard um I um again we're we're going to maintaining the existing structure it's going to be rehabilitated meeting um the standards uh for rehabilitation of projects um we are going to be adding some um Landscaping in front of the building uh the bushes that are there today will be removed but there will be Landscaping right along the fence line um with some patios and then we're going to have these um Street trees um so there's going to be new Street trees within the public right of way so I think all of that contributes to um a development that that again contributes to the character of the street um and the Improvement of the visual environment and then Additionally the project is consistent uh with the intent um uh purpose J where the by adaptively reusing the existing structures we're going to conserve energy and natural resources um you know it's always better to reuse a structure where you can rather than to De demolish it and and lose that um energy and carbon footprint of the materials that are already there so I do believe that that really uh meets that uh purpose J and then looking at whether or not it can be reconciled with the zoning ordinance um the 2021 master plan recommended the creation of that University overlay Zone um which as you heard previously would allow universities continue to grow and improve facilities within the defined area surrounding the existing campus without rendering existing res residential or other non-university uses non-conforming this again case is a little bit of reverse in that we the university has sold this property um but I think it really um meets that standard where we're trying to find a use for this project that is consistent with the character of the street and the use of surrounding it in which case that would be a multif family housing the master plan continues that the overlay would potentially include underlying bulk regulations so that any development consistent with a surrounding built environment in this case we're preserving an existing building we're preserving the existing built environment for this uh property um and then uh whether or not um looking at that other variance for our bicycle parking um so this is a c variance um it's not related to uh our use request it is uh specifically for um the section of the ldo which requires that bicycle parking uh be located indoors for residential uses um in this case uh given the layouts of the existing building we believe that putting it outside under a shelter uh would be a a better alternative um and allow for easier access to those bicycle spaces uh for tenants of the building um they are going to be covered so you know it's they're not going to be exposed to the elements which is sort of the intent and purpose of putting it inside um so we believe that we've still met the intent um and we are providing the appropriate number of spaces so it's it's just the location exterior to the building that is the request for the variance um when we look at the negative criteria um I believe that you know this project will not result in a substantial detriment to the general welfare uh we're re adaptively reusing that existing structure um there's so many benefits from that we the character of the street is preserved the um embodied carbon embodied energy of the building is preserved um you know we are uh going to take what was um a university use and something that that no longer functions uh for the University um and turn it into a multif family housing which can be uh providing new homes for uh residents in Jersey City who maybe want to move to this neighborhood and we're also going to be providing affordable housing uh which is a a great benefit um for residents of of the city and and really um again we also are providing the benefits here of taking a building that has probably not had a lot of investment in terms of improvements to it and really bringing it up to those modern building and fire coach standards um so really that provides a benefit not just for the people in the building but also for the adjacent properties um and then I don't see that this is going to result in a substantial impairment or to the intent or purpose of the Zone planner zoning ordinance um as I as I mentioned the master plan uh discusses that the University District uh is not really functioning right now um it could should be considered an overlay um which would allow for these underlying uh uh for for an underlying zoning which would allow for these sorts of uses to continue um and and or to be developed in this case um and I think that again it really meets that uh purpose of the master plan um to address those issues of the zoning code and by uh putting it into a residential use it consistent with the type of use that is permitted Elsewhere on the Block in that R3 District um so I don't see that it really is a substantial detriment to either the Zone plan or to the zoning ordinance um and I think overall that uh this project has met can meet both a positive and negative criteria not only for that D1 use variance but but also for that um see uh variance for the bicycle parking um and that uh is the rest of my testimony all right thank you everyone that does conclude our direct testimony I would just Reserve uh for summation uh at at the end but that does conclude our direct testimony okay thank you are there are anyone is there anyone in the uh audience that would like to comment on this project at this time okay just come up got three minutes okay just a reminder again you have three minutes and Mr Shahid will keep me our Tim keeper and let you know when you have one minute left thank you I don't think I'll take that long um I just wanted to to say that um living this is the same block that we were discussing earlier and um I actually really like the work that that the developer has done uh I think it's a great um example of of adaptive reuse and it's I I'm not even sure if it's been used as student housing or faculty housing either way it's uh it is it could be a beautiful building and I and I think this developer will do um a great job of of making it beautiful once again uh the only concern that I really have is that this this property I believe is one of four if I'm not mistaken that the developer will be um working on on our block uh and this is probably this this is definitely the smallest property um and I could be wrong but I feel like there's going to be upwards of 300 or so units between the four different properties that this uh developer hopefully will be working on um and I generally like the plans for for really all of the projects the the biggest concern is parking um um there's you know as it's probably no surprise to anyone on the board that students probably by you know uh probably Drive much less than your average citizen living in Jersey City or any City for that matter and so this