Good evening everybody. Could we please come to order and join me in a salute to the flag. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Sunshine announcement police camp. Yes, chairman. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. Today is Tuesday, April 14th in the year 2026. This is a Jersey City Planning Board meeting with a scheduled 5:30 p.m. start time and in accordance with the open public's meeting act. Notice of this meeting has been posted with the city clerk on the city bulletin and city website on April 9th of this year. This meeting was also posted on the Jersey City Division of City Planning web page and all distribution materials made available to the board were published and made available to the public. Okay, thank you. Could we have a roll call please? >> Yes. Vice Chair Dr. Gonzalez >> here. >> Commissioner Gungadan >> here. >> Commissioner Wick >> here. >> Commissioner Stamato >> here. >> Commissioner Kaplan >> here as well. >> Commissioner Patel >> here. >> And Chairman Langston >> here. >> All right. We have seven commissioners present. We have a full board. >> All right. Thank you. Could we swear in the staff, please? Mike, >> I see Matt Matt. You guys testimony tonight. treat the whole truth but the truth. >> Yes. >> All right. Thank you. Do we have any correspondence Cam? >> Yes, chairman. Um firstly, I'm going to do things in reverse and note that we marked the sunshine announcement as B1. >> Okay. >> And now to the fun stuff. Um the carries. So, starting on page 8 under new business, item 12. This is a uh minor site plan case P2025-0172. Address is 219 Freeman Avenue. They have requested a carry with preservation of notice to May 26th. Um next we have item 13 under new business on page 8. That is case P2025-0225. That is a minor subdivision with C variances. address is 55 to 59 Kar Avenue and they have carried with preservation of notice to April 28th. Then moving to page 10, new business continued. Item 20, case P 2020 uh P 2025-0099. Address is 53 Beacon Avenue. They uh have requested a carry with preservation of notice to May 26th. Um item 21, case P2026-00001. This is for review and discussion of amendments to the Jackson Hill redevelopment plan. And um they have requested to carry with preservation of notice to April 28th. All right, two more. Uh page 11, item 22, case P2025-01 138 address is 292 Van Horn. Uh this is a preliminary and final major site plan with C variances and they are carrying to June 9th and they will renotice for June 9th. All right. And 23 case P 2025-0169. This is a preliminary major site plan. uh address is 506 Summit Avenue and they are also carrying to June 9th and they will be renoticing. So Cam, just for the record, the carries to the June 9th meeting, those aren't technically carries. Those are adjournments with renotice. >> Correct, council. Thank you. >> That concludes correspondence. >> Okay. Thanks, Cam. >> Um, okay. So, just for everybody's information, if you're here for any of those items that we just called tonight, they won't be heard tonight. You will not get new notice with the exception of the last two. Uh, this is your notice. So, the date we called, that's the date we're going to hear them. Uh, with that said, let's get into Where are we? Okay, let's get into old business. Item 8 is case P206-000021 is a one-year extension for 17 to 25 Pine Avenue. Good evening, council. >> Good evening, commissioners. Uh Tom, for the record, Tom Lean from Connell Foley. Um this application has a bit of a history with the board here. It was originally approved um when it was just 17 to 23 pine. Uh that was when it was still zone 4 in the journal square plan. We came back after we acquired 25 pine and at that point the redevelopment plan had been amended to make that zone 4A. So, we downscaled one portion of the building and moved forward. Um, my clients uh the the approval here won't expire until July, but they do uh have their permits filed currently with the building department. And as with any building as they're going through construction joins, there's a little bit of a discrepancy between what they put in and what was approved here in front of the board. They have not commenced construction, but we are probably going to have to come back here and either ask for an amendment or do an administrative amendment. So, we're just out of a an abundance of caution asking for a one-year extension. Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Anybody? >> No. >> All right. Is anybody here from the public that wants to comment? Anyone from public? >> Seeing no public, I move to close. >> Second. >> All right. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. So, council July of 2027 new expiration. >> Yes. Okay, Matt, any questions? Any problems? >> Uh, no issues. Staff recommends approval. >> Okay, thank you. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve case P206-0021 is presented to our board tonight. >> Second. >> A motion made and seconded for approval. >> Vice Chair, Dr. Gonzalez, >> I. >> Commissioner Stamato, >> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan, >> I. >> Commissioner Patel, >> I. >> Commissioner Gangadan, >> I. >> Commissioner Wick, >> I. and chairman Langston. >> I motion carries. All in favor? >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, council. Let's move on to item nine is case P205-0129. Uh this is a preliminary and final major site plan with variances for 2859 to 2873 Kennedy Boulevard. Uh we did uh this was carried from February 10th as well as March 24th. Uh testimony was briefly taken on the 24th. So, uh, council, the floor is yours. >> Uh, good evening, uh, chairman, commissioners. Donald Pepe from Scarency Hollandbeck on behalf of the applicant. Uh, this is a notice, uh, application, and we did renotice since the last meeting, and I've provided copies of that notice and affidavit to council. I'd ask that it be marked as a applicant. >> Thank you, Mr. Pepe. Yes. Uh, chairman, the matter was carried. However, Mr. Pepe did provide a notice for tonight's meeting. I had the opportunity to review it. It does appear to be in order, so we will mark it as A1 for purpose of the record. >> Thank you, council. >> So, thank you for your time. I'm really excited to be here tonight um here on behalf of Kenny Kennedy Boulevard Acquisitions. We are proposing a 55tory 840 unit building in Journal Square. Uh a little bit of the background as to what we've done before we got here. We have secured a county approval. We've had multiple meetings with various council members. We've met with the community group, Journal Square Community Association. We have a checklist approved by the division of affordable housing. This project will be providing 84 affordable units in compliance with the city's ordinance. We've met with the neighborhood stakeholders. We most recently had a meeting with Lowe's to discuss any loading coordination. we've enter into a loading agreement with the JC who is actually the owner of the Lowe's property and that agreement very succinctly provides that in all circumstances under all conditions Lowe's has a priority with respect to loading so if they need the space and this is you know there's going to have to be coordinated going forward at the meeting with Lowe's we weren't able to really determine when they need