with a little late start. If you can stand for the pledge of allegiance, please. I pledge allegiance to the flag of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, uh, Cam. Um, okay. So, I'm going to do the sunshine announcement first. So, good evening everyone. Today is Tuesday, July 15th in the year 2025. This is a Jersey City Planning Board meeting with the scheduled 5:30 p.m. start time and in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act. Notice of this meeting has been given to the editor of the Bergen Record, LS Balito, and posted with the city clerk on July 11th of this year. This meeting was also posted on the city uh web page, and all distribution materials were made available to the board and published and were made available to the public. Thank you. Do we have a roll call? Yes. Acting chair Dr. Gonzalez. I. Acting vice chair Gangaden here. Commissioner Wick. Commissioner Stamato here. Commissioner Dr. Desai here. Commissioner Patel here. Okay, we have a quorum. We have six commissioners present. Thank you. Can we swear in the staff? I see Ben Eric Matt disappear. There he is. Do you guys for any testimony you get tonight's going to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mike. Okay, Cam, do we have any correspondence? Yes, chair. We have uh one item that has corresponded with staff. It is item nine under new business and uh address is 301 Westside Avenue. It's for a preliminary and final major site plan amendment with variances and they have requested to be carried and they are actually going to renotice to July 29th. So uh they're being uh requesting to carry to July 29th and they will renotice. So Cam, if they're renoticing, it's adjourned to July 29th with renotice. Uh, that's correct. Yes. Thank you, council. And that concludes correspondence. We just have one announcement that security came to us with. There's a pickup truck outside that's blocking trash pickup. If you are the owner of the pickup truck parked outside on the street blocking the trash, please move it. Thank you. Thank you, Ken. And um we marked into evidence the sunshine announcement as B1. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. You're welcome. Okay, guys. If you can all indulge me, uh board and public alike, we are going to bring up um case from at the very end of our agenda. We have a couple of cases that are should not take too long and uh we don't want them to be here uh all night. We won't be here all night but um you know waiting for this. So I'm going to go ahead and call up a few cases and it's uh the same attorney. Uh this is case P uh 2025-000081. This is number 25 on your agenda and that is for administrative amendment address 20 River Court and 52 River Drive South. I think we have Mr. Sheljin here. Good evening u Mr. Vice Chairman and members of the board. Ronald Shaunin from Schuman Hanland appearing on behalf of uh there are actually five uh applications which are identical applications. Mr. Salg and I suggest we call them all and then we'll start marking notice individually. Is that how you'd like to proceed? Uh yes, but the notice I included all of the properties in the same notice. So it's only one notice that I'm going to hand the core reporter that covers all the properties and therefore you're comfortable proceeding with all of them as one presentation as well. That's right. All right. save time and I have one witness, Charles Height, and he'll be he'll apply to all of the cases and it'll be very quickly. So, Mr. Salgian, we're going to go ahead and call case P25-000079 with an address of 30 River Court and 52 River Drive South. We're going to call case P2025-000078 31 River Court and One River Court. Case P20250077 with an address of One River Court. And case P2025-000076 with an address of 25 River Drive South. That's correct. Mr. Volante. Thank you, Mr. Salgy. Mr. Salgian, if I can have your notice. I believe it's the one that was submitted prior to the hearing this evening. Is that accurate? I'll take it because I would like to read it and mark it. Thank you, Mr. Saly. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, I am received the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the applications at 20 River Court, 52 River Drive South, 30 River Court, 31 River Court, 1 River Court, 25 River Drive South, and 90 Tower Square Place. These do appear to be the same notices that were presented in digital form. These do appear to be the originals. I'll accept Mr. Salgian's representation. We're going to mark them as A1 for purposes of the record on all five of the cases that have been called. Thank you, councel. Your witness, Mr. Salgian. Mr. Height, please. Hi, good evening. Truth. I do. Charles Height. Last name spelled H E Y D T. Mr. Height, your license is current. Yes, it is current as a professional plan in the state. Thank you. You're qualified. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Height. Uh before we begin, I I would like you to just state uh if all of the issues pertaining to all of these cases that we're going to talk about are identical. Identical and related. Okay. Now um with respect to u case 20250081 uh that's the first case that is that is in the notice. Uh would you tell us the purpose of this application and what relief we're asking the board to provide as to that case? So uh essentially this application is being made to implement recent amendments to the Newport redevelopment plan with respect to parking requirements. Uh this this application um was approved prior to the amendments. Uh the recent amendments now require a a zero minimum parking requirement and we're implementing that in this set of five applications. Uh there are no changes with the amount of parking that actually exists. So there's no physical reductions movement of any spaces. Uh we did work with a traffic engineer. We did do a utilization study and then we also our firm Dresen Robin did a zoning analysis as to the impact or the implementation of the zero parking minimums. So with respect to uh case 081 um it shares a garage. Uh the parking requirement previously was 205 parking spaces. It will now be zero as part of this uh change. Um but we wanted to make sure that the board was aware um that the garage that allows or accommodates the parking has 513 spaces. Currently um only resident the residential use occupies 231 spaces. So there's a substantial lower demand than existing parking. Um, and does this amend and does this amendment bring uh the projects more in conformity with the zoning orders? I think it does. It it represents a reduction in automobile dependency and more increase in pedestrian activity and bicycle activity in the area. Okay. With respect to case 0079, is your testimony the same? The same this this second uh site plan application um what is also shares the same parking garage. It's the East Hampton garage. Uh and again it's the same numbers. 513 spaces are existing in that garage. 231 are currently occupied with residential. um that parking requirement for that site plan is is a minimum of 221 which by way of this site plan amendment will be zero. With respect to 0078, what is your testimony? So 0078 and 0077. Uh both share the same riverside garage. There's a total of 454 parking spaces. 238 are currently used for residential. Um the existing requirements respectively are 222 sparking spaces and 173 required and both of those will be reduced to zero and again that's implementing the new requirements in the Newport redevelopment plan. And what about 77? It's the same that will be going from 173 to zero. Okay. Did you have an opportunity to review Mr. Black's planning memo today? I did. We and we've had conversations uh about the details of our our studies and reports and uh you agree with the contents of that memo and the client has agreed to be bound by whatever the contents are. Yes. Okay. I don't have anything further, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Um anyone have any questions? No. Okay. So, you're done? Really? It's done. Okay. I kept my promise. You did. You did. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Height. Uh, I'm going to go ahead and open this to the public if there's anyone from the public that wishes to speak on these applications. Anyone from the public? Sure. I see no one from the public. I would like to close the public portion. Okay. Public is now closed. Can I get a second? Okay. Cam. Yeah. Uh, okay. So staff's comments on this application are brief. Um shared parking is permitted and encouraged in the Newport redevelopment plan and this is exactly what this application is doing here. Um planning staff agrees with the testimony provided by Mr. Height. Um and since the applicant and their attorney have already agreed to the conditions in the planning memo dated today, um planning staff would just recommend approval. Thank you, Kim. Okay. You called each case number one vote. Correct. Okay. I'd like to make a motion to approve case P2025-0081. Case P2025-000079. Case P2025-000078. Case P2025-000077. Case P2025-000076 as presented to the board for approval. Okay. On a motion made and second it. We'll have a roll call. Yes. Acting chair Dr. Gonzalez. I. Acting vice chair Commissioner Gangaden. I. Commissioner Wick. Hi. Commissioner Stamato. Hi. Commissioner Lipsky. I'm here but since I wasn't here for the whole thing I'm going to abstain. Thank you. Yeah, out of habit I just called you. Okay, Commissioner Dr. Desai. Hi, Commissioner Patel. Hi. Okay, motion carries. All in favor? Thank you, Cam. Thank you very much, Mr. Sheling. Thank you very much for the courtesy. Thank you. Um, okay. For the record, we just want to make sure and note that Commissioner Lipsky has joined us. 558. At 558. Okay. Uh, our, uh, going on to new business. We're going to call case uh number uh eight on your agenda the review and discussion of certified artists Andrew Walsh, Maria de los angeles Corno Cisneros and Roberto Kangeli. Uh formal action may be taken. Um yes. So, with the artist certification, as we always state, um the artist board reviewed their applications and they have approved them, sending them to us, um because they meet criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, and five for the certified artists um criteria, and they wish to be eligible for the artist certified housing and planning staff reviewed their applications and find them to be suitable for the artist certified housing and planning staff recommends approval. Okay. Thank you, Kim. Commissioners, any questions? No. Okay. Uh public wants to comment on this case at all. Chair, see no one from the public. I would like to close the public portion. Second. Motion made and seconded. Okay. Okay. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the review and discussion of the various um artists as presented to the board this evening for approval. Second. Motion made and seconded. Okay. Acting vice chair Gangaden. I. Commissioner Wick. Hi. Commissioner Stamato. I. Commissioner Lipsky. I. Commissioner Dr. Desai. I. Commissioner Patel. I. And acting chair Dr. Gonzalez. I And congratulations. carries. All in favor? Thank you. Okay. Next case here. Again, if you're here for case P204-0147, number nine on your agenda, that is adjourned and will renotice for July 29th. That's 301 Westside Avenue. 301 Westside Avenue. Anybody here for 301 Westside Avenue? You will receive new notice. It's being adjourned. Thank you, council. Uh next case uh to call up is number 10 P2025-000066. This is for a site plan amendment with C variances. Address is 501 Summit A and I think we have Mr. Bazill here. Hi, good evening chairman, acting chairman, good evening commissioners. My name is Gerard Pazillo. I'm an attorney with GOVA Burns appearing this evening on behalf of the applicant Pathside Co-Holding Company LLC. Uh the application before you is for an amendment to the preliminary and final major site plan that this board granted under case number P2144. Uh I did prepare a notice for this application. So with chairman's permission if I could approach council and present this which was also uploaded to the portal. Thank you, council chairman. I am in receipt of the affidavit of publication proof of mailing. It does appear to be the same one that was uploaded to the portal. This is the original of that document. I had the opportunity to review it. It did appear to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for purposes of the record. Thank you, councel. Thank you, council. And thank you all. As as I indicated, uh we are seeking a minor amendment tonight. Um the board approved uh the project that the board approved was for 53 stories, 605 dwelling units, uh about 3,500 square feet of square feet of public plaza area, and a 140 space valet parking structure. Uh the amendments before you don't change any of that. The height doesn't change. the units count isn't changing. Uh none of the bulk requirements are changing, but rather the amendments are project refinements uh and programming mainly on the interior. Uh but there are some minor exterior um revisions that you're going to hear the testimony on. This is a project that's under construction, pretty close to being finalized in construction. Uh the all of these items before you are proposed, not constructed. Um and the the really the the the scope the the big scope of the the amendment is the signage. Uh there were a number of uh deviations or a few deviations from the last approval with related to the signs. Uh and obviously as the project developed and was being constructed, the ownership team and their consultants went back and looked at the signage uh revised it. Uh we think it's a better product. Uh and you'll hear that testimony. Um, there was a narrative provided by the architect uh detailing all the interior changes. I'm going to save the board uh the the trouble of listening to all those revisions and rather rely on the narrative that is up on the portal. And of course, happy to answer any questions uh the board may have as to those interior programming changes. And similarly with our civil engineer uh there were some tweaks to the civil engineering plans which were bubbled and uploaded on the portal. Again just kind of mirroring what the refinements on the architectural piece. Our civil engineer is here. Uh but I don't intend to have her testify but again if the board has any questions on those proposals happy to answer. So at the end you'll hear a brief testimony from our architect Scott Herrick from HLW on the exterior ground floor changes and then you'll hear from our professional planner Carolyn Worstelle just to as to the justifications of the proposed deviations. So um with all that said I'll turn it over to Scott in a second and I just want to point out that you'll see in our package the address is 505 uh but on the application it says 499501. So that 505 didn't come out of thin air. Uh we our client and their team consulted with the tax assessor and this is going to be the assigned address. So that 505 will match what the building address is going to be when it's finalized. So with all that said, I'll turn it over to Scott and he can walk you through the proposal. Sure. One thing. So uh Okay. So is the uh document that you're referencing on the portal the architectural change memo which is a chart or uh the principal point statement as to which rely I'm going to we're going to rely on the narrative for the interior changes they detail so the principal point statement but the principal point statement you're going to hear testimony from Carolyn as to the justifications for the deviation the narrative you're talking about not the chart when the architecture to a memo? No, the narrative is the chart. It's it's it's a table form. It just shows the page number that's revised and the detail of the item. So that's the HLW narrative 499 Summit A Tower Planning Board resubmission March 17, 2025. Correct. That's a two-page memo. Correct. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Scott. Good evening. My name is Scott Heric. I do. Scott. S O T T. Last name Heric. H E R R I C K. Mr. Herrick, have you have you been in front of us before? Yes, several times. Okay. Um, is your act license active and current? It is current. Okay. In the state of New Jersey. You're qualified. Thank you. With permission, I would like to share on the screen um a few of the drawings uh of the set that was submitted for the uh amendment. Mr. Eric, anything different about what you're about to show us from what was submitted or they are just No, these are taken literally from the drawings that were um that were submitted. I just uh the abridged version of what's up I've I've taken specific drawings to show you clearly what's happening. This is what you're looking at is the ground floor. Um and what I've circled are the areas where the changes have been made. So towards the top here, an additional retail entry was added. The uh the upper right area here was dedicated for retail um ownership wanted to demise that to allow for the possibility of two retail tenants instead of one. So in the area, let me just uh zoom in here. In this area, you'll see we added a canopy to the exterior, which I'll show you in um elevation and rendering. And we added a a double door retail entry here. Then moving down this east facade, couple minor changes. Where my uh cursor is right now is the revised signage that we'll talk about. And then this revolving door was just moved slightly so that it's half in half out of the uh exterior facade whereas previously it was all the way inboard. And then finally if we move down to this area. Oops. Let's try that again. This is the uh this is the the drop off the valet uh driveway drop off and and entry. And in this island uh is this piece of monument art which is part of our signage. Uh and I'll show that in elevation as well. So, if we move to the next uh drawing, this is an east elevation of the building looking over the small landscape area to the east facade. Uh to the right here is the added retail entry and retail signage above the canopy. This was this retail signage and entry was existing. It has not changed. And then right here, and let me zoom in on this. This is the This is one of the two um signs beyond the retail signs that we're seeking the uh variance for. And I'll just zoom in on that. Um in working with the branding, graphics, and signage people, they came up with a an a concept that is much more much more graphic, much more of a logo. Um you'll see the the new address 505 here in kind of a stencil cut. So although the area um is defined by you know kind of corner to corner you'll see that with this design a lot of it is really open area. So it's not uh you know it's not quite as big as the overall square footage would would suggest. Scott, can you talk about how that sign is uh mounted to the wall, please? Yeah, it's uh as is stated in the documents, it's pinmounted. Um it extends about three inches off of the face of the building. Um there's a 1 inch gap between the sign signage letters and the face of the building. Um but overall it it protrudes about 3 in and that is one of the deviations that we're requesting this evening. Correct. Because it is not flush mounted. Correct. That is correct. Okay. And briefly, if you could just tell us, is that sign lit? Uh, it is. It is back lit. It's got a halo uh halo effect to it. Okay. And then if we move further to the left here, here is where the uh valet drop off is the the driveway. And then here is the island. And here is the the monument sign uh or the monument art. And it again repeats this same stencil cut um vocabulary. It's a metal finish. It's roughly a I would call it a light bronze or almost a champagne color. We'll you'll see it in a rendering just here in a moment. And then here is a there's an aometric presentation of what that of what that looks like. And then going to the next sheet, here's a here's a here's a rendered view of what this uh looks like in the in the distance is the new retail canopy. Here's the revolving door uh protruding out from the face of the building. And then here's the monument art sign in the island. Um as you can see, it's it's very um complimentary to the overall u scheme and color scheme and uh aesthetic of the of the building. And we believe it's a it's a really nice improvement to the the overall um appearance from the street. And that that monument sign, so to speak, that also is one of the deviations that we're requesting. Correct. That is correct. And that's all I uh have to um show you this evening. Um, I'm happy to answer questions about any of the other elements. Um, I do have the full set of drawings if anybody has a specific question, but they're all minor changes that are either you don't see from the exterior um or just very minor and you wouldn't you wouldn't see them from the ground level. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Eric. Any questions from the board? Just one. And the uh written narrative, it says, "In addition, the project is proposing an additional retail wall sign for additional uh storefront bay is permitted by the redevelopment plan." So, but that's not included in these renderings right? Yeah, that is that is it's it's um you don't see it in this rendering. However, in the elevation that I showed, that actually refers to this uh retail sign here. This was not here previously. This retail entry was not here previously. the canopy was not here and the retail signage is not here. So all of that has been added in this amendment and it'll match the design of the other two or similarly. Yeah, very similar. So we've we've actually if you if we pan over, it's shown as essentially being identical to the the signage that was in the um original application. Yeah. And commissioner, those are compliant signage per the plan. Should a tenant want to change that, they'll have to come, you know, petition the city and come back to this board. Thank you, sir. All right. Thank you. My next final witness, Carolyn Worstelle, please. Good evening. I do. Carolyn Worstelle, WL L. And Miss Worstelle, we've seen you here before. Your license is current and active. It is current and active this evening. You're qualified. Thank you. Um, so as uh my colleague has just discussed, we're here for uh a couple of uh deviations with regard to the signage for this application. Um, two of them are really more amendments to previously granted deviations and then two of them are new. Um so talking specifically about the very first two which are sort of the modifications um that has to do with the maximum number of residential signs and the maximum signage area. Um so the project is proposing the two uh res signs for residential use. One was that pinmounted wall sign and then the second one was that sort of art monument sign. Previously, this board did grant as part of the original um application deviations um for two um uh building signs um it uh of 24 square ft each. Um this application is sort of taking that and sort of again just sort of modifying it. There's still two uh signs which was the first deviation. So, we're still two to two. Um, and then in terms of the square footage, um, it's sort of a slight shifting. Um, one of the signs, I think the the wall sign is, um, very slightly reduced, whereas the monument sign is slightly increased um, compared to uh, what was there previously. Um, but they're both generally about the same size as what they were proportionally when you look at the size of the building and the site itself. They're both still around that 24 square feet. Um, so when I look at this and I say, you know, whether or not this is going to have a substantial change, I don't see this being a substantial change from those originally granted deviations. We're still requesting two signs. We're still requesting them to be larger than they were originally. Um and I I do think that the two signs as they are proposed are really appropriate again for the scale of this building and for how it has been designed. Um you know we have the one building mounted sign which is really facing the street and we have the second sign which is um located u really where the entrance for the parking is. And again, so that's creates, you know, that type of um wayfinding for the signage um that really identifies sort of the two ways that people are really going to enter this building as pedestrians or and as residents. Um so I think overall, you know, these are still very appropriate into the scale and the style of the building. And so I I don't see there to be a substantial detriment with these two changes. Um there are two new deviations that result from these changes. The first one is um the fact that we are taking what was originally uh a residential wall-mounted sign and we're changing it into a monu sort of like a freestanding sign. Um it's a little bit of a graphic. We're calling it an art monument sign. Um a monument sign is probably the closest definition that of what it is. Um, and it's not one of the permitted signage types here in this redevelopment plan. Um, as discussed, um, the location of this sign is going to be located within a planting bed. Um, so it's going to be, you know, it's not outright on the sidewalk. It's not really something anyone's going to be, uh, impeding anyone. Um and it really is serving as that sort of wayfinding for that one um entrance which is the the valet parking entrance. Um so we we do think again that this is an appropriate sign. Again it's about the same size as that original wall-mounted sign would have been. Um it's still about that 24 square ft. Um and uh you know I think we think that this is just a much more appropriate sign given this particular site and that the design is very complimementaryary to the building and so we don't see a really substantial detriment from changing this one sign from a wall sign to this other style of sign. Um, and that final deviation is for the signage mounting type. And that has to do with the uh wall-mounted residential sign. And again, this is sort of uh we're being very conservative here. It's not technically completely flush mounted. It is slightly, you know, set back from or offset from the building with the pin mounting. Um, which provides there's about a 1-in gap between the sign and the wall. Um but overall the sign itself is not more than six inches from the face of the building which is overall consistent with other signage uh permitted within the Jersey City LDO. Um so overall we think that this is again consistent with the intent of having sort of a flush mounted wall sign um but does uh allow for that back lit halo style. Um overall uh I think that these the the requested changes to the new the signage um uh advances the purposes of municipal land use law. Um you know it is consistent with purpose a um you know an appropriate use and manner um by providing appropriate signage for um these residential uses on this specific building. um and that uh it's consistent with purpose I provide uh you know a desirable environment through creative uh design. Um again we we think that these two signs are really appropriate uh with the design for this particular building particularly with having that second sign off the building in the planting and having it be more visible for vehicles trying to get to that that one entrance. Um overall I don't see that this uh proposed changes um uh would result in a substantial detriment to the general welfare. Um I think um overall that these changes are con uh with the signage are in particular are consistent with what was previously granted and we think that that they're appropriate for the the building itself. Um and then overall with all of the changes that are proposed and and some that even weren't discussed here this evening in in um uh detail um but there are a couple of um aspects of previous deviations granted by this board which we think have actually been improved by the changes proposed. We are actually uh uh um increasing the minimum glazing for the rooftop amenity space. Previously, you were guaranteed a deviation for 46% and we're increasing it to 69% where 80 was what was required. So again, we're making it a better uh situation with the changes being proposed. Um maximum height of enclosed rooftop amenity space decreased from 14 ft down to 13t 5 in where 10 ft is what was permitted. So again, that's a better condition. And then the minimum glazing at the ground floor storefronts um was increased from 52% to 67% u where 80% is what is required. So again we're making it a better situation. So I think overall uh not just even the signs but overall all of the changes that are being proposed is really helping to make this this overall design and um development more conforming. Um I also um do not see that this would be a substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the zone plan or the zoning ordinance. Um it's still advancing all of the uh goals uh that were um uh original uh submission. um you know it's uh concentrating cultural, entertainment, commercial and institutional activities um with distinctive and highly accessible um areas. Um and then it's uh adv advancing the redevelopment plan objective to reestablish Dnal Square as a very um housing a primary central business district and activity center. So, I think overall uh this application really does meet both those positive and the negative criteria uh necessary to grant the deviations requested. If anyone has any questions, I'm I'm happy to answer them. Thank you, Miss Welletow. Anybody from the from us here? No commissioners. Okay. Okay. Miss Wellel, thank you so much, chairman. That'll conclude our presentation. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions from the board? No. No. No. Okay. All right. I'll open up to the public now. Anybody in the public that wants to speak on this application. Seeing no one from the public wishing to speak, I move to close. Second. Okay. Public is now closed. And I think we have um Matt. Correct. Uh yes. Um so, you know, staff reviewed the application and found the proposed deviations appropriate. Um staff recommends approval. just ask that all previous conditions uh remain binding. Agree to that. All conditions remain in effect in full force. Thank you, council. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve KP2025-000066 as presented to the board with staff recommendation and conditions. Second. Okay. Motion made and seconded. Acting vice chair Gangadan. So, I think the variance requested is um very minimal and not detrimental. So my vote is I Commissioner Wick I. Uh Commissioner Smato I. Commissioner Lipsky. I think it'll make a fine addition to the neighborhood. I vote I. Commissioner Dr. Desai I. Commissioner Patel. Hi. And acting chair Dr. Gonzalez. Yeah, I like this project uh initially. I like it now. Again, I think the the uh variances are dimmin dimminimous and uh they meet the goals of the redevelopment plan and advances its objectives. So, I uh I vote I gladly. Good. Motion carries. All in favor. Thank you, chairman. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you. Okay. Next case uh to call up is case 11 on your agenda. Case P2025-0122. This is a review and discussion of amendments to the Journal Square redevelopment plan regarding public parking, public rights of way, permitted uses, map changes, and the transfer of a parcel from the St. John's redevelopment plan. The review is authorized by resolution 24-612. Formal action may be taken. All right. Yeah. Good afternoon, commissioners. Um uh we are going to be Matt and I are going to be Matt and Matt be presenting this amendment to you. Um so uh yeah as stated in the uh the listing for the item this was authorized by resolution of council um in August 2024 uh to look at amendments to uh Journal Square and the St. John's redevelopment plan. when we're presenting it's gonna look like it's all journal square journal square journal square because really the uh um to cut to the chase on St. John's is that it's a map change. Basically, it's folding it into Journal Square. Um, so if we uh glaze over that piece or need more information on that, let us know and uh we'll be certainly we'll certainly do that. Um, we do have a presentation that we'll be doing which wasn't posted to the portal. Um, very short. It's just six pages. It's going to be the proposed amendments journal square60 presentation. And we also have um floor amendments to the artwalk uh and loading bonus. Let me just get the coder's name. The Lowe's artwalk and loading bonus. There's a floor amendment that staff would like to propose to and explain to to the commissioners tonight. Um, but we want to mark in uh the presentation and the floor amendment and we have uh copies of the floor amendment to hand out um to uh the board as well. So Matt, for purposes of record, B1 and B2 is that Yeah, B1 and B2 uh for the presentation we'll do is B1 and B2 will be for the floor amendment doc. Um that is a 12page document. It also includes a floor amendment to um the parking bonus map which we'll explain as well in uh the presentation. So if we could bring up the presentation, we'll get right into that. Why can't I not really picking up here? Okay, there we go. Okay, perfect. Thank you. I just gave it to you for the packet. No, I got it. I guess replace that one. So, this thing is how is it now? That's not on the pool. Go for it. Is it not there? I think they're gonna This isn't going It could Is it not there, Cam? Oh, there it is. Okay. Okay. All right. I'm We'll try not to. Oh, it seems every time we go into presentation mode. Okay, one moment everyone. I guess we'll do it the different way. PDF. Okay. Uh thank you for your patience everyone. Um so on the agenda is the Lowe's artwalk and uh loading bonus uh the corner bonus E public parking uh replacement of dwelling units subject to rent control and beneficial uses. These are new sections that are proposed to the redevelopment plan. And then there are several uh kind of housekeeping items uh updates and edits to existing sections. So that will be the zoning map changes, uh deviation request provisions, mandatory affordable housing requirements uh with regards to height and feet, um a renaming of the office space bonus to commercial unit use bonus and um updating the standards for the permitted uses in zone 6, which is the uh preservation zone of the redevelopment plan. Um moving on. So, the first item is the Lowe's ArtWalk bonus. Uh, this is a uh a bonus that one changes map six, the circulation map. You can see in the map on your right hand side of the screen that there's these two bubbled areas um that we're talking about when we talk about this Lowe's ArtWalk bonus. one uh the one to your the screen right is this artwalk widening and loading area and then the Tunnel Avenue artwalk connection um is this area between Brian Place and Tunnel Avenue which is in this dark line here. So, this bonus is uh is proposed to secure a more inviting Lowe's artwalk and a shorter connections between the square and areas northwest, specifically areas like uh um India Square and Mana Contemporary. And the utilization of this bonus would require on-site affordable housing and the compliance uh with this bonus would would permit an additional seven stories um on top of their max permitted height. Uh and there's really two buckets uh for this artwalk uh for this artwork bonus. Uh one is the artwalk widening and loading area. This would require a setback um for any adjacent development uh near the Lowe's uh of an area that totals at least 2,400 square ft and maintains at least 5 foot setback widening in certain areas to account for um account for just how we think flows pedestrian flows through the area would be best utilized. Uh in addition, both of these uh bonus options require an open space contribution um for acquisition or improvement in the the plan area of of $3 million each. So there could be a potential of $6 million raised through a contribution and utilization of this bonus for uh acquisition and improvement of open space in the plan area. That is part of the floor amendment. um that as well as the seven stories and uh slight alteration to u the setback area. The tunn Tunnel Avenue artwalk uh would require coordination with the port authority of New York and New Jersey to create um a connection uh adjacent to the 808 uh Pavonia development which is actually broken ground. Um, it's the the former parking garage behind the Lowe's that site. It's going to have a prominade that's going to connect through from the Lowe's theater art walk through their site and end at Brian Place. Well, there's one more block that really needs to happen to make this uh a connection that actually goes between two major corridors. Tunnel Avenue being one is this idea of creating um a pedestrian connection at at on at the top of uh the railroad cut. There's a retaining area and they could we think that they could create a platform that connects from Brian Place into Tunnely Avenue. So that's the other component of this artwalk bonus. Uh when this resolution came to be, one of the items that Councilman Boiano um requested staff look at was a public parking bonus. Um and so that's incorporated into these amendments. Um this bonus known as labeled bonus E uh would permit increased heights for the provision of public parking on site. This is a bonus that's crafted in a way that would sunset. So, we're looking for a specific amount of parking totaling uh at least or totaling 660 spaces. Once we get to a certain number, this bonus would sunset no longer be available. Um even though um on the map to your right, it's showing that it could be in multiple locations. So because it sunsets um and because the map is populated with all these different options, we don't know where this bonus will be utilized. So we we are allowing it in more places than um uh more places just because we don't know who's going to utilize this now or later um and when. So, uh, we don't want to see this come on forever because we think that there is, um, there is a a balance that we need to have for public parking. That's one reason why the Journal Square 2060 has parking maximums uh, rather than minimums. And the main goal here is to require public parking at hourly or daily rates. Uh, anyone that use utilizes this bonus would have to coordinate with the the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency and specify validation policies, hours of operation, holidays, holiday pricing, venue usage, preserve spaces, branding between facilities and and uh closure procedures as well as uh SID coordination. And I'll explain this last slide before I hand it off to uh my colleague here, Matt as well. Um so we are also uh making some changes to map 2. Uh we're correcting for some split lot zones or split lot properties that are under common ownership. Um those are in those are in reference to these areas specifically on this map. And there's bullets to the left here. And then the in the resolution it asks us to look at St. John's which is roughly this larger uh area here that I'm circling with my mouse. And this particular site um people would know this as developed with a parking lot or parking structure above um the Dollar Tree um 3000 Kennedy. This is being recommended to be folded into uh the journal square60 redevelopment plan and assigned zone 3 um under the provisions of this plan. This would uh this zone change it's a reszoning so it would require um inclusionary zoning and the existing mandatory affordable housing provisions of the plan require that there would be on-site affordable housing uh already um the other areas that are circled on this map. There is um a bank site that's adjacent to a surface parking lot which are just separate parcels. We're folding them both into the same zone, zone 4. Um there is areas on van ripen folding into zone three and areas on cottage folding into zone 3 as well. Um I will hand it over to Matt. So, I'll just pull up this slide so that you we're more in some of these other bullets, but he'll go over some of these other items which are more textheavy and not visual heavy. Great. So, in addition to um those two new bonuses as well as those map changes, we have several um we're deeming housekeeping items. They're um small revisions that allow the plan to more effectively uh meet its goals. So the um first item is a change to the mandatory affordable housing requirements that apply to zones one and three. Um which currently um as an accommodation for the mandatory affordable housing requirement um up to 20 stories of extra height can be provided in those buildings in zones one and three. Um the current version of the plan does not specify bonus height in feet however. So we are imposing a limit of 220 ft roughly 11 ft per story for your bonus accommodation height. Um so now the any uh development project in zones one or three utilizing um that has to utilizing the mandatory affordable housing accommodations can only be 220 ft higher than what the previous zoning allowed. Um and this mostly affects zone 3 because zone one does not have a height limit. Um furthermore um, Councilman Bojano's office requested, um, or noticed concern about the demolition of rent controlled housing units within the Journal Square area. Um and in order to a um disincentivize the demolition of rent controlled housing and b ensure in the case rent controlled housing is demolished have its adequate replacement. We are adding a provision called the replacement of dwellings subject to rent control. And every um and this means any development project that involves demolition of rent controlled units for each unit demolished has to provide one affordable unit um affordable to lowincome households meaning 30% of the area median income for each rent controlled unit that's lost to demolition. Um, this ensures the adequate replacement of housing um, affordable to those low-inccome households that have called Journal Square home for a long time and we hope keep calling Journal Square home. Um, we are adding a beneficial uses overlay which applies to every single district in the plan except for zone 2. Um, zone two is the air right zone and so it doesn't have any established development capacity. that's for a future amendment and future plan proposal. And so the beneficial uses relate to the types of uses that um you know are serving basic community needs um and are often overlooked in zoning codes and definitions, but often state law establishes they should be allowed in plenty of places. Um, and it's certainly our policy to not put up barriers to these types of uses here in Journal Square. And the list of uses that are allowed anywhere in the plan by the beneficial uses overlay include senior housing, assisted living residences, community residences for the developmentally disabled and/or with head injuries. That is a legal term. Apologize for the political incorrectness. Community residences for the terminally ill and hospice care. Community shelters for victims of domestic violence, continuing care, retirement communities, dormitories, independent living facilities, long-term care facilities, nursing facilities, nursing homes, museums, galleries and cultural institutions, theaters and performance venues, schools and universities, parks and open space, and daycare centers. So those uses will now be allowed throughout the entire plan with the exception of zone 2 as I mentioned. Um furthermore, we are amending the text of zone 6 preservation which is the zone that um basically um applies a form of historic preservation to the existing structures saying that those structures can't be demolished. There was previous language that um you know encouraged the continuity of use but gave the planning board sort of broad authority to um you know condition any use they thought appropriate. Um, we thought for certainty sake for both the community, developer and board, we struck that language and replaced it with an explicit list of uses allowed in zone 6 res um preservation which include um residential uses above the ground floor, retail sales of goods and services, financial services, offices, art galleries, live work units, home occupations, restaurants, hotels, bed and breakfast, child and adult daycare centers, theaters nightclubs bars schools community centers, government uses, and any combination of the above. Um, these align with the uses generally allowed in um the mixed use uh zones of the plan such as zone 5 and zone 3 and ensure the um mixed use energy, the co-mingling of residential density and plenty of commercial and retail opportunities continues. and these structures align with that while preserving their built form and their historical heritage. Um lastly, there is a um slight change of the deviation powers granted to the board to align the plan with state law. The previous plan included several powers that um uh planning staff believes to be illegal under state law. And so we just struck that language to align state law in the plan's text. And lastly, to reflect um if anyone recalls the last amendment to the journal square60 redevelopment plan, we expanded the uses allowed in the office space bonus to include retail, restaurants, hotel, a plethora of commercial uses, representing the sort of the shopping and commerce district that Journal Square is and perhaps um also reflecting that it's been tough to attract office tenants within Journal Square. We are renaming that district to reflect the expanded use as the commercial use bonus. Um and lastly, so um the municipal land use law and the state redevelopment law requires