is a relatively small one-way block that already has significant density uh that put it this way as it is right now parking on this block is already really difficult so I know that there is no requirement for the developer to incorporate parking into the design I can understand why I but I do think that you know St Peter's university sold these properties to the developer and it's something that we've addressed with St Peters as our community group um we've discussed it with the developer as well and so far everyone just sort of seems to be saying oh well there's nothing we can do you should ask ask them oh well there's nothing you should do that we can do you could ask you should ask them we're going to have so many new units on this block and I don't know who to go to for For assistance with this but that's the big concern and I think I can speak for my neighbors when I say that that is the most uh genuine concern that we have for not just this property but the hundreds of new residents that will be living on this relatively small one-way block that's it thank you all thank you anyone else does anyone else want to make any comments from the public please come to the podium good evening again um looking at this project it was wonderful to hear about the Adaptive reuse and that this wasn't a developer who was seeking to demolish the building and build new and very very different from its surroundings this whole entire area and I reside within the West Bergen East linol Park neighborhood which is a historic district and we could not extend it across St Peters to capture the wonderful buildings on Glenwood and Highland some of them have been lost already especially on Highland so anyway to see a developer adaptively reuse a building and to bring it back to what it was um is encouraging for our neighborhood because there's such lovely apartment buildings in which they aren't right up to the street they do have Greenery in front of them this is true even on Duncan Avenue where it just lends a different feel to a block with a lot of apartment buildings and Glennwood Avenue has a lot of apartment buildings so the green space in front of this building is significant ific and important and even when they transform the front to plazas hopefully they do it sensitively to the building if they're removing windows and putting in sliding doors so that they treat the building with that kind of respect I would hope they take that into account um parking again as as um Nathan had mentioned you know listen I I graduated from St Peters it's my alamada but they have not been a good Community member to the neighborhood honestly from all the time that I have dealt with them they they are selling a lot of property putting it all on the market at once this block is getting at least a 25% change with all the property that they've sold that's a huge amount of change to one given block and St Peters is unwilling to come to the table to talk about shared parking and you know what we accommodate the universities we bend over backwards as Jersey City whether it's NJCU or St Peters we really give them the red carpet treatment and you know what they they may be coming here about a building cuz they're telling us that they're going to build down on West Side Avenue a nursing school or something like that well they may be coming cuz it could be six stories or seven taller than necessary or allowed I should say and maybe consider that they are not such a good partner and they need to be a better partner with their neighborhood and that's all I ask thank you very much thank you anyone else good evening again I would like to speak tonight to support this building I um have looked at the plans and I would like to support it with um a a sense of guardedness in light of the infrastructure concerns and in light of the parking concerns that were already mentioned um as um someone else already said and as the planner said it's a great example of adaptive reuse it's a beautiful early 1900s um our Deco building it's still beautiful and it it will continue to shine through this um you know adaptive reuse of it um my understanding is that the building was most recently used by the university as offices and um maybe at some point was dorms but in any case um you know we I I really do um think that this is a a good project um the reason that I have any sense of cautious optimism or guardedness is um just because of the increased density and the infrastructure on this small oneway Street um we will be back because there this um developer has purchased four large former dormatory properties this is one of them and um you know we do have concerns about there was a um a water main break in the summer and parking is um creating a hostile environment and um we need to have the significant issues addressed as we grow so um you know we do have we do also we we're happy to see that um the requirements are legally being met here and the community also would like to see some additional beneficial criteria to existing residents we would love to see that considered um not just the requirement um what we're talking about with the four buildings here is 157 units 288 bedrooms and 231 bathrooms so give or take maybe 450 new neighbors we're excited for our new neighbors we're excited to not see this building be vacant at 104 um you know and have it have it adaptively use and renovated um but it will have a serious impact on the neighborhood infrastructure and um you know we'd like to see those uh concerns properly and reasonably addressed going forward um the only thing left that I have um as I do as I said guardedly support this project is um I noticed that there was something in the architectural plans and I wanted to ask about it if a demo was sought for this building at one time it's on Arc plans Mark 3 dated 31523 at the bottom of the page it says p7- 2.1 demolition plan and zoning map so I was just curious if there was a demo at some point applied for thank you is that a question for Mr deino Mr Joseph yes a question for Mr deino uh it is a question for for Mr what she's talking about um I I believe the the note refers to we zoning board planning board have been asking us to show what walls are coming down so I believe the note refers to a demo plan that basically shows what part of the inside is being taken down and what part's staying interior well strictly Interiors yeah part of this this package um okay uh before you begin is there anyone else that needs to make a comment comment from the community no okay we're closing the public portion yes so I do want to say we did we did meet with the community three different times two uh three different communities so met with the Highland Avenue Association which is the street to the rear of this building and we met with McGinley square and Lincoln Park jointly uh twice once in July and once