the loading area because they don't actually know the the shows might come up at different times terms of day, could be morning, could be night. One of the comments from planning staff was to limit the loading for the grocery tenant that we're proposing. Um, I don't think that that can be done practically based on our conversations with Lowe's because we need to give them priority and and that might conflict with nighttime hours. Um, we are providing additional land to widen the artwalk. We are, as I noted, providing a national retail grosser at the ground level. Uh we are providing a $3 million financial contribution to the open space trust fund that's conditioned on final and unappealable site plan approval. We are improving the existing conditions which are 100% impervious. And um those those are the major benefits that we're proposing with respect to the project. I have four witnesses here tonight and one in reserve. I have traffic in reserve. I wasn't going to put them on principal, but if there are any questions, they will be available. Uh I think we should just get right into the application. >> Okay. Thank you, council. >> The whole truth. >> I do. My name >> Brian Wazner. B R Y A N W A I S N O R. I'm a professional engineer with Lang and Engineering. >> Sure. And uh your license is current tonight sir? >> It is. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. >> Great. Think we're going to get a presentation. I >> He's up here. >> We need to mark this as it >> Yeah. These are all slides that were already produced with the filing. >> They are. There are some elevations that are colorized, but otherwise, yes. >> How many slides are in the deck? >> This thing doesn't work. >> Come on. >> All right. So, let's mark it as A2 for purpose of the record. It's dated today, April 14th, 2026. Planning board presentation and it is 38 slides. >> Thank you, Council. >> Brian, thank you. Uh, why don't you just get right into your presentation? >> Sure. So, so I was the civil engineer for the project. I'll give you a little overview of the site. Um, this slide that you see up here now, uh, has got two images on it. Uh they're really from the cover sheet of the civil plan set. On the left hand side you see the property location map which has an aerial uh there's a circle black line and gray area in the middle of that map which is the site. Uh and then on the right hand side you've got the key map which shows the site in context for some uh zoning in the redevelopment plan. The project sites located at 2861 JFK Boulevard in the Journal Square area of Jersey City. It's block 10601. Existing lots 43 to 48. It's six total lots. It's an irregular shape that totals 0.79 acres, a little under 35,000 square ft. To the south and east is JFK Boulevard, which is a county road. It's about 310 ft of frontage as you round the corner uh through the intersection. To the north is Magnolia, which is 57 feet of frontage, as well as the art walk, which separates this property from the Lowe's and creates a public uh pedestrian pathway um through the neighborhood. Uh to the west are some commercial businesses and the Elks Club residential building. The site's currently occupied by predominantly two-story buildings with commercial businesses and a billboard that faces Journal Square. It's 100% covered by the buildings today. Um I'll just point out on the key map um that blue area is the Journal Square 2060 redevelopment area uh redevelopment plan area. And then zone three is the yellow area within that redevelopment plan. That is the commercial center. And that gray within the yellow within the blue is our site. So that's where we are in the world. Next slide. So, this is a uh site that has many of the site features that's on the site plan set that's been submitted last revised April 2nd uh to the city. North is oriented to the top of the page. And the project includes demolition of all the existing on-site buildings and construction of an irregularshaped uh mixeduse building with retail and residential. That's outlined there in gray. It includes a ground floor grosser that's part of the 48,687 ft of retail space total for the project plus 840 residential units in a 55story tower which is the blue outline within the gray outline of that building footprint. The project maintains the sidewalk and pedestrian thoroughfare along JFK. There's no new driveways proposed along there's no existing and no proposed driveways along JFK. Loading will be in the rear off of Magnolia. I'll get into that in a minute. Uh but there will be no auto parking for the project. It's not required for the redevelopment plan and given its proximity to the path and buses, it's not encouraged at this location. Um the project will provide additional space which you can see to the uh north and east uh of the site for the art walk uh which is adjacent to the Lowe's parcel. Um, we're cognizant that there are uh county improvements proposed along JFK. They'll be uh widening the sidewalk, doing some bumpouts for ADA ramp and improvements and so forth. And we've coordinated our plans with their plans to make sure that we match up. Um, as part of our project, we will include three uh tree planters along uh JFK. The county is not doing any tree planting as far as I know. Um there so there will be three tree planters out at the street. There'll also be some plantings against the building. Our landscape architect will describe that in a little more detail, but to the extent we're short on the street tree requirement we will be paying into the tree fund uh to make up for any shortfall. Um the project architect and planner uh will go through the building design in a lot more detail um as well as the uh the zoning compliance, but I'd just like to spend a couple minutes and walk you through the loading and service area. Um so on this slide, the loading and service areas highlighted or outlined shaded in red and yellow in the rear of the site against Magnolia. Um all of the operations for trash and loading will occur inside the building in an enclosed space. Um that building is set back about 17 or 18 ft from the rightaway line which is another 14 1/2 ft from the road. So it's set back over 30 feet from the road uh from the curb line there. And because the site's location at this major intersection and its irregular shape, this is really the only place for vehicular access to the site. Um, so what we're proposing is a uh or what's required by the redone plan is a frontin front out loading which is essentially a pullth through loading situation. Um because again of this unique site and its features and its frontage at a major intersection, we really cannot create a pull through and pop out onto Kennedy. So we're proposing a back in pull out front scenario like a K turn similar to what the Lowe's is doing for their operation but in reverse. Um there are three loading bays that are outlined there in yellow. One is a 10x40 and two are 12 by60. And again, they're entirely within the building. The truck fits within the building. Um there are planters on the side of where the trucks pull into the building so that there's a little bit of separation from where pedestrians might walk along the edge of the building. And again, that's about a 30 foot wide area of sidewalk uh between the curb and the building itself. Uh to be