um the planning board to make a determination of whether the proposed amendment is consistent with both the goals and objectives of the redevelopment plan itself um as well as the master Jersey City's master plan which outlines the broader plan for growth and development of the city. Staff prepared a master plan consistency report dated 73205 and it was up on your portal um summarizing the contents of the amendment and outlining um ways in which the plan is consistent with both the redevelopment plan goals and the master plan goals. Um I'll start very quickly with master plan consistency. Um, you know, the artwalk especially really um elevates a lot of our connectivity and mobility goals, including investing in placemaking at transit nodes, enhancing pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and improving connections between parks, open spaces, and community facilities. As Matt mentioned, ultimately with hopefully with full buildout in the ArtWalk, there will be a continuous active um pedestrian right of way connecting from the Journal Square Transportation Center past the Lowe's theater, past the future Pompadoo Museum and ultimately all the way to Man and Contemporary. Um, in terms of economic opportunity goals, um, staff, um, finds that the proposed amendments enhance economic opportunities along regional corridors, of which John F. Kennedy Boulevard is a notable regional corridor, um, celebrate and beautify the public realm, recognize and promote the richness of our historic assets, especially with, um, allowing more flexible adaptive reuse of our historic buildings in the preservation zone. um restoring and establishing grid connectivity. This um creates and preserves sort of pedestrian inner blocks within our larger vehicle blocks and ensures um the paracity of the urban form. Repurpose and reuse existing structures, increasing walkability and large footprint retail districts, creating a a balanced housing supply. um which includes um some of these map changes as well as the inclusion of 3000 Kennedy um to um enhance that mixeduse highdensity character of Journal Square. Um and tying future private development to expanded public amenities. Um the artwalk bonus and the public parking bonus both ensure that um alongside the private development that happens with our city, we're getting public um public assets that benefit the community at large. The land use element of the plan um identifies Journal Square as in the land use typologies as a commercial core area. This means a large concentration of commercial uses including retail and offices that serve the region and employ a workforce both both within and without Jersey City and is also associated with high residential densities. Um, the pros amendment reinforces and enhances these characteristics and um hopefully will further center Journal Square as a center of both commerce and residential living here in Jersey City. Um lastly, regarding redevelopment plan consistency, um staff has found that the proposed amendment aligns with objective one, reestablishing Journal Square as Jersey City's primary central business district and activity center. Objective three, integrating open space into the area and by incorporating a system of parks, plazas, and natural amenities. Objective five, make walking and biking easy, safe, desirable, and convenient mode of transport. Objective six, encourage local quality retail within the greater Journal Square area. Objective seven, reducing automobile dependency by encouraging high density development in close proximity to mass transit with low automobile parking ratios and with bicycle parking requirements. Objective eight, providing for urban amenities such as transit, housing variety, open space, and entertainment that will attract new employers from a range of new residents to the area while sustaining existing neighborhoods. Objective nine, encourage adaptive reuse of of existing structures. Objective 11, remove vacated, deteriorated, and obsolete structures. Objective 12, improve traffic circulation through the development of new and improved vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems, which provide for the separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and the maximum use of public transportation. Objective 13, coordination of redevelopment activities reinforcing already existing adjacent renewal programs in accordance with the master plan for the city overall. Objective 14, provide for the conservation and preservation of select structures with historic architectural significance and provide opportunity for adaptive reuse for future generations. Objective 15, encourage the private sector to consolidate development parcels to allow for sufficient building stepbacks providing light and air to the street and adjacent properties. and objective 19, create major new employment housing educational recreational, commercial, and retail opportunities for the residents of Jersey City. Um, with the contents of that report, um, staff recommends a finding of consistency with both the master plan and the redevelopment plan. And uh, that is that concludes staff's presentation on this amendment. Yeah, if the board has any questions for us, we'd be happy to field them. Yeah. Thank you, Matt. and Matt, any questions from the board? That was a great presentation. Thank you. Stanley. So, I live in the area and 3000 Kenna Boulevard a few weeks ago, a couple months ago, had a car go through uh it was in its parking deck, go through the wall and come down into this walkway where there's a uh the um Hudson Pride's involved. Uh there's a daycare center. I mean, thank God nobody got hurt, but you know, when I saw it that 3,000 county boulevard was added, I'm saying to myself, is there are there provisions? Uh I mean, I talk about minimum and maximums. Um, is this particular parcel looking to expand its parking or uh it's my understanding that there might be a need to redevelop the already redeveloped site which is in one of one of the oldest redevelopment plans in the city. We uh the plan does recognize the existing development in so far as um it's requiring that the walkway behind it ma be maintained in any future development. Um also it's it's typical for newer developments um to wrap their parking. So that hopefully will aid in a problem like you're describing. That is a terrible, terrible thing to hear. Any other questions? Nope. All right. At this point, I think I'm going to open this to the public. Are there any Is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak on this? Yes. Uh, Mr. Chairman, uh, commissioners. Uh, Charles Harrington of Connell Foley. Uh, I represent the owners of 52 Cottage LLC. They're they're the um, actually that's the entity. They own lots 15 and 49 in block 7903. And um the the purpose of of our comments is to uh request that the the board consider a floor amendment. Um and if you indulge us uh with with we have a slide deck just I think a picture is worth a thousand words so that the the board can see what we're we're speaking about. Um and I'll just give well we'll we'll mark this as uh uh A1 if if that's okay for the record. I have B1 and B2. So council I don't think A1 is appropriate. I will say I1 or P1 rather. P1. P1. Can you tell me what it is, council? Yes. P1 is a slide deck that uh we uh prepared uh consisting of 28 uh sheets. I don't worry I'm not going through 28 sheets. Uh thought you said a picture council. No. So let me just maybe back back up while we're we're we'll uh walk through it. Um so first of all, my client supports the amendments. We're not we're not here um to oppose to oppose the amendments. We um but we have been discussing uh proposed amendments uh with council. Can we take that off the screen for for a second? Okay. We're getting ahead of ourselves here. Good. Yeah, that's you going to take it down. Thank you. Oh, sorry. I was waiting for your comments council. You waiting for my comments? You were starting to give introductory comments while things were on the screen. Sure. So, yeah, I'll give introductory comments and I'll I'll move to the screen. So, yeah, my client supports the amendments. Uh uh they own the property there. We have been uh in discussions with Councilman Boiano and his office. Uh they have represented to to me personally, they support uh what we're proposing tonight. Um we have been working with planning um you know planning uh has different ideas uh whether or not this is appropriate but uh we're we wanted to present it to the board um because we think it's an appropriate time because there are map changes before this board um and what we're proposing is properties that are located between uh Van Ripen and and Cottage Street are all zone four right now. We are requesting that they these particular properties be remapped as zone 3. Uh part of the reasoning it maybe if we we go to the slide deck it might it might uh uh help uh the discussion is that can we can we show this now or we can but I guess council let's let's get a couple of things out on the table and clear what you're talking about and what you're advocating on behalf of your client has no connection to any of the things that we heard from planning staff in terms of their proposals. That's correct. This would be in addition to what staff has proposed to the board. All right. So, we're all clear. Planning staff has made their proposal as to what should be changed and now you're going to show us something else that your client would like changed. And that's part of what will be depicted in the photo, I guess, is where that property is located, is as I understood it. So, who is the gentleman that is with you? Albero Castano working on behalf of the client. A LV A R O C A S T A N O. No, he's he's really just here to take us through. That's why I asked you council. Yes. So, is he just going to put the pictures that you would like to use up on the screen? That's correct. And are these self- authenticating pictures? Uh, yes, they they are. They're they consist of some uh tax maps that were um marked up and highlighted personally by myself that were inserted into the the slide deck and then uh other other photographs that that uh he put into the slide deck. Well, and they're they're photographs of the developments within the immediate area that I'm sure all the board members are aware of uh already. Um, so chair, members of the board, it's obviously up to the board. I have no issue with the uh, you know, tax map being shown to get us familiar with the property that that Mr. Harrington is discussing. As to everything else, again, I don't know what the it sounds like the request is that these properties owned by your client be moved into a different zone in the redevelopment plan. those properties and adjacent properties. Uh there are there are properties. Um so why don't we pull up the map? Yes, let's do that. Let's start there. Okay, if you could go to the next sheet there. So, so what you're seeing now uh are the the the the uh lots within block 7903 that all of these lots are currently in zone 4 uh in the journal square redevelopment plan area. Um and a number of them one second council. All right. So purposes the record P1 is tax map sheet 79. Yes. Yes. That's sheet number two in the slide deck. We're only going to mark what's shown. Okay. So, and we're going to go one sheet at a time since we're not going through all 28 sheets. Okay. So P1 is sheet 79 of the tax map of the city of Jersey City. Correct. Correct. Okay. And council, I believe you stated that you highlighted this. I did. Okay. And that that's my handwriting. So this is my rudimentary uh It's not bad, council. It's not bad when I when I sent it to uh Councilman Boiano and the planning division. So, so these are lots that that we would we are requesting not just my clients but uh overall to change from um zone 4 to zone 3. My client owns uh lot uh 15 and 49 which are at the western end of of this uh tax map. And if you maybe go to the we'll show you the connection here. So this it'll be P2. Yes. Uh and this is the tax map with additional representations as to what has been developed there. And you'll see what I show is as box one is uh the 35 cottage um Namdar development that is adjacent to uh the homestead place extension. So under the homestead place extension that is already has been developed under zone three. Uh so it already exists, right? And then what I show in box two is uh I call the Sakalof development. That is another development that has been developed under the homestead extension and the lots, you know, go all the way to the east as you you go east on cottage. So that also has been developed under zone three. Um box number three is another NAMAR development uh that has been developed under the homestead extension bonus uh and that has been developed under uh zone 3. And then what I show is box four is uh additional properties and and actually the the two the two lots that that ex uh front on Cottage Street really could be part of that zone that the box 4 because all of those lots can be developed under the homestead extension bonus under zone three and I can represent to the board that I know Mr. Nambda already has uh some of the lots adjacent to Homestead under contract or he owns them already. So those will be developed under zone three. So my client's properties are on the western edge there. Uh that front. Um and let's go to um the last uh sheet. This one. Ah yes that that one. Yes. Your laptop disconnected. It's reconnected again. Now it's disconnected. Now it's reconnected. Now it's disconnected. Let's try that again. Just wait. Maybe. Oh my god. What happened? It's not going through. I'm trying to connect. This is so this is one more time. You know where the portal station next and back over is that to ever had these problems with the boards council? Uh I have I have copies if you'd like. Yes. force you to use the technology. See, would you like old school? I didn't I don't see any opposition though. We got an opposition from Solomon. It's got to be okay. We'll look on that piece thing. I don't know if you saw that. No, what he's saying is is that the council's intention is that if it did expire, it should so well. If I have to come down there, one last time. Are you Um the staff laptop had technical difficulties when we went into PowerPoint mode. So it might be extending the display. Um let me um see on my video I I have the uh planning board the the map from the city. Can we distribute? We're talking about the light. Should I distribute? Can we move forward with the handouts or the entire set? You got to start pulling sheets out. Hey, we got it. Hey, talk quickly. Sorry about that. All right, nobody touch anything. Leave it. Okay. So, council, this is P3. P3. Okay. Okay. So, you see uh P3, this is this tax map again. And uh the red hatched uh lots are the ones that are owned by by my uh my client. So, he's on the western edge. So the idea is is all of the lots to the east could be developed uh under the homestead in zone three as well as these lots if if they had a collaboration with uh Mr. Namdar. Uh but this gives an opportunity to to to develop it under zone 3 separate and apart if that if that were the case. Um, so we just think at this point it's since you have uh all of these all of these lots in this immediate areas already being developed or could be developed under zone 3 uh and there are map changes that are occurring under this amendment that it would be uh appropriate uh to make this change as well. And I won't go into the uh the um uh the photos of of all the all the um projects in the immediate area. I mean, kind of like to steal a legal term, we'll take judicial notice that there's a there's a lot of buildings around here that are high uh that that have been built under zone 3. And then I think one of the benefits here too is, you know, if these were changed from zone zone 4 to zone 3, uh the the affordable housing um requirements kick in right away. Uh I know that there are amendments that are that are being proposed at a later later date for zone 4 properties, but this is something that would would trigger that mandatory affordable housing program for any projects here uh that that um are built with 30 units or more. Um, so I and I I do, you know, we don't have a planner uh uh with us tonight, but I I think that all the things that that Matt uh spoke Matt Dilva spoke to with regard to the consistency and the master plan and the redevelopment goals, I think these these have the similar uh um reasoning uh and and consistencies with all that uh with with the map changes being proposed tonight. Uh so with that said, I just you we're asking the board to review this and consider it in your vote tonight. Uh whether you think it's appropriate to add these this map change um to uh to these particular properties. Uh and they're all, you know, it would be all the yellow area. Uh I do have a list of the of the property um the the assessment list of the properties. Uh but I know the the lots are there all in 7903. And that's that's that's our pitch tonight. Thank you, council. Chairman, may I ask a question? Yes. Thanks. So, the properties west of the two I I think it's two or three parcels. The are the red ones the your clients, the my red ones. The red ones, those are owned by my client. So, the ones west of that, are they also zone four or zone three? They are all zone four. All zone four. Okay. Yeah. And then as you move to the east, like these are all zone four, but if you see lot 35 uh and 36, those those are lots on Van Ripen to the east. Right next door to that 3201, that's zone 3. So So the uh you have zone 3's fronting summit and then when you go down to to JFK, you have zone 3 again. So, and this because of the homestead extension, you've basically have all zone 3 developments there. Thanks. Yeah. And my my client is also uh in discussions to purchase lot 16. Uh so that would be directly adjacent to a homestead project. Question. Is this you're familiar with uh the shape factor, right? Yes. Is this compliant with the shape factor what you're showing here as one lot? This I I don't know if it'd be compliant with the shape factor, but that would be that would then the issue would be if he purchases lot 16, possibly lot uh 46 47 that that is something that could be addressed in the future. I believe it gives an opportunity to to uh you know other homeowners to consolidate and and possibly build something together. Okay. I I I don't think it's worthwhile for the com the board to look at this drawing here up at the top. We're unsure that this is a compliant lot. We're unsure that this is a compliant building with Tower on the base standards, which would be in effect should this project be or this lot be put into zone 3. And I think it's worthwhile going over some history uh from last August when the resolution was passed till today. So this was a resolution brought to city planning by Councilman Boiano. There was public meetings done, one with Journal Square Community Association in February and one with Hilltop Neighborhood Association in February of this year. Um and there was proposed changes that would apply to zone 4, zone 4A, zone um 7, zone 8 and in coordination with or in just discussing it through after those meetings with councilman, uh the entirety of the amendments were at jeopardy. Uh so staff um advised the councilman that we wouldn't move forward with those amendments uh which would make broad changes um not changes here that look larger than they actually appear but are actually very small and and and I think unmeaning to uh to the future of of amendments that staff consider is considered are considering for this area. Um, but those were removed. And I know that it was put on the record that uh, Councilman Boiano supports these, but he also supports staff in making uh, the removal of of this and coming back to him and making a recommendation that we did to the to the board. Um, we don't believe we should move forward with that at this time. We think that in uh in keeping with what we've communicated with the councilman and he's communicated that to the neighbor associations, it's better to hold on any changes in zone 4. In this respect, um, all the homestead projects are immediately zone three with their own special setback standards and step back standards. Um, this this change is looks larger than it appears. Um, it is rather not it's rather a very small change. Um, and I would I would even use the word arbitrary. Um, we recommend that that the board not consider this for amendment. And Matt, I guess it's more than safe to assume that if I heard you correctly, we've been planning staff, yourself, Matt, and the rest of the planning staff team have been studying amendments to the Journal Square redevelopment plan for about a year now. Is that correct? And obviously that doesn't include all the time that went into the development of the plan and the vision work that obviously we've been uh hearing about since we put the Journal Square 2060 plan into effect. That's right. And these lots, which let's just look at them individually, the one that faces cottage and the one that faces van ripen, those wouldn't even qualify for the mandatory affordable housing requirements as drafted in the version that was reviewed and presented to the public and to the councilman um and discussed at length. Uh there was a trigger for 9,000 square ft. If we're just looking at these lots, maybe the one on the north side, just because I don't I can't quite read the depth. It looks like 123. I don't know. But the 50 by 100, it's not even close. Both of them, I don't I don't think or even close to the 9,000. And combined, I'm not even sure this lot's a conforming lot under the provisions of the plan. Um most more notably than the shape factor uh requirements. Uh so I think they're far off the mark of what was proposed and then removed at the at the request of the council person. Um and that staff wishes to come and revisit um without really much change other than maybe the list of districts that it's going to apply to. So there's also your opinion that this would be inconsistent with both the redevelopment plan as well as with the master plan as proposed. Yes. To the chair, if I may, um to the attorney, do you know the lot size to confirm? I'd have to I I believe together they're over 9,000 square feet. I have the 10,000 10,900 square feet and Matt, what's the requirement for that lot size under to be in zone 3? There is there's no requirement on lot size to be in zone 3. um where there might be some confusion, what I was saying earlier was that in the provisions that would layer in a mandatory affordable housing requirement in zones four and others um not one and three which already exist in the plan. Uh there was a threshold that it would apply to only lots 9,000 square ft or more. Um, and the goal of that was to allow for larger uh smaller lots to remain as is uh because there was a voiced um opinion and concern about making sure that there is still a mix of housing types and typologies. Uh so not to not to broadstroke put on a a mandatory affordable housing requirement for a lot that's really small. So the idea was once a lot gets to a certain size, it's better able to accommodate a mandatory affordable housing requirement which results in additional height um to actually subsidize the requirement that is being mandated. Um I mean are we marking this one? Are we marking this sheet? This was not this was not marked. Uh oh. Uh we could we since it's up there, we can mark it as P4. But uh you know, they they're giving us a little couple bullets here, but they still don't tell us if it's a com a a conforming lot. Yeah, I the intent would be to he's he's talking to people um directly adjacent to these lots. Um but this would open a door to permit that. But I Well, I don't know that I agree with that, council. Okay. Right. I have no idea how ownership is held. I have no idea if this is one lot or multiple lots. I have no idea what the topic of those conversations are and whether or not this would affect that. But it has nothing to do with what this board's here to do. So, understood. I think we have the benefit of the opinion of our planner. We've heard council's comments and the requests of the interested party. I think we open it up to the public, Mr. Chair, for anybody else from the public and then the board can make whatever decision the board is comfortable making. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, council. Uh at this time, I will open it up to the board. Is there anyone here from I'm sorry, the public. Anybody here from the public to speak on this? Seeing no one from the public, I move to close. Second. Okay. The uh public is now closed. And Matt, I think so. staff would recommend that the the board consider the amendments with the floor amendments as presented to the board here tonight for approval and recommendation to council. So to be clear, that means the um the refined text with the blue highlights for the Lowe's artwork bonus, as well as the version of the quarter bonus map that adds the what is known as the Seth Martin site on um on Hoboken Avenue near 139 as an appropriate site for corner bonusy. Those are the changes between the documents that were made public 10 days ago and the floor amendments staff brought tonight. Thank you, Matt. I'll entertain a motion. motion. Mr. Chair, I would like to entertain that motion to for case P205-0122 and to add the um floor amendments that was presented to the board as well. Just want to make clarification, right? Are we including the floor amendments by staff? Yes, only staff. Or floor amendments by the public? By public. Sure. Floor amendment by staff and the public. Both. Both. They're oppositional, right? It would have to be one or the other. The motion as made by the vice chair is for the floor amendments by the board. and including the floor amendment proposed by the member of the public or to add the specific property into the zone three. That is the motion you want to bring forth. Correct. So that's the motion. So I would just tell the board that's the motion being made by the vice chair. If it does not get a second, there will be no roll call and the motion can't move forward. Somebody wants to put forth a different motion. Well, we have to finish this first. We would have to finish this first. Absolutely. So, does anybody want to second that motion? Seeing no second, I move to approve case P225-01 22 as presented in our agenda and as affirmed by the planning staff. I'll second. So that's to move forward with the proposal and amendments by the board without the proposed amendment from the member of the public. And that was seconded by member Stamato. So we have a a motion and a second. We do roll call. Yes. Um just making sure the board understands what they're voting on. Yes. Great. Okay. matter. Um acting acting vice chair Gangadan. I Commissioner Stamato I Commissioner Lipsky I. Commissioner Dr. Desai I Commissioner Patel I Commissioner Wick Hi. and acting chair Dr. Gonzalez. Yeah, I think that the the presentation by staff uh was consistent with the goals and objectives of the redevelopment plan and they meet the objectives of the uh the master Jersey City master plan. So I vote I motion carries with staff floor amendment. All in favor? Correct. Okay. Chairman, may I take a break? Yes. All right, guys. We're going to go ahead and take a break. Uh and it's going to be a 10-minute break. We'll be back at 7:33. Okay. Let us come back to order. Uh I've called case P2025-000052. This is number 12 on your agenda. This is a preliminary and final major site plan with C variances. Applicant is 109-11 uh Beacon Avenue LLC and address is 109 Beacon F. Good evening uh acting chair, commissioners. For the record, Benjamin Weine of Prime Touvel and Misselli on behalf of the applicant, 109-11 Beacon Avenue LLC. I'll start for Mr. Alampy. Uh, this is a notice case. We did provide notice and it should be on your portal. I'm happy to provide the original affidavit package if you so desire. Thank you. I like it. Oh, I love that. Chairman, I received the affidavit of service proof of publication with respect to the application at 111 and 109 Beacon Avenue here in the city. It does appear to be the same uh affidavit that was posted on the portal. It does appear to be the original. had the opportunity to review it. It did appear to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for purposes of the record. Thank you, council. Thank you, council. So, the application before you this evening, we are here seeking preliminary and final major site plan along with C variance and deviation relief for the property located at 109 and 111 Beacon Avenue located for the record block 5704 lots three and four. and we are the final two pieces of the puzzle that are known as the Hopkins and Central Avenue redevelopment plan. Uh, as you'll hear as we go through our presentation briefly this evening, um, I'm sure everybody's familiar with the large building right at the corner at 70 central. This was all envisioned by your redevelopment plan as being one holistic development. Um but as things shook out over the years, a pro another developer ended up developing the building, leaving two lots as part of this redevelopment plan undeveloped. And what we're here this evening is seeking to be able to infill that development and effectively complete your redevelopment plan and uh and put it and make it I guess to use a Stevie Wonder term seal delivered. It would be a complete redevelopment plan at that point. What we're proposing is what you'll ultimately see on the screen, a fivestory development that will consist of 14 residential units above 14 parking spaces. And we really do have uh two areas of relief this evening which are a little bit unique and you'll definitely see them and hear them explained. But specifically, our rear lot line is a diagonal. Again, this was originally envisioned as an entire whole block or half block redevelopment. Um but because we are fronting with the front of our building along Beacon Avenue, our rear yard is a diagonal lot line leading to a minor deviation from the redevelopment plan on the ground floor and the upper floor. Specifically on the ground floor, one of the sides is permitted a zero foot setback in the rear and the other side is required a 5-ft setback. We have 4.67 ft. So you're not hearing me incorrectly. That's a 33 foot deviation to kind of square off the building. And then on the upper floors, same idea. In on one of the sides in the rear, you're permit you're required 15t setback and on the other side you're required 20 ft. We have 15 flush across. So on the upper floors, it is a 5-ft deviation again to keep the rear of the building kind of straight across the back as you'll see. And the only other deviation we have is for the drive aisle width internal to the building. 22 feet under your land development ordinance is required and we vary anywhere from 20 to 22 feet. So to be conservative for that pinch point which again you'll see we are at 20 ft. That's it uh in terms of deviations otherwise we are fully compliant with your redevelopment plan. And I have for you this evening two witnesses I intend to call Russell Bodner our project architect followed by Charles height our project planner unless you have any questions of me. Council, did we see the rendering on the uh portal? We did not. And I was gonna ask Russ to authenticate it so that we can have that entered into evidence. Let's get him sworn first. And the truth, the whole truth, the truth. Yes, I do. Yes. My name is Russell Bodner, BOD N. I reside at 52 Longhill Road in Long Valley, New Jersey, and I've appeared before this board uh many times and my license is in good standing. Thank you, Mr. Bodner. You're qualified. All right. As you can see here, we have this uh project's 109 Beacon Avenue. It's in the Hopkins Central Avenue redevelopment uh zone. Like we uh the lawyer stated, we have 14 we have 14 units in this project. We actually allowed 15 units, but we're going with 14 units because we actually are required for uh one for one parking in this job. So, the parking is actually what's driving this project. So, we needed the 14 parking space to make it work. We do have seven bike parking spaces and we and our units consist of and I'll go through the plans in a little bit, but we have two threebedrooms, uh, six twobedrooms and six onebedrooms and they're pretty ample size. The one bedrooms are like 890 ft². The two bedrooms range from 1158 and 1240. The three bedrooms are 1672 and$1,820. Um, like I said here, the building is five stories. 61 ft is our overall height. Uh there is no height requirement or height limitation in the zone. Um and as well as we are 95% uh lock coverage and we're actually at 95% lock coverage on our plans. We're compliant in terms of lock coverage. The only set the only uh two variances we talked about earlier in terms of that bulk of the building are the two setbacks in the rear and um and I'll show you those in a plan in a minute. And right we'll take a look at the quick rendering. Right now, as you can see here, our building is Before we Before we do that, can we get it marked into evidence? Yes. Uh we can mark this as A1. I think we're up to A2. A2. The notice package was A1. Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh as you can see here, the rendering itself is a um one of the simple building. It's black and white. Um there's white brick and there's some black brick in in between these bays and the rest of it's a a black metal panel system and a and a and a black cornice. Uh we do have a little terrace in the front here, but in the front of the terraces there are is a um actual panels. So I know uh Mr. Torres doesn't like when you can kick something off the p off there. So the railing itself is on top of the on top of this little knee wall. So this way nothing could be kicked into the uh into the adjacent property as we go by. All right, let's uh jump out of here and look at the plans in terms of Appcate. the architectural plans and Russ these plans you're about to present were previously submitted. Yes, these were all submitted. So, as you can see here, this is our location like we I can show you on this um this little map down here which I'm calling the block diagram. This is actually the redevelopment this dark area here and our building right next to it as well. You can see that little jagged line coming down and how our building is, but this was the entire redevelopment. This was sold and already built and then we took over the remaining balance of this. That's what we um are working with. So we come down to the actual floor plans. You can see we come in. You can see that back rear yard angled situation we have right now. We actually have we're supposed to have five feet here on this corner, but we're actually at 4 foot like 8 in here. So you're just clipping this little corner here. And we actually go to 7 foot2 on the other side. So that's one of our our our variance deviation. Um and the other one in terms of the parking is right here we have three compact parking spaces. We have a 20 foot um access aisle instead of a 22. But since it's you know it's actually compact spaces they're only 16 deep anyhow not the 18. I don't believe the 20 is going to be any kind of real problem with that. As well as you can see on the ground floor we do have the seven parking spa uh bike parking spaces as well. And the remaining balance of our uh our ground floor is a little lobby with the elevators, the staircases, and our mechanical areas as well as a mechanical area, a small mechanical area in the basement as well, just to fit everything in. As you can see, parking really drove this job. I mean, I had to use every ounce of this project pretty much for parking on the ground floor to get the 14 parking spaces in. As we come back down further, we go to the upper floor plans and you can see our this is where we get to that rear yard setback problem. Again, this back here is 15 ft to the back corner, but when we clip it all the way back down here, you're stuck with that little 5t extra. So, um, we stayed with the 15 all the way across just to kind of give it a less of a severe angle. And we still have generous size apartments. These are two bedrooms in the back and one bedrooms in the front. And like I said earlier, those uh the two bedrooms are 1158 and 1240. And the uh one bedrooms are very very large at 8.90 square ft, which is very large for Jersey City. Um as well as if you go up to the next floor, you'll have the same exact layout except for the difference is you don't have any terraces back there in the rear and you don't have those little terraces in the front obviously as well. The reason the building set back in the front of the building has a five foot set back above the first floor is that was a requirement in the uh in the the actual planning um actually the planning the zone itself the redevelopment zone. Uh if we go to the top floor, as you can see, floor five, this is where we got the two the two three bedrooms. They're very large. Uh each of these two uh large three bedrooms, one's 18 1820 ft in the rear and in the front it's 1672. We also do have an amenity space on this level. It's about 3 maybe almost 400 ft in terms of uh size overall for the entire building to use. And on the upper level, we have a 600 square foot roof deck on the roof and 8 and 864 square feet of green roofing. Um, that's pretty much um the gist of our um of the presentation. I don't believe we have anything else really to be added at this project. Yeah, Russ. Uh, thank you. That's all I had for you. Thank you, Mr. Bodner. Do we have any questions for Mr. Bodner? Yeah, I have a question. Dr. to say, "Can you can you show me all the 14 parkings you have?" Yes. Yeah. There's actually a stacking parking system. So, you're probably confused if you look at them. Just count them. So, there is a uh let's go back. So, as you can see here, oops, I'm flying past it. Sorry, guys. Um you have the three parking spaces in the front. These three here. And then we have the handicap one as well. But then we have the stacker parkings right here. one, two, three, four, five. So, they're doubled up. That's like that's like that's really not 10 because it's a a stacker that has a a rotating system. So, you only get nine out of that. And then you get the other parking space. So, you get the you get the 14 between those and the one the two that are actually parallel on the side. And we actually I gave a little turnaround spot back here so you could pull in to the um when you have the stacker system, there's actually like an empty spot always to pull in. So you pull into that spot. You can always back. If these people pulled up, they could pull into that parking that space and then they could back themselves out so they have an easier way to get in and out of their um out out of the uh actual uh parallel parking spaces as well. So that's the second reason I use that kite. The garage door has alarm system, right? Yes. The garage door will have like an alarm system on the outside of the building as well as like they'll have they have like a rotating I always put those on all all my projects. They have like a little rotating disc out there. So if some a pedestrian is walking by that when the door goes to get active the rotating disc goes on as well in all my projects. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Okay. So with that I'll bring up my uh final witness Charles Haidider our project planner. Thank you. There you go. Mr. Height re you are under oath still. You remember that? Under oath. Perfect. And you're still qualified? Yes, I am. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. So, Charles, you heard the uh the two deviations related to that minor the drive aisle width where it pinches to 20 feet instead of 22 as well as for the rear yard setback where on the ground floor it's about a.33 foot deviation and on the upper floors on one of the sides it's a 5ft deviation. Um you heard Mr. Bodner's testimony. So, if you could speak a little bit to the intent of the redevelopment plan and how these uh how these variances or deviations, I should say, um outweigh any detriments that come with them. Yeah, and I I do agree. I think the board has a good handle as to the specifics where the deviations are occurring. Um I just did want to make reference that the 20 foot dimension for the drive is associated with the compact spaces. The 21 foot 8 in is associated with the standard space spaces. that drive aisle 21 feet 8 inches is only four inches short of the compliant 22. It will still provide adequate circulation for the standard vehicle. Um we also covered the rear yard setbacks on the ground floor in the upper floor pretty well. Uh so what I did want to offer to this board is that we are in the um uh oh my goodness. Um Hopkins hop Thank you. Hopkins central redevelopment plan. Um, you may ask yourself why an application on Beacon Street is within that. Uh, and really it's a matter of the last two parcels of the overall redevelopment plan being presented for this board. Uh, the other parcels in this redevelopment plan were previously approved and are under construction. I believe they're they're the building is topped out and clatted. Um, it does look nice as per those plans. I was involved with that application years ago. Um what we're dealing with now is a requirement in terms of rear yard for the redevelopment plan as a whole and it really was associated to a different lot line. Um when we make this application our lot and orientation is different from the whole redevelopment plan. So we kind of have an interior lot as opposed to a cap lot which is the redevelopment plan. And because of that we're applying these rear yard standards to what is the subject property's rear yard. And I I do think from a light and air and massing standpoint, we've balanced what the proposed development is in applying that rear yard standard to the interior of the overall block. So, I do think we're still meeting that intent of the rear yard uh setback requirement and providing light and air to the interior of the lot. Um I do believe this these are bulk deviations that can be granted by this board where the benefits do outweigh the detriments. Um, we are dealing with an odd angle, but I don't think that in and of itself is a hardship. I do think the proposed design and trying to deal with how far the building extends, where to draw the angle uh at the ground floor and upper floors is appropriate. Um, and uh ultimately I do think that there are special reasons that also advance the uh the application uh specifically uh establishment of appropriate population densities. That's purpose E of the municipal land use law. Uh we're completing a redevelopment plan. We're we're a permitted building height uh number of stories. Um and but for the relief needed on the bulk uh we're advocating for appropriate density and uh in an appropriate location. Um we are also promoting purpose C uh to provide for adequate light, air, and open space. I do think we're providing that uh light and air to the interior of the block. uh the adjacent existing structure uh to the east of the subject property is a zero lot line structure. So that's why we're able to marry our proposed on both sides. There's no real impact on the massing there. Uh and then lastly, purpose I to provide for a desirable visual environment. I think that this would be a nice addition and complement to the existing uh five-story structure in the redevelopment plan as well as to the overall neighborhood. Um, with respect to the negative criteria, I do think that uh we've addressed a lot of the issues related to the relief needed uh in terms of the uh rear yard setbacks and the drive aisles. There will still be a adequate amount of circulation provided for vehicles to maneuver in the um in the drive aisle. We also are providing uh an appropriate amount of of setback uh interior to the block so light and air can be provided to the rear yards uh the adjacent rear yards. So I don't believe for those reasons it's a substantial impairment to the general welfare. Um I do also think that it would just provide a mix of of housing within this neighborhood. Uh more apartments rather than uh your your other residential housing that's in the in the neighborhood. Uh with respect to the zone plan and zoning ordinance, uh I'll just uh bring up some some references from the redevelopment plan. Uh the goals of the redevelopment plan are to encourage the assemblage of lots within the area in order to create a suitable site for a more comprehensive development. These two lots being assembled yielding the five-story structure is an appropriate balance. And I do think um it's it's an assemblage that's that's appropriate for for a suitable multif family development. Um also to provide on-site parking while at the same same time recognizing the availability of mass transit in order to take advantage of the redevelopment plan uh areas proximity to local bus routes and the journal square transportation center. So again, the lot width of the two lots help us get the parking spaces, the 90 degree spaces, the stacker system, as well as the drive aisle. Um, so that's that's an element of the property that we're able to to work with um and advance the the objectives of the redevelopment plan. And lastly, with respect to the zone plan, um the city's 2021 master plan does have specific references. There's nothing specifically