recently in January um there is other projects that my client is purchasing those are separate appli that's not part of this application this evening um but I do want to note that two of those projects are on the agenda tonight and we're we're not proceeding with those uh projects tonight because the community had additional comments for us that we're we're working with them on um we're only proceeding with with with this one um so you know with that um I would conclude I I think everything I have to say this evening okay thank you Commissioners do we have any questions or comments on on this project commissioner Allen oh so I have one one question I I think this is for Mr deino on on Z5 the the entrance is not being used anymore I'm sorry z c Z5 on the plans okay I don't know we get there to us Z5 okay yes first floor yes uh the main entrance is wall off oh no no this is V V5 is is the basement level yeah the basement Sor basement you you access the building from the first floor there's a there's a stair set of stairs that goes up to the first floor so this just this is showing what's underneath the stair is actually that's where the water the the existing water lines come in so it looks like it's walled off and it is Walled off Under the Stairs cuz that's the basement level got but if you get if you go to if you go to Z6 wait a minute there's a set of stairs on the outside brings you up to the main entrance okay and then another section of stairs on the inside to get you up to the first floor level okay so no that's not changed okay absolutely yeah no no I see the stairs but when you look at Z5 it just look like it's walled off all together okay anyone else have any questions okay I have a question um can you show us on the plans exactly where the bikes are going to be located and did I hear there were going to be two bikes you can only store how many bikes uh I think believe that was it yep there we go so I I mentioned during the presentation that coming from the street coming from Glenwood uh there's a path of 4 and 1/2t um Alleyway if you will uh on the right side of the building and it goes through a tunnel that is underneath the first floor level another set of stairs they get you to the rear yard and straight ahead right here is right there is a pad where the bikes would be stored and the shelter that's over the bikes will look like that and how many bikes are there uh I believe there's I believe there's 12 12 12 bikes yeah so the St shows does show 11 so let's just say let just say 11 squeeze another one in here and I just had one of another question that at this moment we're looking to put in there um 21 units how many units I mean I know our planers spoke about the building here the building next with the building down how many units were actually in that building when it was being used as a an apartment dwelling not as a dormatory I tried to count what I think so I think uh what oh I think it's in thetion s so there so there's a historic tax card at the on page seven of the staff report uh and it's 16 units it was 16 okay and i' I'd like um this is just a comment I'm a serious bird watcher and I travel all over so you're saying that these you you found windows that birds are not going to fly into honestly I will be sitting in those two trees that you're putting out front more they're flying Windows believe me it's a first for us too so we are are going to we've done some research there is glass that uh has some etching in it that helps the birds identify a wall and a little of an opening I know uh so we do the best we can okay it was something very important to the community and we wanted to okay do that okay does anyone else have any other questions no okay um is there anyone um I'd like to get a motion no we didn't hear from staff I'm sorry we didn't hear from staff Tanya I'll make it quick and painless uh Francisco sent the report um I don't think anything needs to be reiterated um he's recommending approval uh there are there's a affordable housing here it's adaptive reuse and there is a memo from Maggie O'Neal the historic preservationist which has to be met as part of the condition of approval um Francisco did outline some conditions of approval uh as long as you read that I'm fine not reading them into the record the applicant and I have reviewed them they're acceptable and and in addition to those conditions also Maggie's uh February 8th letter has two additional conditions that we are also supposed to comply with we agree to those as well okay okay any other questions from the Commissioners after hearing from staff okay can I get a motion to vote on uh case z22 d77 Madam chair I like to make a motion to approve KZ 22- 077 as presented to the board this evening can I get a second I second okay on the motion to approve with conditions commissioner Allen yes commissioner Baron yes commissioner Bole yes commissioner shadid yes commissioner zooki yes Vice chair ruho yes and chair Coy yes the motion carries seven in favor none opposed none abstained okay thank you all uh have a wonderful evening and we're just a couple minutes shy at 10:00 so thank you okay um do we have any other business to take care of Mr leaga have we have h four resolutions to memorialize I couldn't get that word out I'm sorry yes the first uh resolution was heard uh well the application was heard April 27th oh thank the applicant was 199 Summit Avenue LLC the case was z23 d018 it was for an extension of final a major site plan approval with c and d variances that was approved seven in favor none opposed uh on April 27th the Commissioners were chairman Jacobs commissioner Coy shadid aroyo donelly Allen and park all in favor of Memorial realizing that I I I and the next three applications were heard on January 11th all three were approved seven in favor none opposed on January 11th there was a chairwoman Coy Commissioners aroyo shadid Bole Patel Allen and baron the first case is z20 d019 Emanuel realy LLC a minus uh subdivision application with CND D variances for 64-68 Harmon Street and 4 for 413-419 Arlington Avenue again that pass seven in favor none opposed all in favor of memorializing that I I and then the companion case z20 d020 Emanual realy a PR Min AR and final major major site plan approval with c and d variances that also passed seven in favor none opposed all in favor of memorializing that I I I and the last case uh z20 d102 again same date uh same seven Commissioners same vote seven in favor none oppos streety Corp St r e k te Corp preliminary and final major site plan applic ation in conjunction with the C and D variances for 129 129 Lyon Avenue that pass seven in favor none opposed all in favor of memorializing that I and that concludes the resolutions do we need an executive session no okay I motion to adjourn the meeting can I get a second second all in favor hi meeting adjourned