conservative, we measured the dock apron as the distance from the front of where the truck will be situated inside the building to the rideway line. Again, we did not include that side the full sidewalk. We did not include the road. And then when we measure that, we get apron lengths of 31.6 ft for the smaller dock uh and 18.3 ft for the larger dock. Whereas 46 and 63 feet are required respectively by the redevelopment plan. So this is short of those dimensions. We also measured the deck approach for the loading to be 71.6 and 78.3 ft, which is really the apron plus the length of the truck. Uh whereas 86 and 123 feet are required. So again, this is short of what the redevelopment plan requires. However, in our package of drawings, we showed how a WB50, which is the largest tractor trailer envisioned to operate at this supermarket, will pull in, back in, and pull out of the loading dock. So, the maneuver works using the common loading area between the Lowe's and this building and Magnolia. Um most of the trucks we expect will be smaller box truck types and can use any of the docks. Um but again a WB50 tractor trailer which is smaller than the tractor trailers that Lowe's will get uh does maneuver comfortably in this area and all the loading will have to be coordinated between these two entities as they're going to share that common space at the end of Magnolia and the Arts Walk. All the utilities except for electric will be off of Kennedy Boulevard. That's water sewer uh gas. Um and we're coordinating with JCMUA to use as many of the existing utilities as possible to minimize the amount of chewing up of JFK that will be required. There will be um vaults in the rear area behind the loading uh area of the loading dock on Magnolia. That's where PSEG is will bring in the power for the project. Lastly, there'll be a detention tank inside the building uh for storm water collection to reduce the flows per the NJD requirements uh for reductions. In addition, there's going to be a portion of the roof that's a green roof. uh the landscape architect will walk through that. But the combination of the green roof and the dank will improve the quality of the runoff that leaves the site as well as reduce the peak rate of the runoff that's collected by the site today before it's discharged. Um that's really it for my main points. I'm happy to take any questions or >> Okay. Thank you. I have no questions at this time. Anybody else? >> No. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Brian. >> Uh, next we'll present the architectural plans. Gary Handel. >> Testimony tonight is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing of the truth. >> I do. >> For the record, spell your name. >> Gary Handel. Ha N Dell. >> Mr. Handel. Good evening. Is your license current and in good standing? It is. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. >> Uh, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, it gives me great pride to present this project to you. We're quite proud of it. We brought some visual aids, you know, models and renderings and and materials. Um, and as mentioned, you know, the site is located at 2861 JFK Boulevard, bounded on the south and east by JFK Boulevard, to the west by an existing residential building known as the Elks Club, to the north by Magnolia Avenue, the proposed ArtWalk, and the existing Lowe's Theater. The building is organized as a tower on a base. The JF on along JFK Boulevard, the base provides setbacks to maintain a 20- foot sidewalk. Along the arts walk, we provide a minimum required 5- foot setback that provides a minimum required 30 foot wide art walk from building to building that tapers to a 33 foot setback along the eastern edge for a total dedication of space of 2430 square feet. The artwalk widening is to help facilitate loading, parking, maneuvering of of vehicles to service events at the Lowe's theater as well as providing for the future access um of the artwalk. Above the tower provides all required setbacks on all sides, 19'7 in on the west side, 15 feet along the south, approximately 43 feet along the east, and 30 feet along the artwalk. The tower measures from corner to corner, diagonal corner less than the maximum um allowed 180 ft um in in both directions as you can see on that on that slide. The underlying zoning allows for a 25-story, 265- foot tall building, and the site has permitted bonus floors in height, including two floors for for commercial bonus, 20 floors for affordable housing and seven stories for the Lowe's ArtWalk widening for a maximum of 54 stories and 590 ft. U we're proposing tonight a 55story 588 foot 1-in tall building with a 45 foot 1 inch rooftop of pertinence extension. The project will contain approximately 578,000 square feet of residential apartments, 48,000 square feet of commercial, and 207,000 square ft of amenity, core, and back of house areas for a total gross square footage of 834,837 square ft. The project requests 10 um uh variances and deviations. I'll walk through the architectural variances and deviations shown on my slide in detail. The remaining variances and deviations will be addressed in detail by other members of the project team. Five variances and deviations are slow are shown on this slide so the building can function as designed within its permitted envelope. on the ground floor the the floor to ceiling height. We're proposing reducing the required 20 foot minimum just in the area above the package and mail room to 11 ft to allow for a second floor commercial space to be located within that ground floor volume. Um for commercial use bonus we're excuse me we are proposing increasing the commercial use bonus height from 28T to 33 feet. The maximum podium height and overall building height will not be exceeded and this is needed to maintain the desired retail commercial heights on the third floor and to accommodate the pool and planting depths on the amenity deck above. The rooftop structure setbacks um 37 feet 7 in is required but due to the tower shape and screening of the mechanical equipment the tower volume extends in some areas without setback. uh stories um 54 stories are permitted. We are requesting one additional story because the rooftop amenity area is slightly bigger than 10% of the roof area by approximately two and a two and a half%. So we're considering that as an additional story. Uh rooftop equipment screening uh the building maintenance unit at the very top of the building u will need to be above that screen wall to reach out and access the perimeter of the of the project. Uh this view is from Bergen Avenue looking northwest. The tower is broken up into two volumes with the closer volume extending up and over the second volume. And then you want I just turn the model as you can see as you can see in the model. Um and it's defined by vertical banding broken up by a horizontal band every six stories. The slightly shorter volume is designed with a two-story grid. Uh we wanted um facade treatments that are complimentary but also different to define the two volumes and provide texture and scale to the tower massing. The tower sits on a fourstory podium. The fourth the fourth floor is the amenity area and has a distinctive element we're calling the urban window um that extends onto JFK and back to Magnolia Avenue. The third floor retail has a highly articulated facade treatment that takes the shapes and proportions of the two facade treatments from the tower and creates a pattern that provides a modern take on the articulated uh treatments found in some of the older buildings in Journal Square. Uh the ground floor is set back and is predominantly glass storefronts on Kennedy Boulevard and along the artwalk. The building elevations reinforce the tower's vertical emphasis and its stepped massing and show how facade articulation, setbacks, and material variation break down the building scale while maintaining a cohesive architectural language across all of the frontages. The slide also indicates um a requested deviation at the ground for storefront transparency. 