against this. It's in a redevelopment plan. there was no changes to the redevelopment plan, but I would offer that uh the city's master plan recommendations are to continue efforts to enhance residential neighborhoods. I do believe this application is doing that um with the redevelopment and completing the redevelopment plan and also to ensure the available housing is balanced and meets the needs of all current and future residents. Again, the relief needed is minor in terms of square feet and we are providing apartments, smaller uh types of units than the existing um residential zoning around in in the surrounding area. Um so that's my direct testimony. Be happy if there's any any questions or if I missed anything. Yeah, Charles, I think you hit everything. Um I don't have anything further for you. Thank you, Mr. Height. Any questions for Mr. Height? No. Thank you, sir. My pleasure. Thank you. And chairman, I have no further witnesses. Thank you, sir. Okay. Do we have any questions from the board? Any any other ones? No. Okay. I'll open it up to the public. Anyone here from the public wishes to speak on this application? Chair, see no one from the public. I would like to close the public portion. Second. Public is closed. Who is this? Sophia. It is Sophia. Sophia is on vacation. So, I guess you got me. Um, Sophia did upload her staff comments, staff report. Uh, there are conditions that were um in that memo. I hate repeating the conditions that are always on the same. The only different one is that the green roof is installed prior to CO. Um, and based on the comments from Dr. decide I would like to add the um light warning system at that garage that's a school right around the corner and these 15 cars coming in and out of that spot. Maybe it's just a little bit of a warning system for the pedestrians. I mean it's just 14 cars, Tanya, but 14 15 whatever you get out of that compact space. We take no exception to uh to the the condition safety. Thank you. Okay, I'll entertain a motion. Chair, would like to make a motion to approve case B2025-000052 as presented to the board together with staff recommendation and the additional condition of the warning um system. Second. Okay. Motion made and seconded. Roll call. Acting Vice Chair Gongan. I. Commissioner Wick. Hi. Commissioner Stamato. Hi. Commissioner Lipsky. Hi. Commissioner Dr. Desai. I. Commissioner Patel. Hi. And acting chair Dr. Gonzalez. I. Motion carries. All in favor with conditions. Thank you everybody. Okay. Uh with everyone's indulgement, I'm going to go ahead and keep Mr. Wine up here. We love hearing him talk. Uh he promises it's going to be a a short one. Uh and uh this is case P204-0139 minor site plan. Address 85 Liberty Avenue. U 285 Liberty A. And this is number 18 on your agenda. Sure. Mr. Wine. Good evening, uh, chair, commissioners, Benjamin Weine. For the record, on behalf of the applicant, 285 Liberty Avenue, JCNJ LLC. You will note that, uh, my outline for this application is significantly shorter, so I can confirm uh, that it should hopefully be shorter as well this evening. Uh, this was a technically not a notice case, but we did go ahead and notice just to be safe. So, I will grab that package for Mr. Alampy. Thank you, councel. Chairman, I do concur with Mr. Wine that this is not a notice case. However, since Mr. Wine went through both the expense and the trouble of preparing the notice, I'm in receip the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to 285 Liberty Avenue here in the city. We're going to mark it for purposes of record as A1. A1. Thank you, council. Thank you. Um, so the application before you this evening is for 285 Liberty Avenue. That's block 3304, lot 46. And we are located in the R1 zone as an interior lot along the west side of Liberty Avenue between Manhattan Avenue and Zabriski Street. The lot in question currently is a vacant lot and we're here this evening seeking minor site plan approval to construct a new three-story uh fourf family residential building that does entirely comply with your R1 requirements. I do also want to note for this application that we did have the opportunity to reach out to the Leonard Gordon Park Conservancy as well as the Western Slope Association with our application. Um we did that uh several months ago. We we had not uh gotten any comments back from them. Um, but we did make that effort uh to see if they had any concerns or wanted to speak to us. Uh, with with me this evening, I have one witness for you, uh, Avart Patel, who's our project architect. As uh, as I indicated, we do not have any relief needed. So, uh, so I do not have any planning testimony for you this evening. Thank you, sir. Uh, yes, I do. Uh, Avar Patel, A V A R T P A T-L. And Mr. Patel, you've presented in front of us before. Yes, I have. Your license is cons. You're qualified. Thank you. Thank you, Albert. So, why don't you walk the board through the existing conditions as well as what we're proposing on the site this evening? Uh, sure. Um, the site is located at 285 Liberty Avenue. Uh, the the width of the lot is uh uh 39 1200 ft deep. Uh the current uh condition of the site is uh is a vacant lot and uh there is a uh there's a slope front to back about uh the site drops about 7 1/2 ft. Um going to quickly move to the the proposed site plan. Uh as you can see the uh the building is situated with a uh with a uh 3-ft uh 3 and 1/2t setback on both side. Uh and on the front side we have about 3 and 1/2 ft of setback. Um going to go to the uh floor plan. Um the current uh I mean the proposal is for uh a three-story four family uh structure. Um and uh we are proposing a twocar garage. Um and uh that would be assigned to uh one of the the two larger units of the the building. Um going to quickly go through the first floor plan. Uh as you can see the the garage doors towards the front. Uh and then there is a uh staircase centrally located which uh leads to the second story. Uh unit number one and unit number two is uh placed towards the back. Um and uh those are the larger units and and you know um the garage would be associated with those units. Um so units have access through the garage. Um and uh uh at this level we have a um master bedroom uh with a walk-in closet and uh utility is located. Uh there is a staircase leading downstairs and upstairs um and I'm going to quickly cover the the downstairs. So the staircase comes down and there's a walk out uh um uh door uh and that they would get the the access to the backyard. Um going to move to the second floor. So those units uh uh as you can see on the first floor plan the the staircase goes up here and then uh on the second level uh they will have access the second floor is the the one at the bottom um will have access to the the second floor and if they will extend towards the front of the building and the kitchen living uh dining is located at this level plus uh a small study nook uh as part of unit one and unit two. It's identical uh split in half and then um the central staircase which is placed between the two garage would come up and then we'll have access to the unit three and four. Again, they are they are duplex uh as well. Um and uh uh at this level, there's a master uh master bedroom with a uh with a with some utilities. And then the staircase would lead to the uh the third level where um the the live uh the additional bedroom and uh living and kitchen is uh is located. Um identical layout just split in half. uh overall um areas uh of uh these two units are about uh 1,500 and and uh uh 80 square ft and then um the two larger units are about uh 1,600 uh 1,700 and change. Um going to quickly move to the roof plan. Uh unit three and four gets uh access to the roof uh as unit one and two had access to the backyard. So that way everyone has access to the outdoor space. Uh the green roof is located towards the front and the back of the building. Um creating a separation from the edge of the building. Um and this is the the bulkhead plan showing the the roof of that the staircase. Uh quickly go to go to the front elevation. Yeah. Um most of the lots uh um along Liberty are are you know 25 by 100 lot and we wanted to create a design which kind of gels with uh uh you know 25 ft lot. So uh we came up with this module where um it looks like a a twin um and uh overall elevation wise we are proposing uh a brick at the base of the uh the facade and then um uh the the background would be all hardy uh uh siding and then the u the uh the roof is the shed roof and and uh the the window you know that element comes out a bit about about a foot from the main facade and that would be uh covered with a board and bat siding. Um the railing you see here, it's a the glass goes all the all the way down to the deck of the the the balcony. It's not actually a balcony. It's a Juliet balcony. So there would be a railing directly in front of the u the the door and the window. And uh u um as I said, the glass will go all the way down to the deck. So there's no um issue of uh anything falling or rolling under the glass and and hitting someone underneath. Um this is the rear elevation uh pretty uh straightforward horizontal siding um with the windows uh and and the two access door from uh uh unit one and two at the the grade level towards the back of the building. Um these are the site elevations. As you can see the site uh gradually u you know slopes down and uh we are proposing um few stair uh uh steps and and long landings to gradually transition down um uh towards the back. Um this is the other side elevation um the the left side of the building. Um the the facade would be a horizontal siding which would uh continue on both alongside as well as the the back of the building. Um I guess uh that about it. Uh hope to answer any questions if you have. Yeah. Nothing else for me. Anyone have any questions for him? No. Thank you Mr. Patel. I'll go ahead and open it up to the public. Anyone here from the public? Chair see no one from the public. I would like to close the public portion. Second. Public is closed. Junu. Uh yes. So again, uh Sophia uploaded her memo. Uh the six conditions that are on here are very standard conditions. So I won't read them into the record. Um but they are there and they are in the on uploaded on the portal and we would agree to comply and staff recommends approval. Thank you. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve case B204-0139 as presented to the board. I second it. Motion made and seconded. Roll call. Acting vice chair Gangadan. I. Commissioner Wick. I. Commissioner Stamato. Commissioner Lipsky. I. Commissioner Dr. Desai. I. Commissioner Patel. Hi. And acting chairman Dr. Gonzalez. I. Motion carries. All in favor with conditions. Thank you everyone. Thank you. Okay. Okay, we're going to go back to the normal uh uh record here. Sorry, Mr. Wayne. That's okay. In that case, uh would you mind if I put on the record an adjournment request uh with preservation of notice for that last one? And that would be uh number it's 19 and 20 on your agenda. P204-0231 978 summit A and case P204-0233 978 Summit A. That's correct. That would be that would be to August 12th with preservation of notes. Uh let me just confirm real quick. August 12th is good for me. Okay. So I just want to confirm for the record that no further notice would be required. That's correct. All right. Thank you everybody. Have a good evening. Thank you. And uh before we jump into my case, I'll also carry the the other two that I have uh on the agenda. That would be uh case this is number 21 case P20223- 000991 133 Logan Avenue and number 24 on the agenda. Case P2025 uh 002810 Brinkerhoff Street and you are Mr. Steven Joseph for the record. Stephen Joseph for the applica for both of those applicants for the record. And that is also to August 12th. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, sir. And I think you're up uh anyway here. Case P uh 2024-0224. Case uh uh number 13 on your agenda. And that is applicant Carne Development address 222-236 Carne. All right. Stephen Joseph for the applicant. Um, this is a notice case. I do have our notices here. If we could enter these as evidence. Chairman, I receive the affidavit of Publication proof of service with respect to the application at 220, 222, 228, 230, and 236 Carney Avenue here in the city. Does appear to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for purpose of the record. Thank you, council. So, um, 220 Carney, I'll just call it 220 Carney. The This is three properties. They're industrial warehouse buildings. The applicant's proposing to demolish those buildings, consolidate the lots together, and then subdivide into eight new lots. These are all um oversized lots. They're 27 and change wide by 100 ft in depth, approximately uh 2,781 uh square feet. Um there's a total of three curb cuts associated with these eight lots. So, six of the lots are going to be sharing uh three three curb cuts. So, one one curb cut for uh for two lots and then the two of the eight lots will have no parking, no curb cuts at all. Um we do have a surveyor here tonight if you would like the surveyor to say a couple words, but there are no variances associated with this application. Um happy to do whatever the board would like. Have any questions? Anyone? No. Straightforward. Okay. All right. So, anyone from the public here to speak on this? Okay. Chair see no one from the public. I would like second to close the public. I'll second. Okay. Jean. Um staff issue a staff memo dated May 19th, 2025. I will just ask the applicants to agree to the conditions in the memo. Yes. The applicant has reviewed and accepts all the conditions. See my approval. Thank you. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve KP2024-0224 as presented to the board with staff recommendation and conditions. Second motion made and seconded. Roll call. Acting vice chair Gangodan. Hi. Commissioner Smato. I. Commissioner Patel. Hi. Commissioner Dr. Desai I. Commissioner Week. Hi. Acting chair. Oh, Commissioner Lipsky. I. Acting chair Dr. Gonzalez. I. Motion carries. ing favor. Thank you. We'll save the tough cases for uh Chairman Langston on the 29th. Have a good night. Thank you. Oh, I have all the faith in the doc. Bring it on. You should have, right? Okay. Next case, P2025-0011. Uh applicant Kesler Hudson County rehab preliminary and final major site plan with C variances. Address at 135 Green Street. Uh good evening commissioners. Uh for the record, Tom Lean from Connell Foley. Uh before I start, I'm also going to uh request an adjournment uh with my notices carried to a date certain and that's for item 16D on your agenda, which is 270 Newark Avenue, uh cases P20250031. Mr. Lean, thank you, Cam. That would be August 12th as well. Okay. Thank you. Uh the matter before you uh is a notice case. I did post these notices on Tyler, but I will provide an original to your council. I got two on 270. Did we call Baltimore? Chair received the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to 135 Green Street here in the city. Had the opportunity to review it. Does appear to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for purposes of the record. Thank you, council. Thank you, council. Uh the application before you tonight relates to 135 Green Street. Uh it is within the um Exchange Place North redevelopment plan. Many of you might recognize the building either as Harborside A uh or the building, excuse me, Harborside 4A or the building that currently contains um the uh the brand new Whole Foods. Uh we are uh seeking to uh utilize uh floors 9 and 10 in this existing building uh to put in a long-term care facility. um the planning board and then subsequently the uh city council amended uh the redevelopment plan last year to uh to make this a permitted use. So uh this was done by our client the the Kesler Institute and they are looking to uh put in a facility uh on floors 9 and 10. So essentially it is a 73 room uh facility where uh patients can uh you know stay after they've had surgery uh or stay if they're recovering from some sort of long-term illness. Um, and this provides an option in Jersey City, so they don't have to take advantage of them, the many in in uh New York. They can stay here in Jersey City and uh see their families. So, uh this is this normally would just be a retrofit that wouldn't even come before the board, but we are making some changes to the building itself. Uh and since they are on the exterior, we are required to uh to bring these before the planning board, especially since it's in a redevelopment plan. So, just very briefly, uh those changes are um adding two new uh changes to the existing elevators to accommodate hospital-ized beds. Uh we're putting in um a freezer for food uh for the the individuals there. Uh and there are some changes to uh to the loading docks and to the uh to the bicycle racks. On top of that, we are adding signage to the building to uh to identify the new use within it. Uh, and that will require some um some deviations considering that there's some existing signage. Um, so I do have three witnesses, uh, civil engineer and an architect who will both be very quick. Again, this is just a retrofitted of an existing building. And then, uh, Mr. Height will just quickly run through those deviations. Thank you, Mr. Lee. Hello. So, the requested variances are for signage and then off streetet parking, right? Not so much the interior. That's what I see on the agenda. There's a load of variance. There actually is no park. There's substantial parking in this building. Miss Garnell can go through if it's listed as a park. That's incorrect. Okay. testimony. I do. My name is Gabrielle Grenelli. G- A B R I E L L E G O R N E L L I. Miss Grenell, you've presented in front of us before? Yes. Okay. And your license is active and current? Yes. You are qualified. Thank you. Um should I just get started? Yeah. Yeah. So, um like Mr. Lean said, you know, this is the Whole Foods building. I think most people are familiar with it. It's a full block development. Um it has uh going clockwise Pearl Street, Green Street, Columbus, and um Washington Street on the on the west. Um and these are the civil drawings that were um uploaded on the portal. Um so this is the cover sheet. I'll flip to the first page, um which is our civil site plan. Um the like Mr. Lean said the facility is taking over space on the ninth and tth floors. Um approximately 50,000 square feet on the 9th floor and 30,000 on the 10th. Um as well as um some adjustments on the interior on the ground level for access. Um there are new no new curb cuts being proposed. Um the existing uh loading space on the north side of the building is being used. Um that's where um patients will enter the facility. Um, two of the elevators will um be modified so that you can enter those elevators from that loading space in the access corridor um on the west. Um, currently the elevators all go to the office lobby which is located on the um on the corner of the building. Um, one of those elevators will remain uh for visitor access who visitors will access uh from the lobby which is on Green Street. Um the site improvements are very minimal on the project. Um there will be some minor sidewalk repair because the the facility requires a new water line. And we are proposing um some exterior bike racks uh three bike racks which will hold uh six bikes which comply with the bike requirements for for the building as well as two interior bike racks which the architect will speak to. um as well as the signage which is proposed on the south, east and uh northern facade of the building. Um and there is the loading variance um which I believe um two loading spaces are required and I think we have one um and you know that that works with the operations of the facility. Um we do also have a GAR green area ratio variance. Um the GAR is required on this site. Um the variance is requested because you know and Charles will get more into this in his planning testimony, but you know in looking at what can be done on this site, you know it's an existing building. Uh the building takes up 90% of the lot. Um there are some some landscape improvements in the form of some street trees and some planting around the building. Um we took a look at that and the existing we did a calculation. The existing gar on the site is a 04 when a 0.25 is required. We looked at the square footage that we're taking up in the building and we're we're adding 4100 ft of green roof on the roof. Um which accounts for an additional 0.05 05 gar for a total gar on the site of 0.09 and we believe that 0.05 is appropriate because it um it equates to the percentage of floor area which we're taking in the building. Um obviously being an existing building there's there's little things that that can be done when the building takes up the majority of the lot. Um and there's multiple you know uses in the in the building. Um that is really all of the engineering testimony. Um, my final sheet is just my utility plan showing that that proposed water line that I mentioned earlier. The only other question I have, Miss Garnell, is uh we're not changing the parking layout in the building and it complies with the the needs for this proposed use. Yes. Thank you, Miss Garnell. Any questions for her? Well, on the um the agenda, it says the required number of off streetet loading. I've gone to that garage numerous times to go to Whole Foods and is plentiful. So that I don't see as a problem. So maybe it's just a typo. But the other thing is is with the loading uh it's two spaces on Pearl. It it's it is off street. It the the entrance is off Pearl. Um and it's within the building and it's an existing curb cut and then it'll be designated as such. It it will be designated. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you, Miss Garnell. Thank you. Appreciate it. Yeah. Um my next witness is Miss Wendy Lou. Uh Miss Lou is not actually a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey. I've brought Mr. Lewis who is a licensed architect. Uh he has reviewed the plans with her while she's going to walk through the plans if there's any questions that Mr. Lewis can specifically answer. He is here. Yes. Yes. Um, my legal name is Winston Lou. Wen X I N. Last name is L I. Yeah. And Jeffrey Lewis. J EFF R E Y L E W I S. Mr. Lewis, while you're up there, you are a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey. I am licensed and my uh license is in good standing and it is secured. Okay. Yes, you're qualified. Thank you. And then Miss Lou, because you've never testified by before this board, can you just briefly give us your qualifications and whether you're a licensed architect in any other jurisdiction? Oh, yeah. So, good evening everyone. It's actually my first time uh to testify in front of the board. So I'm um um not a licensed architect but I do have a bachelor's and master's degree of architecture. I have been practicing uh the uh professionally for 10 years. Thank you Miss Lou. I'm just having her as the person who prepared these plans. So Miss Lou if you could very very briefly run through the floor plan for the board. Okay. So the currently on screen we'll show the uh demolition plan of the existing as Gabby just mentioned we are convert the ex you see the existing to loading duck here we are converting the back into a ambulance drop off dedicated for the rehab hospital and we are demolishing this three uh uh passenger elevators into uh two to provide two new hospital grade uh elevators. So for level 9 and level 10 existing space on level 9 is office space and we are doing a gut renovation on level 10 existing space is a data center and associate support for the previous TD bank we are doing a g renovation so I'm going to show the department plan which is represent the new layout as you can see here we are providing a new ambulance drop which have a exterior flat light with a beacon warning system to uh warn the pedestrian when the ambulance go in and out. Uh as you see in this is a green highlight is two hospital grade elevator compliance with FGI 2020 and they will be transporting patient from the back area into the hospital grade elevator. Will the other passenger elevator remain for public visitors from the main entrance on the green street? So this is like a related scope when we upate up upgrade the elevators on the uh parking levels. So when I go to the next slide, this is the new layout for level 9. As you can see highlight in blue is the parameter with the impatient rehab patient care unit. In the middle is all the support including a kitchen for uh patient nutrition support with a gym for patient rehab uh recovery and some uh admin space with some nurse station and support like a clean supplies and so the utility room similar to the uh nice floor. This is the 10th floor uh layout. You can see the building set back on the 10th floor. So we will provide a extensive uh green roof which is approximately uh 4300 green roof on this to suffice the landscape need and also we providing u adjacent 33 uh patient care unit along the parameter with central space a central support space on the roof. We will provide two systemic reserve water tank to surface the uh fire protection for fire fire uh high-rise building with utilizing the existing screen uh system. So as you can see the rendering here uh I'm going to represent the uh the proposed exterior signage here uh with the facilities name. This is the green street and this is the man Christopher uh Columbus Drive and you can see existing uh building have like a curtain wall at the top from level eight to level 10 and below is the parking garage and the whole foot is at the corner. So this is the proposed facade uh elevation. You can see this is within the um required uh maximum uh limitation of the exterior signage. There is no change on the uh um this is the green street and this is the proposed castler institution uh exterior sandage and this is like the back area per street for the systemic uh reserve water tank with the screen room screen wall and this is like the whole entrance uh uh street with the water tank. was the screen wall. Yeah. I have no questions for this witness. Any questions? No. You did great. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I'm just going to follow a final follow up with Charles Height to finish. Council, do you want to have Mr. Lewis testify that he reviewed those plans? Yes absolutely. I don't think he actually did that. That's true. Uh Mr. Lewis, you had a chance to review these plans with Miss Lou? Yes, I reviewed the plans with her and I actually went through her testimony with her as well. Okay. And they they uh they meet the standards under the state of New Jersey for Yes absolutely. Thank you. Thank you, C. Mr. Height, we remind you you're still under oath. Still under oath. Glad to still be here. Okay, I'll jump right into it. Uh again, happy to be here board. Um, so we we did have a pleasure of working on this really what is an adaptive reuse of office space. So there's clearly a vacancy of office space uh in the city and and this is really a nice project to introduce what I would consider an inherently beneficial use. Um we're not seeking any inherently beneficial use deviation or variance tonight. Uh the plan Exchange Place North was actually amended in 2024 to introduce hotels and long long-term care facilities as permitted principal uses. So, um, that was done. Uh, what we are is really cleaning up a little bit of the aesthetics with the signage, uh, presenting some of the coordination with the loading that's occurring and, um, of course the green area ratio. So, uh, I want to mention that all of this variance relief is from the general land development ordinance, not from the specific redevelopment plan. We actually comply, the existing structure complies. there's no increases or changes um that would create any sort of deviations from the redevelopment plan. So again, the reliefs being sought is from the general zoning ordinance. I'll tackle the signage first. Um there are a number of signage uh variances that we presented. So, I think um the project architect did just walk the board through the uh um facades which if I do this correctly um might be able to get back to and I'm not doing it correctly. Okay. Um one more. Thank you. So, um this is a good uh image in location. I think uh there's a number of variances again from the general uh zoning ordinance. Um number of signs uh for hotel uses are permitted to be one. Uh this uh sorry hospital use this hospital use um has three frontages. We're identifying one sign per frontage. Two of the frontage will have the branding of Kesler Institute. Uh the one that's shown on on this sheet A200 uh will match in terms of consistency and aesthetics of the Whole Food sign that already exists. Uh and there's one on Green Street. Uh the third sign is on Pearl where it's the ambulance um ambulance identification ambulance entrance identification signage. So again that's an important entrance to the building. It helps any ambulances coming to the building know where that where that loading area is. Uh that's number of signage. Um with respect to the type, we are proposing internally illuminated signs. Uh this is where the light source is internal to the overall box of the sign. Um, it does add to visibility. Uh, it does help for general use identification for the building. Um, coming down Columbus in the general area will help anyone trying to get to the facility. Uh, again, it's long-term care, but uh, any any ambulances or um, guests of patients, it'll it'll help with wayfinding. Um, the only zone that permits internally illuminated is the HC and the CA district. So they're kind of more intense signs. Uh I don't think that that'll be an impairment to the general welfare given the location of the signs. Uh and it will be coordinated um with hours of operation. Um lastly is another locationational aspect to the sign. Um hospital uses are not allowed to have signage uh located above the second floor. So we are proposing signage above the second floor. Um and again it's really in terms of consistency with the existing Whole Foods sign um on the facade today. Uh it also does add for for visibility for the for for the use. Um the uh other signage relief needed in terms of area. Uh the general zoning ordinance only permits uh hospitals and medical uses 50 square feet. Um what's being proposed to you are two signs with the Kesler uh Institute signage at 193 square feet. So let me just put it into a little bit perspective for you. Uh the overall facade uh on this structure is approximately um 52,246 square ft. It's it's a large building in downtown. um that equates to um uh point4% of signage to facade. Um when you're taking it into just the first story for uh Christopher Columbus, it's 33% and usually anywhere from 5 to 7% is a comfortable number of of square footage of ground floor retail that you'd find in the city. So again, I do that math just to provide the scale for the board. Um it's a much bigger facade, a smaller facade. it would just look out of out of proportion. Um but again, we do need relief for for both those sign areas. Um when you move into the other two aspects of the variance needed with respect to off streetet loading, um we have worked extensively with the uh owner of the building and the other uses to identify uh the the parameters of the existing loaning and what the uh hospital needs. um in terms of loading not only for ambulances in terms of the dock the space um and and also the coordination and location to the elevators uh but also with any sort of delivery mater of materials and supplies um for the facility. So that will all be accommodated in the existing loading. We do need relief for the proposed use because it's based on use and we do ex exceed the 100,000 square foot of uh that threshold that requires the the loading space. Um but we're working with the existing uh fac loading facilities at the at the uh building today and uh ambulances will be scheduled uh in terms of their arrivals as well as deliveries. So there's no there be very little unscheduled loading activities. Um, so that should uh mitigate any sort of impact without having the necessary number of loading spaces. Uh, and lastly is the green area ratio. Uh, again, we're in the downtown as Miss Cornelli said, uh, the downtown is in a flood plane along the Hudson River. Um, when you do have a a new construction development, it's the goal of every project to comply with the green area ratio. Uh, here we have an interesting condition where the building occupies the almost the whole block but for the sidewalk. Uh so we are trying to introduce elements to um increase the permeability of the project. Uh and I do agree with Miss Gorelli. We did uh approach this in a kind of a creative way in a fairness way. It's not uncommon with uh a lot of infrastructure improvements where you you pay into your fair share of contribution to those improvements. And that's very similar here. um we utilized the gross floor area of the overall structure and took a percentage of what this application is proposing and that's the percentage of green error ratio that we're complying with. Um a deviation is is required because we don't meet that 0.25. Um but I think it's an appropriate deviation to request to this board um for the reasons we've we've given and it's an improvement over existing conditions. So um with respect to special reasons, uh, I started off the presentation that this is an inherently beneficial use. I do believe that we're permitted use. Uh, but I do believe by providing, um, approving this application, you're introducing uh, an appropriate uh, use for the the general welfare and and safety of of the neighborhood of the downtown neighborhood. That's purpose A. Um, I do believe that we're providing um a pro a desirable visual environment with the proposed signage that's being offered tonight. Notwithstanding the relief, I do think we're working in terms of context with the scale and the existing signage on the building today. Um, with respect to the negative criteria, uh, really it's, uh, it's an existing building, so we're not talking about any sort of physical attributes of the existing structure. Uh, but we are, um, creating for, um, a wellplanned development area, which will provide for opportunities for permanent employment, housing, commercial, and retail facilities within the area that is currently underutilized, contains substandard and obsolete structures, and has physical impediments. all which present sound development unless undertaken in a broad and comprehensive scale. That's one of the objectives of the redevelopment plan. Um and I think that we're transitioning underutilized office space to a very needed medical facility. Um there's more objectives I think we're meeting, but I think I can complete my testimony there. Uh if you have any questions. Yes, just one question. You you kept uh using the hospital standard for a lot of the things you were going through. This is a long-term care facility, which is different, but those standards apply to all medical uses. Correct. Correct. Okay. I just wanted to clear that off. I have nothing else. Do we have any questions for Mr. Height? I have one. I'm not sure if it's directed to you or Mr. Lewis, but you How many loading docks are you going to have for the ambulance? Do we say? So, I believe it's one. Um, but I do want to confirm with this will be one ambulance drop off. What's the requirement? So, so the requirement for the overall building would be six. What's the increase for this application is two. Two to one. Two is required, one's proposed for this use for this use. But Mr. Height, that that relates to all medical uses from hospital to a lower intensity like this where it's not people aren't coming here on an emergency basis. They're being dropped off on a timely manner. It's a scheduled one, right? So, so this is a lower intensity use than would pro might be uh required for a hospital for example. The ambulance that are arriving here are transferring patients under under care. It's not the emergency treatment scenario of an emergency uh section of a full-fledged hospital. So, I I think the the clarification of long-term care facility is important. um the scheduled nature of the ambulance v uh ambulance de uh deliver ambulance trips will help reduce any sort of um queuing or or whatnot that would occur in the street. So yeah, I I uh being in the field obviously you know uh that uh I I'm just worried if there's an emergency where people have to evacuate. I understand the scheduled incoming, you know, but especially being downtown, if there's a flood or something's going on and they have to eently evacuate, which has happened actually in those buildings a lot. I live not too far from there. Um, you know, that's going to be a little bit tougher to to get the patients out of there. These patients are not very mobile, can't run. Um, but I I I love the project. I think it's great. We need it there. uh as a condition of approval, we we could work with the Office of Emergency Management uh to try and come up with a plan in case of that if if that would with I would love that. Yeah. Yeah, we would agree to that as a condition of approval. Is everybody okay with that? Yes. Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Right. Thank you. Uh that's our presentation. Thank you. Do we have anyone from the public wishing to speak on this? Any questions? Chairman from the public. I'd like to close the public portion. Second. Motion made and second it. Yeah. Um okay. So planning staff would firstly like to ask um what does our what are your hours of operation for your signage? And if you are a 247 facility, we would ask that you keep the hours of operation that Whole Foods has for their illumination. I I think we can we are a 247 facility. Obviously, there's people receiving care there all the time, but I think we can agree as a condition that the the hours of the signage will be the same as the Whole Foods. Okay. Yeah. All right. So, um and then we will add that as a 10th condition um because we're adding the ninth condition to work with the office of emergency management on your loading um facilities. So 10th condition would be hours of operation to comply with what whole foods uses uh for signage. Um and and I will just put on the record that I did receive uh the June 4th memo prepared by planning uh and reviewed the conditions there in and they're acceptable too. Okay. Thank you. Um, that was my follow-up question. Um, okay. So, planning staff agrees with the testimony provided by the professional planner, Charles Height. Um, we believe that the variance can be granted without sub substantial detriment to the public good or um any detriment to the zoned plan or zoning ordinance. Um, we agree that this meets objective D of the redevelopment plan and it also meets many of the principles of the master plan. um specifically uh the zoning should allow for a broader mix of uh health care, hospitality uh institutions within the city. So um we we agree this use is inherently beneficial um and we believe the variances can be granted here and planning staff would recommend approval with the conditions put on record. Thank you. Kim Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve case P2025-000011 as presented to the board together with the additional conditions and staff recommendation. Second. Motion made and seconded. Roll call. Acting vice chair Gangaden. Yeah, I just want to say it's a great presentation. Um very good use of the building uh for a long ter long-term care facility in Jersey City which is really needed and good beneficial use. I think the um variances requested is very minimal and not detrimental. So my vote is I Commissioner Wick very much needed. I Commissioner Stamato. Hi. Commissioner Lipsky. Hi. Commissioner Dr. Desai I Commissioner Patel. Hi. And acting chairman Dr. Gonzalez. Yeah, this is really needed in our community and um kudos to you for bringing this up. I know we have a lot of patients who have to go far away when they have to go into rehab or long-term. So, it's going to really benefit the community, the whole city. I appreciate it. Thank you. I would I motion carries. All in favor with conditions. Thank you. To enter five minutes. So, we're getting close to the witching hour. Uh, we're going to take a break. Then we're going to come back and we're going to hear 829 Bergen. I'm definitely not a mathematician, but by counting the bodies in the room, I'm thinking 829 is going to be the last item that's going to be heard by the board tonight. Uh, but obviously everybody's more than welcome to stick around and see if we get past 8:29. We are not going to start a new application at 10:00 a.m. So, 10 p.m. 10 p.m. nor 10 a.m. or 10 a.m. 10 a.m. So, uh, we'll let everybody soak that in while we take the break and we'll come back in in about 10 minutes and see if anybody has a, uh, opinion on the matter. We'll be back at 9:10. Thank you guys. 910. All right. First order of business, case P2024-0172 2025 01325 Theodore Conrad Drive Council. Thank you, Mr. Lampy, acting chair, commissioners. Um, very quickly, we're going to ask for uh carry both of those applications. 2024 0172 20 It's actually 2024 013 to I know the agenda says 2025. Uh, carry those with preservation of notice to the next available meeting. Thank you, sir. Cam, that's August 12th. Still August 12th. Yep. Terrific. So, anybody here on either one of those cases, it's 125 Theodore Conrad Drive. That matter will not be heard this evening. It will be heard on August 12th. There will be no further notice. So, if you got notice of that meeting, this is your notice. August 12th, we start at 5:30. We go till 10:00. Thank you. Oh, I have them right here. Oh, great. Do we have any other matters that would like to carry before we move on to the next item of business? Anyone else? Okay. So, case P2025-000071. It is 829 Bergen Avenue. Mr. Mr. Harrington. Mr. Harrington, for the record, it is 8 or 9:15. I am going to stop this application regardless of where we are at 9:45 because I have a legal argument on the next matter that needs to happen this evening so that the parties can proceed. So with that, councel. Understood. Thank you. Uh again, uh for the record, Charles Harrington of Connell Foley. On behalf of the applicant, uh this is a notice case, so I'd ask that they be reviewed and marked into the record. Thank you, Mr. Harrington. Chairman received of the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the property at 829 Bergen A here in the city. I've had the opportunity to review it. It does appear to be an order. We're going to mark it as A1 for purposes of the record. Thank you, council. Okay. Thank you. So, um the property and application before you may may seem familiar to some of the commissioners uh because uh we had an application before this board uh about a year ago. It was approved in May of of 2024. Um and uh at that time uh it was owned by a prior owner. He subsequently sold the property. the zoning that was uh uh at issue at that at that time that regulated the the uh property was the the CBD, central business district uh zoning. Uh and that's that's important because of you'll see the variances we're requesting in the change in in the the application because uh the regulating zoning now is the NC3, the neighborhood commercial three. Um and and what's important here is is uh that uh parking is no longer required uh for this this project and this property because it's less than 10,000 square feet the lot area. Um so that's the big change that we're proposing um tonight is we have a project that and it is a brand new application. It's not an amendment um because it is different zoning that's before you. Um, we have a project that is the same size, the same bulk, uh, 11 stories, 77, uh, residential units. Uh, the project that was approved last year had 20 parking spaces that that went down into the cellar and there were stackers um, uh, and really not not very efficient, but uh, nevertheless, that is being eliminated. We're we're not providing any parking because the zoning doesn't require it. And the difference here is this that the prior project had 5% affordable units. Uh the project being proposed tonight has 10%. Um so it'll have eight affordable units. That is a result of a rear yard variance that that is being requested as part of the application. The the uh the rear yard um uh criteria changed a little bit. So same building, but we do we are requesting a variance for the rear yard. Uh there are also uh the the other variances that we requested as part of the last application was the lot width and the lot area. Um as as explained at the the uh hearing last year, those are classic hardship cases. Um we can't expand the building. Uh we are uh uh surrounded by the cemetery behind us. If you know the 829 Bergen Avenue, it's located across the street from the Hudson County building uh on Bergen Avenue. Uh and directly to the north is the Coptic Church, which that's why there's there's a lot of people here with the community. Um so we can't expand uh that way. And then directly to the south is I believe it's called the Madrid residential building. It's an older building. So we are what we are. It's it's a six about a 6,900 square foot uh lot um that was historically used by Raymond Glass um as as one of their um sites for for their property. They sold it uh and and this is now the I guess the third seller or third buyer since then. So that's you know the the the primary change here is the parking. um was we had parking now there's no parking parking is not required uh under the zoning ordinance. Uh we have had a community meeting. Um we have my client has been in contact with members of the Coptic Church. Uh we are working on uh construction issues, access issues to to make sure that it's a safe condition when when those are done. Uh we we fully appreciate that that the it's a very active uh site, the the Coptic Church. Um and uh and we will be doing everything according to code. Um and my our architect has been meeting with their representatives. We do not have an agreement yet in place. Uh but that's I don't I don't think I need to remind the board that's not an issue before this board, a construction issue. Uh that is something that that um is being worked upon, but it's not something before this board. because I I say that because I I anticipate a lot of concerns and we we appreciate all the concerns, but I I anticipate a lot of comments uh in a public comment about about that. So, uh with that said, um I will start in our our time frame here like to bring up our civil engineer to to walk you through the site. I do. My name is Michael Nona, spelled NA. I'm a civil engineer with Stonefield Engineering and Design. Um, I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. My license is current and good standing. Uh, I graduated with a bachelor of science degree, uh, bachelor of engineering degree in civil engineering from Wayne State University. I've been a practicing engineer for the last eight years or so, and I've testified in front of multiple boards, including this one. You're qualified. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Nona, before you uh present, we are we are using a slide deck. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. And and uh if if you could identify that that slide deck, do do you know the particulars of it or should we have Mr. identify it for the record? How many How many slides? 31. 31. Yes. Okay. 31. Uh, Mr. Was this witness going to use a portion of the slide deck? Is that what correct? I'm going to use about um three slides in this deck. All right. So, A2 is the A29 Bergenav planning presentation. It's dated today's date July 15 2025 and it's 31 slides and council obviously that'll be provided uh after the hearing. Correct. A2. Thank you. Thank you. Um I'll try to keep this kind of short. Mr. Harrington uh kind of gave a brief layout of the site, but as he mentioned, the project site is located at 829 Bergen. We are fronting Bergen Avenue. To the north of us is the Coptic Church. To the south is a multif family residential building and to the west is the Spear Cemetery. Uh the existing lots about 6,900 square feet. Um we are proposing a 6,51 square foot resident uh mixeduse building with first floor residential and 11 stories. Um the uh the project is not proposing any parking on site. Um, in the existing condition, the site is 100% impervious. In the proposed, we are reducing that to um 4,641 square ft. When you when you in include the green roof on the top um uh the as part of this application, we're proposing uh streetscape improvements, new sidewalks, new curbs. We're closing off a um existing curb cut for the existing loading dock and uh we're proposing to mill and overlay uh the portion of Bergen Avenue which is front of the site. Um the project is also proposing 39 internal uh bicycle spaces which is uh which is the requirement for the NC3 zone. We're also proposing to install um a bike rack on the outside for you know visitors or resident or uh customers of the retail space. Um for utilities all utilities are being pulled from Bergen Avenue. There is there are existing um storm sanitary and water lines in the street and we have been working with PSCG to uh coordinate electric um as part of the utilities. There is a proposed vault access within uh the right of way. We are working with both the u the municipality as well as the utility provider to coordinate that and that is shown on all the plants. Um moving on to the site plan itself like Mr. Harrington said the building has not significantly changed as far as the footprint goes from the previous application. You can see um this is from the uh previously approved site plan on top which was submitted in December of 2023 and then the currently proposed plan which is which was submitted in May of this year. Um the overall footprint has not changed significantly. The largest difference is the removal of the driveway, the ramp to the basement and the parking on site. Um, as far as storm water goes, the site is compliant with the Jersey City uh storm water ordinance as a minor development. Um, we are reducing the storm in all events by approximately 30%. Uh, we're providing 2200 ft of green roof on uh on the roof of the building and we are uh reducing motor vehicle surface completely. Um, for the landscaping, we are proposing one street tree along the frontage as well as some uh raised planter beds. And um um and we we think that this is a very positive uh rehabilitation of the site from his existing condition to something that will imp uh be a nice addition to the community. Um, I'd also like to add that I have reviewed all of the staff reports, the engineering the engineering letters, as well as the planning review letter. Um, and we take no exception to any of the comments that were made. Um, as far as the as far as the engineering and uh plan comments. Um, as far as my direct testimony, I think that uh mostly sums it up and I'm happy to answer any questions from the board. Anyone have any questions? No. No. Thank you, Mr. Okay. Uh, thank you. Then at this time, I'm going to move forward with our architect, Mr. Amara. I do. Sure. Ahmed Amara, last name E M A R A. You got it. Mr. Mara, you've presented to our board before. I have. And your license is current. Current and good standing. Yes, you're qualified. Thank you. As Mike mentioned, did I? Okay. Um, this is um almost identical to the project that was approved two years ago or a year ago. This is the project that's being proposed now. The massing in the front has remained largely the same. the materiality and the windows have changed slightly just to comply with the u uh the new zoning. The new zoning does change the setback in the front. So we are ma matching that as well. Uh but the variance is being asked for the rear uh setback. This is the site just to give you a visual of 3D of where we're at across the street and then two buildings on either side. And this is the site as its condition. Today we are in the neighborhood commercial 3 as mentioned. Um this is a change of zoning from the CBD to the NC3 which now does not require parking and changes the setback requirements in the front as well as the rear of the building. The variances are listed on the screen right now. The lot area and the lot width as as Chuck has mentioned those are existing non-conforming conditions that we can't really change. Um the minimum rear yard setback is listed as a variance as well as the roof coverage which I'm sure the planner is going to cover and I'm just going to mention that uh a huge part of this is a mechanical area on the roof uh to eliminate the use or to basically we don't want to use ptax in the building. um we just don't think it's it's a good idea on the facade or the um uh or for efficiency of the building and this is we're hoping to have a very efficient uh uh strong building here. So to get um uh a good VRF system we need condensing units and those are going to be on the roof. The building is 77 units. This is the mix. Um and as Chuck mentioned 10% now is is part of the rear yard variance. So eight affordable units will will be in the building. This is something that we already worked with the affordable housing authority on. Um, and the mix on the screen of the affordable units is what's approved. Um, I'm going to go quickly through the plans. Uh, this is on top is always going to be what's previously approved. Bottom of the screen is going to be what's proposed. This is the seller that was previously approved with the parking in the back which was a deeper pit and and um and the parking ramp. And then below you'll see that the utilities remained largely the same. We've actually worked with PSEG this time early on on all the utilities and bringing in service cuz this this is a huge part of you know building anything on Bergenav. And the uh area in the front, that's the vault that's reviewed and we're in the process of of u getting that basically signed off by PSEG. We're hoping to we wanted to come here and present the project that we can actually build. We don't want to build some get something approved and then go back and and rework it again. Um and and the ramp is now replaced with a gym. Uh and in the back we have uh storage for the building. Uh the first floor um was largely eaten up again by the um the ramp for the parking and then that area in the back where there's an X that was the double height for the uh pit for the parking. Uh now we have a business center in the back for the tenants of the building uh for a co-working space basically. And then in the front we have the lobby um and and most of the functions of the building like the um command center and leasing office and such. And to the right that is the um retail space that's being proposed. Uh I'm going to try to just move swiftly through the the plans but the plans again have largely remained the same. The exterior you can see that it's slightly different now to match to basically abide by the setback in the front. Um we do have some balconies still on the front of the building. You'll see the similarities between the balconies. Uh we have window wells on either end now which you didn't have in the beginning uh for windows. Uh this is the roof that Michael was just referring to. The two gray areas are mechanical spaces and that's the large green roof that he mentioned that would be reducing the uh storm water runoff onto the of the site. This is the proposed rendering for the green uh roof as well as the uh recreational space with the uh pergola here and then the aluminum louvers for the mechanical spaces. Um there's also a wooden fence there which is this is the mechanical space that's on the same level as the roof. That's just another view for the uh pergola and the space that's designed under it. The elevations I'm going to try to be brief. the elevations uh the massing has changed slightly like I mentioned but we stay within basically the width of the site it's 40 feet that's what you can build um and then the materials this is the rear of the building it's higher this is the one side facing north and this is what's being proposed now this is the south side and this is the proposed for the south side and this is the entrance of the building and the first floor is right above it. Uh on the left side where it says 829, that's the entrance of the building. On the right side where it says sign, that would be the space for the retail. Uh the materials of the building, we are use we're proposing to the use of uh cement board on the front of the building and beige and then the gray cement board as well and copper metal panels, copper colored meer panels, not actual copper on the building. Although I would love it, but it's too expensive. um terracotta stucco on the sides as well as the beige mimicking the color and then um actually um going doing that pattern on the side of the facade. That is the facade that you see coming down uh Bergenav because the building does angle out and this is a night view of the building. Um and I'm happy to take any questions if anybody has. Anyone have any questions? Yes. Um, how many feet uh exist between the north and the north side of the building and your project? The north side of the north the the north property line in the building. Yeah. Zero. We're building up to the property line. Right. And so how far is that from the adjacent property? About 5T. So it will not touch the adjacent property. It will not touch the adjacent property. Correct. And on the south I'm sorry. On the south. On the south, both properties are basically touching the usually you leave a seismic gap of one inch. That's what would be left on the south. But on the north side of the building, there's a five foot on the north side of the building. The Coptic Church building is not on the property line. They have a 5-ft alleyway. So that's their building is removed further north. We're building property line to property line. Yeah. On both sides. On both sides. Correct. Did you speak to the changes you made? If no other questions, I'd like to bring something else that Chuck just reminded me of. Sir, we are we're not in public yet. Okay. We'll call you up. But All right. I doubt that. Um in in in process of working with the our neighbors, we did um make a few changes to the uh project. So, I'm just going to go back to the the first floor. Uh, right here there used to be a window well that was open up to the second floor similar to this here. So, this is a window window well here. The side of the building, sir. What was that? Which side of the building are you referencing? Oh, here the I'm talking about the proposed floor plan that's on the lower side of the screen to the left here. The north side of the building. The north side right there where my cursor is. There used to be a window well right here matching this window well on the right side here which had windows. Would you say that is from the rear property line? Uh about 24 ft. And that window well is the one you were describing. Is that And this window well here that's 20 that you that was there 24 ft from the rear property line was there. It was submitted like that. And then as part of the discussions with our neighbors to the north, the Coptic church, that was a request and uh to put to bring up a wall about 12 feet tall um to avoid basically they have you know youth activities in the bag, basketball and stuff like that. They didn't want the ball to come in and uh break one of the windows. So we considered this and and we went back and actually just eliminated it just to make it uh safe and comfortable for everyone. So we got rid of that completely. Um that's one of the uh discussions that we've had. Another discussion we've had was um the um the concern which we totally understand of the um fire escape that's on existing onto the side of the Coptic church building right now. Um the church's building has this as a means of egress. Their concern the concern that was voiced basically was your window may be too close to it. So we want to avoid anything happening between that and we've measured it. We worked on the window and the window is over five feet from that stair. So we feel comfortable with that moving forward as is. Um uh uh we also have the request for the retail space, right? Uh yes. So, so one one of the requests that we've heard and and I believe Chuck can speak to that is uh they would like a restriction on the uses that could happen in there. So, they don't want basically um like an adult store type or or a liquor store or a CBD store to take place into this retail space. And I believe speaking with ownership and with Chuck, this is something that we can definitely u support and understand as a condition of approval for the project. Mr. Harrington, what does that mean from a legal standpoint? Well, that um what it would mean for this building um in part of this approval in the event it was approved, we would agree that that those uses would not be permitted uh in this retail space and there would be a deed restriction to acknowledge that. So that would be a deed restriction. Yes, that that would be the way to address it. J. Yes, please go ahead. So, in rereading the transcript from the last May, the the public testimony had three principal complaints or concerns. One was the building height. Uh, one was traffic/parking and then a third one uh was the construction and the effect on the church. What guarantees can you speak to in terms of allaying any of those fears for this proposed project for the third one, the building of the building, not to uh compromise the integrity of the church? You want me to answer? Yes. Okay. All right. So, um um three concerns. I heard them loud and clear and we've had discussions. So, we The only one I'm the only one I'm saying to now because is the third one is the because you you're an architect. You're not a traffic engineer. I'm not a traffic engineer. is going to say, "Our traffic engineer is going to comment on that." The first one you was approved and it's not changing. Right. Thank you. But if a new person comes in, there's still going to be the overlying fear. Yes. That if you're if you're going to pile drive, what's that going to do to that space? And even if you're not pile driving, if you're just digging foundations and pouring a matte foundation, I totally understand. And and this is a condition that we have to work on. What what guarantees can I give? I can basically say that this project will be done in accordance with the uh international building code of New Jersey. We will get the proper approvals from the agency permitted for this which uh uh in um which is the the building department in Jersey City. They'll be reviewing this the process just to not to take too long but the process is to get support of excavation permits first. We would finish the support of excavation permit get it inspected get it approved and then you can pull foundation permits. So this process is is basically done exactly to get what you want. We they want to make sure that you supported the excavation that the building next door is uh properly protected. Um part of this is also working with our neighbor on an access agreement and on uh protecting their building during construction. We have to follow the code. We have drawings done by our by our engineer for the protection of adjoining property. That is something that's already been submitted to the building department that's been reviewed by the building department u in case of because we are preparing for demolition. So that's something that we would like to get on the record. Absolutely. Anything done on site has to abide by the code. That's what I put my license on. And and for the record, you have been meeting with their professionals uh as well to discuss these these issues, right? Absolutely. We've been meeting with the professionals. They're more than competent, more than knowledgeable about all of this and they've been helping us and guiding us honestly through the process as well. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. You're very welcome, council. Oddly enough, Mr. Harrington, this is the perfect place to stop. That's that's what I expected. Uh it's a good break to for the continuity. So, Mr. Black be uh August 12th carried with preservation of notice and testimony taken. Is is it possible to do the 29th so that we could under old business? No. 29th of August? No. No. Oh, of July. No, it's it's not it's not okay. Well, I guess we'll take what we can get and it will be under old business. Yeah. With testimony taken. I don't want to give anybody the false sense that being under old business means you're first because what we're about to talk about is listed under old business. Understood. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Harrington. everybody here this evening on the 829 application. It is being carried to the August 12th meeting. If you didn't hear me earlier, we start at 5:30. We go until 10:00. I am going to ask one thing. When you walk out that glass door, keep walking and do not start talking to each other until you get to the security desk. Thank you. Thank you guys. Okay, we're going to call case P2024-0229 and case P2024-0182. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Jim McCann from the law firm of Connell Foley. I'm appearing on Is that on, Jim? I'm appearing on both of those cases that uh council just called on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Salgian, can you tell those people to move down the hall? Thank you. Please. He's our new sergeant- of- arms. Thank you, Mr. McCann. Council. Good evening, everyone. Tana Buuka from Becker, New York, PC, on behalf of uh objector council on behalf of Port Liberte Homeowners Association, Inc. And we do have a jurisdictional objection that I'd like to be heard on uh before the planning board hears any argument with respect to this application. Okay. Uh so as I mentioned, we're council to Port Liberte Homeowners Association. Uh the association and the individuals who uh reside in Port Liberte are within 200 ft of the applicant's property, but did not receive notice of the scheduling of tonight's hearing. The only notice received was a notice regarding the request for amendments to the redevelopment plan, but not for the underlying preliminary and final site plan approval. In addition, you rem you may recall that our office separately requested notice of the schedule scheduling of any hearing on August 21st 2024. We provided you a copy of that earlier today. Um, and we have also followed up several times as to whether the matter had been scheduled and requesting notice such as when the application was scheduled and each time we were advised that it had not yet been scheduled but that notice would be provided as set forth herein as I'm stating to you notice was not provided to our client or to our office that the site plan application that's P2024-018 82 was being heard this evening. In searching through the online portal, the only notice that we've been able to locate, which was not provided to our firm and does not have any record online of having been sent to those within 200 ft of the property, starts by providing notice by identifying the matter by PB case number 0229, which pertains specifically to the master plan amendment application. Indeed, mention of the separate site plan application, which is P2024-0182, is casual and without even identifying the site plan application number. In fact, the notice actually states that the site plan approval is quote subject of a separate application to the Jersey City Planning Board. This is what's in the notice. leading any rational reader to believe that it was not subject to the hearing being noticed tonight. The matter is further confused by not including any mention in the notice of the temporary sales office element of the site plan which was specifically broken out for some reason. Yet it was discussed was discussed on May 27th, 2025, which was the prior hearing. And was the reason given on the meeting on the meeting agent for the May 27th, 2025, if you look at the agenda, you'll see that to be clear. I'm sorry. On the meeting agent council, excuse me, did you say on the meeting agent agenda? The meeting agenda, I'm sorry, the meeting agenda. Okay. Put simply, the notice was purportedly provided um was significantly flawed in that it did not provide actual notice that the site plan application i.e. P2024-0182 was the subject of the intended notice. As a result, my client, Port Lib HOA, was not aware that the application for the site plan approval was moving forward, nor were the residents who are here this evening aware of that. While the Port Liberte HOA has no objection to P2024-0229, which only seeks an amendment to the redevelopment plan. It does have legitimate objections to P2024-0182 and is entitled to an opportunity to be heard on legally sufficient notice. We provided you earlier with a copy of an excerpt from the May 27th um hearing notice highlighting the fact that the site plan application was subject to a separate application in the Jersey City Planning Board and therefore subject to separate notice requirements that was to be forthcoming but were never provided. We sent you an excerpt of that but I'm just going to read from it. It specifically says that it is a separate application to the Jersey City Planning Board. There's no mention in the notice being provided for P2024-0182 of the contents of that separate application. Thus, the planning board doesn't have jurisdiction to hear the application tonight on P2024-0182. Notably, the association intends to object to the site plan application being heard under P2024-0182, including through cross-examination of witnesses and the presentation of its own expert witnesses. However, legally sufficient notice providing the association with an opportunity to be heard has not been provided. Unfortunately, we were not able to have our expert available this evening on such short notice, but again, we have this jurisdictional objection because proper notice was not even provided. We therefore respectfully submit that the applicant should be required to provide sufficient notice of P2024-0182 and that the planning board adjourns that portion of the hearing um because legally sufficient notice has not been provided. Again, the association has no objection to the planning board proceeding on application number P2024-0229 alone, but we do have an objection to the other application which we did not receive notice of. One of the injection objections intended to be raised pertains to the expiration of the Caven point redevelopment plan, which was adopted for a 40-year term only that has since expired. As a result, the hearing before the planning board on application number P2024-0182 before an extension of the expired plan or adoption of some other redevelopment plan by the city of Jersey City is premature as such would be futile and a waste of the precious municipal resources. As stated in section Roman numeral six I of the redevelopment plan, the provisions of this plan specifying the redevelopment of the project area and the requirements and restrictions with respect thereto shall be in effect for a period of 40 years from the date of approval of this plan by the city council of the city of Jersey city. The redevelopment plan was adopted on November 7th, 1984 and amended several times thereafter, but in each instance, none of those amendments extended the November 7th, 2024 expiration date. stated differently. As currently constituted, the planning board has no ability to approve the application and therefore should refrain from hearing it until such time as the redevelopment plan is extended or another redevelopment plan approved by the city of Jersey City. Notwithstanding, not having provided the legally sufficient notice that is required for application number P2024-0182, the planning board should refrain from hearing the application further until the time as proper notice is supplied. I just want to read uh two cases into the record. Um the purpose of notice on planning board uh applications is to quote ensure that members of the general public who may be affected by the nature and character of the proposed development are fairly apprised thereof so that they may make an informed determination as to whether they should participate in the hearing. And that's from Pearl Mart of Lacy vers Lacy Township citation number 295 NJ super 234 and that's from the appellet division in 1996. A critical element of any public notice is quote an accurate description of what the what the property will be used for under the application. And that's from Pierro versus Burrow of Lake Apatong. And that citation is 2006 West Law 3371544. And that's from the appellet division in November of 2026. Finally, in Stafford versus Stafford 229 NJ Super 188 from the appellet division in 1997, if notice is somehow defective, any action taken by the ward in such case is a nullity because jurisdiction has not been vested. And so with that, I would just ask that the planning board respectfully uh adjourn this matter until proper notice is provided. Thank you, councel. Uh, Mr. McCann, just before you respond, uh, there were things that you referenced as having been supplied. Uh, I have not received anything. Uh, I don't know what was submitted to the board, but it did not get to me. if it was sent electronically uh this afternoon at some point in time. Quite frankly, we start at 5:30. I was traveling on my way here. I have not looked at my emails since uh probably about before I got in the car. So, I'm going to say about 2:00 this afternoon. So, if it was transmitted after 2 o'clock this afternoon, I have not seen it. I don't know the other things that you're referencing. Uh we were here on May 27th and you guys are welcome to stand but I you can sit down. I don't know if you prefer to stand but uh feel free. Yeah. So, we were here in May and my recollection is that I marked two separate notices. Now, my recollection was one had to do with the master plan amendment of the CavenPoint redevelopment plan and the other one had to do with the site plan. And at the time that I marked those notices, I read the notices and I found them to be in order of what was happening. Uh I do not have them with me. The reason I don't have them with me is because the original notices go to staff and they are filed uh in the staff office. So I am sure they are in the staff office but of course by the time we start the administrative assistant within the staff office is gone. and I don't know where she puts them in her system, but I can definitely look into those. But it doesn't sound like you've seen the notice for the site plan and have any ability to speak to the content of the notice. It sounds like you're saying that Port Liberty Homeowners Association did not receive certified mail notice and that it was entitled to certified mail notice. Is that fair? I'm als in addition to that I'm also saying that the notice that was provided the actual notice that is part of the agenda that is the part of the public record that's posted online in and of itself is defective for the site plan application for yes for P2024-0229 so that's not the site plan application that is the master plan amendment and P20 2024-0182. It's referenced, but I thought you said you haven't seen that notice. You couldn't find that notice, right? But the the notice that was provided in and of itself is defective. So I believe, and again, Mr. Lean can probably clear this up, but for purposes of the record, I believe there were two notices. one for the master plan of the Caven point redevelopment plan amendment, one for the site plan application. I thought you had said that you had only seen the notice for the master plan amendment within the Cavenpoint redevelopment plan. In searching through 229 not 182, right? In searching through the online portal, the only the only notice that we've been able to locate which wasn't provided to us um doesn't have any record um online of having been sent to those within 200 ft and start with starts with providing notice by identifying the matter as 0229. So now the Port Liberte Homeowners Association is entitled to personal notice. How do we know this? Port Liberte is within two Port Liberte Homeowners Association is within 200 feet of the subject property and is on the map and on the list from the tax assessor as being within 200 ft of the subject property. I'm not sure if it's uh on the tax assessor's map, but again, this is association property, so it would not necessarily be on the tax assessor's map because if we're not being taxed on that property, well, but the Okay. And we've specifically requested notice. I don't know what that about a year ago. I don't know what that means. Specifically requested notice. I don't from a legal standpoint. I don't know what that means. Mr. McCann, please. So, two notices were procured and submitted in this case. One notice for case 229, which is a notice for the master plan amendment for the Caven point master plan. That notice does in fact reference a separate site plan application. Um it doesn't give the number but it does say that there's a separate site plan application. Now, a second notice was prepared and filed for case 182, which is the site plan application, and it makes a full disclosure of all the relief that is being requested pursuant to the site plan. It's a entirely separate notice. I do not know why I do know why the homeowners association did not receive this notice because they are not on the tax records as an owner of the property. Um we served everybody the tax assessor as is the way this plan works the the MLU works the tax tax assessor gave us a certified list of property owners within 200 feet of the property. We took that list and we notified every entity that's within 200 feet and we served an affidavit of service um on this board on May 27th as part of exhibit A1 specifically for the site plan application which is 182 and we filed a separate notice for the amendment to the master plan which is 229. council. I can show you because I have it with me an exact copy of A1 for case 182 and I can show you the tax assessors certified list that does not include the Port Liberte Homeowners Association. It does include the Port Liberte condominium number three association in two separate places for two separate lots that are apparently within 200 ft of the property that we're seeking relief on. So how come if you know why isn't the Port I'm going to ask either one of you because I can answer that question. Why is Port Liberte Homeowners Association not on the list if they're within 200 ft? Because well, I don't know that they're within 200 feet, but what I do know is that if you're not a property owner who's listed in the tax records, right, as an owner of a particular lot, you are not entitled to notice under the municipal land use law. It's black letter law. But who is Port Liberty Homeowners Association? I imagine it's an umbrella association, but they do not own any real estate because if they did, they'd be on this list and they're not on this list. It's a homeowners association, the purpose of which is to maintain the property, the property that we're talking about. Talking very generally though, right? Council just said that there are multiple associations on that list as having a property owner's interest. Mhm. Port Liberty Homeowners Association does not own any property. That's inaccurate. Port Liberte is respon I I don't know why they're not listed in the tax records. Do they own any property in that area? Yes, Port Liberte is responsible for the property within 200 ft of the subject property. So, and and in addition to that, with that said, we have a host of people here from Port Liberte 3 who did not get notice. Port Liberte 3. Absolutely. Are they a member of Port Liberty Homeowners Association? Port Liberty 3 members are also members of the homeowners association. All right. So, let's just all back up because it's late. Port Liberty Homeowners Association. One of the members is the Port Liberty 3. The in the owners within Port Liberty 3 are also members of Port Liberte Homeowners Association. Okay. Who are the other members of Port Liberte Homeowners Association? the owners within Port Liberte 2 condominium and the owners within Port Liberte one condominium. So it is an umbrella association. It's a homeowners association. But yes, in essence, but that answers the question why they didn't get the notice, but the other condominiums got the notice. But that's we can disagree as to what the law is. Well, what what I am saying to you is there are members of Port Liberte 3 that are here this evening, right, that share in this objection. I can't speak for them because I don't represent them, but they did not get notice as well and they are complaining about a defect in the notice. Mr. McCann is saying that he mailed the notice to that condo association. That's what he's saying. Either way, that's with respect to the issue of who's entitled to notice. With respect to how we move forward, I understand your objection. Do you do you have the ability or do you not have the ability to provide any substantive objection to the notice for 182? I suspect the answer is no because you have never seen that notice. I've seen whatever is on the online portal. Well, but you told me that the only notice you saw was with respect to case 229. And presumably that's the notice he's talking about for case number uh sir. Someone's car is parked by the dumpster. The garbage truck can't get to it. Is there anybody in here? That might be the dumpster across the street. Dumpster that's right out front here. There's a car parked in front of it and the truck is trying to get to it. We announc tow it. Tow it. Better check. You don't know if it's yours. Nobody else seems to think it's theirs. I'm sorry, council. I get cranky late at night. Really? He's cranky. So you're not actually So your position is I only saw 229. I haven't seen 182. If you tell me there's one on 182, I haven't seen it. So I have no ability to say that that one's okay. 222 you say is defective because it doesn't talk about the site plan. I get it, council. I'm fully up to speed. Uh, it's jurisdictional council. So, I know I marked two separate notices. I know Mr. McCann is very, dare I say, overconfident in his abilities. Uh, what are we doing? We're coming back next month. So, you want to roll the dice on the notice and keep moving forward. Do you want to renotice and deal with the objectives the objections to the substance in a month? Council, I don't know if you're entitled to notice. I know Mr. McCann is going to provide that notice to you so that you know that it's happening on Mr. Black August 12th. That is correct. Council, what's the pleasure? I don't like to litigate over jurisdictional issues that are We're going to be back on August 12th. I've spoke more than both of you and we've wasted a half hour of the acting chair's time. I'm teasing. It's not a waste of time. These are all legitimate legal issues. So I this is yours. So the the applicant's position is we serve two separate notices in accordance with the requirements of the MLUL. Okay. Um, but if you don't decide that the notices are valid now, then you're going to have to make that decision a month from now, I guess, because they're going to raise the same objection, are they not? Yeah, it's a standing objection. But if you're telling me that you don't want to renotice and you want to stand on your notice, I'm telling you, okay, you're the applicant. You got everything to lose. Not Not me. I'm gonna look at it between now and Do you want to look at it now? Because you looked at it two weeks ago, I mean a month ago on May 27th and you determined it to be valid. She has not seen it. Doesn't really matter, does it? When she continues to raise the objection as to whether it's valid or not. Well, anybody can object to everything that they want, but at some point you're going to have to decide that if this affidavit of service provided proper notice to the proper person under proper entities under the MLUL. I was hoping you would decide that tonight. I already decided that, right? I reviewed it and I've decided that it was proper. Okay. Now she's raising her objection. Okay. So then so fine. If you want to stand on that and stand on my position last month from May 27th. From May 27th. Okay. So, the objection is on the record. It's objections on the record. We will move on on August 12th, whatever that date was. August 12th. Fair enough. But in the interim, I would ask either staff or council uh to look at how I mean, there's an HOA. They manage the property, but is there not a master deed who determines the ownership? You go by the tax assessor list. So, I get that council may not agree with that position. Well, I'm having a trouble as a citizen who lives here, who lives in a condo part of the law. But let me Well, but let me just say this is the law is right. It's there. But the question I guess I have is if there's this property and all right so there's an HOA they they don't I don't know that they have any skin or ownership of that but some entity in there does and it may not be reflected on the record for whatever reason and then they're if I could answer count uh commissioner Councilman they're just not entitled to notice. I deal with this all the time with homeowners associations. I noticed the entity that's entitled to notice under the law if they have an umbrella HOA that condo association that received my notice is obligated to tender it to the HOA and put them on notice. Right? Because the law doesn't require me to notice anybody other than the entities on the tax records. Right? So I guess my question is not necessarily do you've made that clear. Condo association three should have given the notice to the homeowners association. It's that simple. And the MLU does not require me to serve any single condo owner. I think you know that already, right? Yeah. The law only requires me to serve the condo association listed on the tax record. And we see this all the time where the condo owners, right, say, "Oh, we didn't get noticed. The association got it. They have some management company that doesn't send it to all whatever the case may be." So an HOA is treated exactly the same as a regular condo owner. But here's the reality to notice. Somehow someway, I will give the notice. This room got filled with people that want to be heard. So somehow they have noticed that this is happening. But we're objecting. Understood. Jurisdictional. Understood. And that's preserved. And nobody's going to take that away. But it's not as if this is happening and nobody knows it's happening. We've got a room full of people that want to be heard, have the right to be heard, are interested, but they're here and they're all going to come back on August 12th and they're going to sit through hours of riveting testimony. On that note, thank you for your time. I appreciate it. August 12th. August 12th. August 12th. Thank you. Thank you, council. Enter the room quietly. Yeah. Well, I will entertain a motion. Uh, no. Chair, we have resolutions. I know. That's what I was going to say. If everybody could exit quietly and walk down the hall before you begin speaking. The board has additional work of the people. Resolution for the city of New Jersey City. The applicant is Usher Levy 42-46 Van Nostrron Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey, block 25901, lot 44. That case is P2 2023-0093 decided on May 27, 2025. memorized on July 15, 2025 for major for minor subdivision. Applicant just 538 Palisade LLC. Address is 538 Palisade Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey. Block 2401, lots 1416. Decided on February 25th. Memorized on July 15th. Application for preliminary and final major site plan approval at case number is P204-0124. Applicant is Newport Associates Development Company for a one-year extension of Prelimary Major Site Plan approval 770 Washington Boulevard formally formally 150 River Drive, Jersey City, New Jersey. Block 7302 lots 3.11 3.12 3.16 and 3.0. 05 to be known as lot 3.05, 3.16, 3.17, 3.18, and 3.19. That case number speed 20225-014. Applicant Port Liberty Apartment LLC for administrative amendment 190 Chapel Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey, block 27503, lots 16.01, also known as lots 13, 14, 16, and 17. Case number speed 2025-000016. Applicant Moshi Tubber. Address is 89 Neptune Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey, block 30101, lot 3. Decided on June 24, 2025. The applicant, it was for minor site plan approval, case number P204-0207. Resolution of a planning board for the city of Jersey City approving minor site plan case number speed 2025-000034 submitted by T-Mobile Northeast LLC 319 Grand Avenue. Applicant is 135 Garfield Avenue LLC 135 Garfield Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey, block 30003, lots 28 decided on Tuesday, May 27. applicant for preliminary and ma final major site plan with C variance that case number speed 2024-000035 applicant is Jared Pard address is 207-209 Holiday Street Jersey City New Jersey block 2010 lot 67 and 68 decided on June 24 2025 it's application for minor site plan approval with C variance case numbers B 2024-0227 applicant 221 Nanda LLC address is 221-223 Nanda Avenue Jersey City New Jersey block 14701 lot 5 decided on June 24th 2025 application for minor site plan approval that case number 2024-0165 applicant 359-361 Johnson LLC C address is 359 Johnston Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey, blocks 17403, lots 1 and two decided on June 24 2025 for preliminary and final major site plan. Approval would see variance case numbers P204-0173. Applicant Westside Avenue Holding LLC address is 772788 Westside Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey. Block 16301. Lots 13960 61 63 64 and 65 decided on June 24th, 2025. Application for prelimarian final site plan and minor subdivision approval at C variance case number B23024 applicant is G&D Journal Square Holding LLC for preliminary and final major site plan approval 158-165 on Wigan Avenue and 121 Tanella Avenue Jersey City, New Jersey block 9301 lots 4 and 17 that case Number speed 2024-0208. Applicant is 628 Summit Avenue LLC for amended final major site plan approval. 628 Summit Avenue formally 622 628 Summit Avenue block 6207 lots 21.01 formally lots 21223 and 24 Jersey City, New Jersey. Case number 2025-0085. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you. I said it before. We'll have a roll call. Acting vice chair Gangaden. Hi. Commissioner Wick. Commissioner Stamato. Yes. Commissioner Lipsky. Yes. Commissioner Dr. Sai. Hi. Commissioner Patel. Hi. And acting chairman Dr. Gonzalez. Hi. Motion carries. All in favor to memorialize resolutions. Thank you. Do we need executive session? No. Okay. Motion to adjurnn. Thank you. Second. Second. Second. Okay. Thank you guys. And thank too you rocked it right