80% is required and calculated by area. 65.9% is provided. Portions of the storefront that are um non-transparent are intended to conceal back of house spaces, mass column locations along the perimeter, and to meet um some building code and fire separation areas. This rendered view is from the intersection of Bergen Avenue and Kennedy Boulevard looking northwest and focusing on the podium. The ground floor which is set back to widen the sidewalk is being designed for that national grocery chain and will have floor to ceiling glass. Along the left side it of the ground floor is the residential lobby entrance with its projected canopy. Uh you can see the articulated thirdf flooror retail which extends back over the ground floor level setback in a combination of framed windows and tapered metal cladding and it has a separate and distinct character from the ground floor retail. On the left side above the third floor retail is the fourth floor amenity with its large urban window. Above that is the residential tower and a more detailed view of the two cladding treatments including the the vertical banding interlocked with the two-story grid. This view is a view from the southwest on JFK um and uh looking northeast focusing on the residential lobby. The residential lobby has a framed border um element to create a more distinctive entrance uh from the retail entrances um with a canopy that extends out over the building. The entrance to the right of the residential lobby is the retail entrance for the thirdf flooror retailer with elevator and stair access um up to that space. This view also highlights the third floor tapered cladding panels between the windows and the fourth floor amenity urban window. The seller plan um shows the that seller space which will house incoming utility service rooms, bike storage for 420 bikes which is 50% of the total units. Trash compaction and storage, residential storage units and back of house rooms. Um trash will be collected by a private hauler and taken from this floor up to the ground floor loading dock via the service elevator on collection days. Uh this shows the ground floor and starting in the upper left we're showing the commercial entry in orange for that second floor commercial space which has access to an elevator and stair. Next to that is the described three bay loading dock access from Magnolia which will be used for residential and retail trash pickup deliveries and moveins and moves outs. The loading dock will have internal temporary trash storage during collection pickup times. The loading dock incorporates decorative materials coordinated with the primary base facade on all surfaces extending 25 ft into the structure to create an attractive view from the sidewalk. When loading dock doors are open, retail tenants will store their trash within their space, bring it to the loading dock, and it'll be collected by private haulers. To the right of the loading dock is the ground floor retailer with approximately 15,000 square feet of floor area. We're currently showing five possible entry locations off of Kennedy Boulevard um and working with the retailer um to make a final selection with with them for their preferred location. Along Kennedy to the left of the ground floor retailer is a 1300 square foot lobby for the third floor retail space. This space will have elevator and escalator and/or stair connections to the third floor. And finally, in the lower left corner in yellow is the residential lobby. Um, this will include the lobby lounge, dedicated concierge, mail room, and package room. On the second floor plan, you can see that area that's dropped above the uh mail room and package room um which approximately 2,800 square feet of space. As noted before, this floor requires a plan deviation for the ground floor height because it's located over that mail and package room and within the volume of the ground floor space. Overall, the height of the ground floor varies between 20 and 23 feet depending on the measure of the surrounding grades and some slab steps. Um and the this floor will split that height um in half because we don't need a 20 or 23 foot tall mail room. Uh this space is only accessed by retail elevators and will have a stair connection um to the Magnolia Avenue side commercial lobby. On the third floor is a retail space with approximately 24,000 square feet of space and it will be accessed by the retail elevator and escalator and stairs um from that Kennedy Boulevard retail lobby. The fourth floor is the top of the top podium floor and will house residential amenity spaces. This amenity will be approximately 17,000 square feet of indoor space. Um program um still being worked on and 12,600 square feet of outdoor space that'll include lounge areas, barbecues, pool and landscape. Brian Mclofflin from NBCLA will describe this area in his presentation. on the fifth floor plan um will be the first floor with the tower footprint and we'll have some additional amenity spaces with outdoor access and residential units. There's approximately 4,800 square ft of indoor amenity and 4,000 square ft of outdoor amenity space on this floor. The typical residential floors are on floors 6 through 54. As shown here will be a combination of studios, onebedrooms, two bedrooms, and three-bedroom units. As mentioned before in the presentation, there will be 840 total residential units, 10% or 84 of which will be affordable with a breakdown as f as follows. There will be 198 studios, which includes eight affordable units. There will be 417 one-bedroom units, including eight affordable units. There will be 191 two-bedroom units, including 51 affordable units, and there will be 34 three-bedroom units, which includes 17 affordable units. Our team has coordinated with the Division of affordable housing to confirm the number of units, the mix, affordability distribution, and affordable sizes will comply with U-Hack requirements. We've also submitted the affordable housing checklist form with the division of affordable housing and we're looking forward to the provision of those affordable units. On the fifth on the 55th floor, the main roof, as you can see here, becomes the delineation and integration of the two volumes of the tower. The west side that clips over the north and south side of the bent bar becomes an outdoor amenity space with lounge and grilling areas. And I'll have a screen wall to protect tenants from the wind. Um you can see that slightly bent um bar broken up into two areas. On the on the on the right side uh you can see the mechanical equipment and on the left side you can see the elevators and that small social space um that opens up onto the onto the lounge areas. The indoor amenities exceed the required maximum 10% of roof area by approximately 2 and a.5%. As noted earlier, we're requesting a deviation uh to the permitted 54 stories in order to count this as a story and have that slightly increased amenity area on this 55th floor. The interior amenity is approximately 1,200 square ft and the outdoor amenity is approximately 6,100 square ft. There are two additional deviations we're requiring at this level. Um zoning requires a maximum of 20% of the roof area to be mechanical and other roof pertinance and we're currently at 26%. And the other uh variance is the screen wall setback distance. A 30 foot 10-in screen wall um would need to be set back 33 feet 7 in. But due to the limitation of roof area and the shape of the tower, we cannot set completely back. Instead, we are extending the volume of the tower to become that screen wall in some of those areas. Um, as you can see in the model materials. Um, so we have a pallet that we will um pass around. Um, we've selected red and brown tones for the m for the metal and stone elements of the building to establish a warm palette that complements the surrounding neighborhood. These tones are carried through in copper and dark bronze accents referencing the traditional metal work found um in this in the in the area and reinforcing uh the concepts of durability and material continuity. The tower glazing is designed to read as uniform and controlled while the base incorporates more transparent glass to allow visibility into the ground floor activity and to strengthen the building's relationship to the street. You can see the podium levels again presented here showing the materials used. The glazing at the tower, copper colored metal both in the tower and podium. More transparent glass at the podium and street level storefront. Bronzecoled trims at the windows and a bronze copper color granite water course at the base of all of the storefronts. And here's the other view that we presented earlier uh with the materials overlaid. finishes are similar to the previous slide except here we show where we're adding a decorative metal screen that'll conceal some of the mechanical louvers. Uh and this concludes uh the architectural portion of the presentation. I'd be happy to take any questions from >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Handel. Um one question I have the amenity spaces on 45 as well as 55. >> Yes. >> I don't see any design. Is it just a white box that you're delivering at this point? >> No. No. We will be working we're work we're currently working on those designs but they're not they're not final. So I can outline what some of those would be you know like the you know you'll see the exterior ones as part of the landscape presentation. So Brian will talk about those. Sure. We're in we're planning on um a reasonably large gym. There will be a bunch of social lounges you know um on you know on you know on the fourth floor there will be um a game room you know um that will be part that'll be part of that. And so this is all part of the program that we're working with. And on the very top, it's really a small lounge that gives outdoor out access to that outdoor outdoor space. >> Okay. So it won't be subdivided into say a commercial kitchen or something like that for a catering >> no hall. Okay. >> No. No. So there will be no other on those amenity spaces. Those will be fully for the residents of the building if that's if that's the question. Yes. Um, the other question I have is, and it it's, you know, it's obviously tough to tell from the the materials that were walked around, but in your renderings, there's a lot of glare coming off of that metal. >> Yeah. So, I think the the finish on the metal, it will be will be a a matte a matte finish. So, I don't think there'll be a lot of glare that comes off of the of the of the metal, you know, so that we and we're trying to um keep, you know, and this is something that we tried to do on most of our projects is try to keep the reflectivity on the glass down as much as we can. the the the new glasses, you know, um um have, you know, much better performance and so that you can get more transparency in the in the glass and less less reflectivity, which we think is nice for residential building and nice for neighborhoods. >> Yes. So, my concern with the, >> you know, the second and third floor is basically just the metal with the the different angles. So, you know, we're on a main thorough affair, essentially what's going to be the heart of the city when this area is built up and done. Um, I just don't want to see a situation where a glare hits the road at the same exact time every day and >> you know, blinds drivers on the way by. So, >> I think there's So, I I I believe that. So, we'll we'll address that concern. you know, I don't believe that there will be a lot of glare um off of that metal, but we we will check that and you know, basically see if there are are ways that we can treat that metal work in color um to um to to restrict to restrict glare. >> Okay. So, we would um >> we would add that as a condition of approval to work with planning staff on you know any materials, keep them low, >> you know, a matte finish, low uh shine onto the roadway. Uh, believe it or not, those are my only questions right now. Anybody else? >> Yes, chair. I do have a question in regards to the 84 affordable units. Would these units be distributed throughout the building? >> Yes. So, we're working with the Division of affordable housing. We've proposed a distribution. We're waiting to hear back from them. So, they in general like they they want the units distributed on all sides. We have units on all sides of the building um you know uh distributed throughout uh throughout you know throughout the floors while trying to wind up with something that's reasonably efficient from a construction standpoint. So um we uh we had we've had several meetings with them. You know we we took their guidance and we believe they will find our distribution acceptable but if not we will satisfy them. >> Okay. Um is there bicycle parking? Do you know where that's located? There are there are 420 spaces in the cellar um for you know for the residents and then there are additional and Brian you know can talk about this there I think there are additional 16 somewhere between 16 and 20 spaces for the retail Brian will talk about the location of some of the external spaces and then there's some internal spaces as required by the redevelopment plan. Thank you. >> Uh just to follow up on uh commissioner's question and council, you know, I'm going to ask for this at some point. Uh I want the affordable units to be built with the same materials, same appliances as the market rate units, same fit and finish, no difference between them. Okay, >> agreed. >> All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Andy. >> Chairman, could you just speak a little bit towards the storefront glazing and the requirement on that, please? >> Sure. So um you can see um that we are you know and and and go back to the overall view of you know so that no no no no just the yeah that view. So the there's a very high degree of of of transparent glazing. Um there are some areas that um where we have you know mechanical inputs coming in. We have the requirement to have gas meters you know located on the facade. you know, basically those are being screened behind louvers which we're working with, you know, you you to do that. Those can't be those can't be, you know, transparent obviously. Um there are some other areas on the artwalk where there's basically um a fire separation issue between our property and the property line. So, um instead of having the glazing be full height, it comes up to a transom height there. Um and then there are areas that are screened just by the metal work of you know of that. And so when we calculate it exactly um by area we wind up at the 68.9% I think it is in terms of the total area I think we comply in terms of the um if you just measured the frontage right you know but the uh we're we're a little bit short on the area for those reasons. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Anybody else any questions? >> No. Okay. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you very much. >> Quickly, just because it was an issue that came up with the community organization, how was the size >> council, can we get you on a microphone? >> I'm sorry. >> Just so the internet can hear you tomorrow. >> Sure. >> How is the size of the grosser determined? >> Oh, sure. So, the the grosser requested, you know, so basically we we went back and forth with the grosser a number of times, basically showing them um different configurations of their space. They wanted a 15,000 square foot um grocery store on the first floor, you know, so that was the size that they requested, you know, and so they didn't they did not want, you know, any more space. They did not want any less space. This is the size they wanted. So this is the size that and we are working with them now to basically on on the design of their space to make sure that they understand everything that um that is required you know in Jersey City and Journal in Journal Squared you know and you know and trying to make a great store for you know for them. >> Okay. Thank you sir. >> Can I ask just one follow up on that? >> Sure. Go ahead. >> Um you know as we I understand you're designing this space for a a intended uh tenant. Um could you just speak to that size? Is that typical kind of for this type of environment in the event that another this tenant leaves and you're looking to attract a replacement tenant? >> Sure. So um we're we're doing work for them and their main competitor you know in multiple locations around the country. Um this is generally you know the the size for you know these sort of urban format stores which basically go into dense urban areas well served by transportation like like this site you know like Journal Square in in general. um you know range from 12 to 15,000 square feet. So this is a good size you know for them. It's a you know basically we worked hard to attract this tenant. It has good column spacing um for you know for something that sits at the base of a residential building. So I believe that this would be attractive to someone should this tenant leave, you know, so that it it is it is a great space, you know, like and um and so I do believe that it would be attractive to to their direct competitors um you know and you know as well as as well as other retailers. >> Thank you. And will the the fit out of that supermarket happen during construction of the towers as well or is that separate? >> So there um we're still working on so we have a a detailed schedule that we are trying to work into them. So there are you know so the uh we would like to get them open as early as possible. you know, we're working we'll be working with um with them with the Department of Buildings, with our eventual contractor, you know, to basically, you know, streamline streamline project delivery in a way that is um both gets them in as early as possible, but is safe for everybody. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Chairman. >> Just just one minor request. I don't know if we could rotate the boards at some point so the public would have the opportunity to see them as well or the councelor says >> we absolutely can. We're also going to mark uh the boards since they're up on easels and council my favorite part of the evening. We're going to mark the model and Cam gets to add that to his collection. >> Keep it here. Huh? All right. So, we can mark the renderings on the easels A3, A4, A5. It does not matter to me which ones. Put the date and then we'll mark uh the model is A6 for purposes of the record. And the grosser we were just discussing that's considered a full size grosser. It's not >> it is some kind of >> it is a full-size urban format >> market. Full full service too. So there's not going to be any shortage of departments that aren't leaving anything out. >> Okay. >> Anything else? Anybody? >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. And thank you for your time. We always appreciate >> Thank you. >> the cons what you guys do. So, um, I'd like to move into the, uh, landscaped architecture. >> Council, can we get you on a mic again? >> I'm sorry. >> I I only know because I've watched so much testimony in the show. >> I'm usually accused of being too loud. >> No, I would never do that. >> Yeah. So, uh, Mr. Lachlin, >> you get tonight, the whole truth. >> I do. Your name? >> It's Brian with an I. McGlaughlin MC L O U G H L I N. >> Good evening, sir. Your license is current and in good standing tonight? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. >> All right. So, I have uh five slides to go through here. We're going to take a quick walk around uh JFK and the artwalk to see the ground level and then we'll head up to the uh different amenity levels to look at the exterior amenity decks. Um so, starting starting at the lobby entrance. Um, and again, as as Brian previously noted, the county improvements are going to be carried throughout the um the streetscape here. So, concrete sidewalks. Um, there's going to be a granite border u paper border along the curb line. Um, the only spot where we're interrupting those improvements would be at the lobby entrance where you see that darker color. Um, we're proposing granite pavers there to delineate the entrance to the residential lobby. Um, and then there's a series of three planters on either side of that that kind of put a little emphasis on the uh the lobby entrance. So, moving uh to the curb line here, uh along the south side, we have four bike racks that are distributed fairly equally along this frontage. Um three as you come to the east side. Um we have trash cans located um far left near the the crosswalk. um one at the um central crosswalk right at the corner and then one towards the um edge of the property closest to the Lowe's theater. Um along the uh Kennedy Boulevard, the southern portion, we have three uh shade trees um due to the fact that we have existing underground utilities. They are proposed in raised planters. They are um 5 feet by 10 feet and they're 3 feet tall. Um there's American yellowwood trees proposed in those planters and they'll be underplanted um with ground cover. Um moving along to the retail entrances, we also have planters in those locations. Um there's six of those planters at two at each door. Um then we can continue our walk around the streetscape here and to the artwalk. Um, so moving through the artwalk, we are matching the proposed paving that was approved with the Lowe's project. Um, similarly, lighting. Um, let me backtrack to Kennedy real quick. We're not proposing any new street lights. We're maintaining what's existing there today. And, uh, back to the the artwalk here. We have, um, the only lights we're proposing are building mounted. They're at each of the door locations for egress purposes. Um and then additionally at the loading dock, the balance of the artwalk is illuminated um with building mounted lights that are part of the approved um Lowe's project. And again, we have two planters on either side of the loading dock to again direct pedestrian traffic away from that area and create more visibility and safety. Uh we can go up to fourth floor. Starting at the uh the north side, we have a lawn panel. Um a couple shade structures with seating underneath. Um we have outdoor seating, concrete pavers, um barbecue grill stations, um lighting. Then uh moving to the east side, we have uh the pool area, there's five cabanas, lounge chairs, um lap swimming lanes, a small sun shelf, and a raised uh heated spa. Um along the south side we have another grill station, fire pit and additional lounge seating. We have planting throughout this this level. Um few trees and raised planters and it's all intensive planting um appropriate for our environment and the conditions of a rooftop in an urban environment. Go to the next slide. So the fifth floor starting again on north the north side we have a dog run. Um the dog run is separated by some planting. Then we have a uh a game lounge on the exterior and uh large planting that creates a buffer and then a uh along the south side that L-shaped um paving outdoor games and a small lawn panel with uh some lounge seating. Uh last up on the uh the fifth the 55th floor here again starting on the north side we have um fire pit we have uh two outdoor grills with a sink. Um and then we have along the west side three grill stations with uh grills and sinks. Um outdoor dining tables and planting kind of separating each of those areas. Along the south side we have additional lounge seating, fire pits and uh some tree planting. and then move to our final slide. Just a an overall look at all the levels, kind of a composite as the the crow would fly. Um, looking at all the improvements in total on the rooftops, we have 4,000 um 48 square ft of intensive green roof and um, you know, we're really excited about the project. We think there's a really nice amenity package here for the the residents and we think we're making some nice improvements to the streetscape as well. Happy to take any questions. Okay. Thank you, sir. Um, how many street trees are you short? >> Uh, 11. >> 11. You're short. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> We can't fit any more on the eastern facing side. >> So, we we explored it. Um, there's a couple of crosswalks that are of concern and introducing raised planters would kind of uh hinder visibility for vehicles and pedestrians. So, that corner makes it pretty difficult. Um there's also um a few manholes in the sidewalk, so we didn't want to cover those up. Um we did explore this. It was a a county comment as well, and there there really was not much more space that we could squeeze in any other any other trees, even in raised planters. >> Okay. Do you have uh curb bumpouts there that I see? >> Yeah, there are curb bumpouts, but those are just reflecting the county improvements that are proposed. >> Okay. So, that's not handled by you. That'll be the county. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um, okay. Those are my only questions for landscape. Anybody else? >> Chairman. >> Sure. Go ahead. >> Um, what's the is the fuel and the type of the grills and the fire pits? >> Uh, natural gas. >> Gotcha. So, they would be self-contained fire >> with timers and emergency shut offs. >> Great. And thank you. Um, and if you could just speak briefly towards kind of the railing or the barrier at the edge of the spacees where people are. >> Sure. Yes. Yes. So, on the fourth floor, we have a continuous um uh 42-inch parapit, which is the code requirement. Um on on all levels, we have that as the minimum. Um on the upper floor, we exceed that. Um I believe there's a 7 foot screen um at the 55th floor. >> So, it's a little bit of a windbreak and also, you know, protection. >> Is there um any gap between the barrier, bottom of the barrier and the floor, or are they flush with >> No, there's not. Great. No gap. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. Anybody else? >> No. >> All right. Thank you, sir. We appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, our last witness today will be uh Charles Height to talk to you about the various deviations that we're requesting. >> All right. Thank you, council. Um, council, before we do planning, is anybody going to physically walk us through the actual turning plan for the the trucks and the loading space? >> I I do have a traffic consultant here. If you'd like to hear on that, we can bring him up. Uh perhaps now we're civil civil. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I can do that. >> Brian Wner from Langan again. >> Good evening. Yeah, if you could just please, you know, walk us through exactly how the the truck traffic is going to work here. >> Sure. Uh so on the screen and this is part of the submitt set that we made. Um uh the truck movements are shown in red. This is all the same image uh for trucks either pulling in or pulling out differentiz trucks. Um so looking at the largest one will be the upper right hand side. That's the WB50 pulling into the dock that's closest to Lowe's. So when he comes in from Magnolia, page left to page right, he will turn to the northse up and then he will pull back down and into the dock. And when he leaves on the image to the bottom just below that, he can make a straight left out. In fact, all of them can make the straight left out. That's the easier movement. It's the getting in that requires them to nose up and pull back down. And again, depending on the size of the truck, that dictates how far they have to nose up. >> So, just to be clear, once they've landed, they're going to be entirely within within the enclosed dock. >> That's correct. Entirely within the enclosed dock in the building. Okay, thank you Sarah. Any questions? Anyone? >> Just a few. Um, how you mentioned that this loading activity would need to be coordinated with that of the Lowe's theater? Correct. >> Um, does a vehicle in the Lowe's theater prohibit this movement or or what is it just time of day? What type of coordination is required and how will that be done? >> Well, we've already executed an agreement that will be recorded against the property and it gives Loe's priority in all circumstances. But in reality, the the time that these trucks are making that movement is is relatively limited. So once we make our turn, we'll be in and and Lowe's is going to be doing the same thing within their loading dock. So it's more of like an intersection issue. But to the extent that Lowe's needs to park a truck and block our entrance, they have the right to do so. >> Got you. >> And we have to work around it. >> So how would that practically be coordinated and planned for? I mean, obviously, if you have vehicles coming for a delivery and Lowe's decided to park a truck, then they're going to be kind of out of luck. So, >> right, based on our conversation with Lowe's operations team, we're going to know in advance when they're going to have shows. They're going to inform us in advance as to when their uh their trucks are going to arrive, load, and unload, and we're going to schedule around them. Are all of your deliveries going to be through the the tenant or will they have multiple vendors that they're coordinating delivery times with? >> Um, I don't know the answer to that question, but typically I've worked with a lot of grocery stores as well, they have rack jobs that will come in and and they'll load their specific items. >> So, it would be well within their ability to coordinate the schedule and arrival of delivery vehicles. >> Oh, the overwhelming majority of those vehicles are going to be small box trucks if you if you've seen them. Yeah. Gotcha. Um, and then the other question I I guess I have here, um, you've mentioned the size of the WB50 being the maximum. Is that a condition of the approval to ensure that no larger trucks will service the site? >> That that's from, uh, working with the grosser in this location because they can control what comes to them. >> So, I I guess my question is in the unlikely event that there's a new grosser that comes in 20 years from now and they want to use larger vehicles, is there anything stopping that? Again, it would be subject to coordination with Lowe's. We would not be able to interfere with them. But no, right now there is nothing. >> But those larger vehicles are generally, you know, uh cross-country type vehicles with sleeper cabs on them. That's what makes them larger. And that's just not inherent in a grocery operation. They're very regional. Gotcha. I would not want to drive larger vehicle in the city, but I I mean I would I don't know if through the planning staff if that would be potentially a condition and if it would be amenable if so. So, Commissioner, the board could impose that condition uh if the board felt necessary to impose a condition of nothing bigger than a WB50 council. What's the next size? >> Uh be a WB62 would be the next size. And then you could go up to the WB67, which is going to be like the interstate ones. And that's what Lowe's has designed for those interstate ones. So, I perceive there's room for those. If that large truck can make it into Lowe's, they're going to be able to make it into here as well as long as it's free and coordinated. Um although that's not what we're envisioning for this operation. >> And your site couldn't handle that in terms of in the loading dock. >> Um I guess the the WB67 with the sleeper cab would stick out of the loading dock, >> right? And have you conducted a turning template for the larger sizes or only for what you're proposing? >> Well, we looked at what the operations required. So, we looked at the WB50. >> Chair, I just have a quick question. So, we talk a lot about coordination. Who will be the person or who be responsible for that coordination? uh on the grosser side that hasn't been identified yet. But again, we had a meeting with Lowe's operations team and they have a manager who's uh who's going to be running the facility and we've already exchanged cell phone numbers with the owner of this project who's who's uh you know made himself available at their need. But that will be pro that will be between store manager I'm imagining store manager and the operations manager of Lowe's. >> Um would it be appropriate for the maintenance of the the who's in charge of maintenance of the building maybe? So I think it would be appropriate for both the operator of the retail uh store as well as whoever is operating and in charge of operations for the building itself on behalf of ownership to ensure coordination. Last week as it would have uh we heard the Lowe's parking and loading zone that was on the special meeting of the 31st. That was the uh loading zone that happened to be before the board last week in terms of two weeks ago. >> They all blend at this point for me. Uh but so that's the loading zone obviously that that we're referring to on behalf of the Lowe's. So uh they had gone through how they were going to handle deliveries. So coordination wise, it's going to be with the operator because we don't know who's going to be operating the Lowe's long term, I would imagine, right? That can change and theoretically the same thing could happen here in terms of, you know, who's operating the retail space. So I think a condition is appropriate and I think uh it being coordinated between the operator owner and management and the Lowe's operator is appropriate. >> Yeah, I think so too. >> Agreed. Agreed. >> I agree with that. >> And uh >> good point. >> While we're talking conditions, Andy, do you want to >> I I have a few more questions, but I'm happy to propose that condition as well. >> Sure. So I I'm you're my traffic guy. I'm gonna claim ignorance on the WB50. I've never heard that term in my entire life. So, >> the number is the length of the trailer. >> That I got, >> but you know, that means nothing to me outside of >> big truck could be bigger. >> Big truck. >> Okay. >> Big truck could be big. >> Um, so yeah. >> Is that an appropriate size for this use? >> I I think it's definitely appropriate. And if the the the the proposed um tenant is saying that's what they will use, I have no reason to question that. >> Um however, it appears the analysis presented to us is for that sized vehicle. >> Sure. >> And I would certainly suggest or personally vote in favor of a condition to not have larger vehicles than that presented to us surface the property. >> Yeah, I tend to agree with that as well. Yeah. Yeah, I >> I have a quick question. Uh, do you have any idea how long it takes? I This is obviously going to be driver dependent. How long does it take for somebody to K a W B50? Is it an average time? I >> I I don't exactly, but just by observation, it's probably a minute, a minute and a half, maybe, you know. >> Okay. >> These are professional truck drivers, right? So, they they're in tight spots a lot. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So just a couple quick questions and I think this was another question we posed to the Lowe's but the maneuverability area for the the truck and and the vehicle is over the physical space of the artwalk. So could you just speak a little bit towards the envision coordination for safety since that is a pedestrian area um of which truck maneuvering is going to be allowed and just how the safety of those two interacting uses would be handled. >> Right. So I I think all the normal precautions a flagger you'd have you know cones if you know when the trucks are coming you can schedule and meet them out there. I think Lowe's operations is envisioning doing that and we would envision the same here for for both the building and the and the grosser tenant. The smaller trucks will probably not need nearly as much effort to to coordinate that. >> Of course >> I have a question. >> Sure. >> So you have the loading scenario going on. You also have a scenario with your waste needs that would be both for recycling and garbage. You mentioned something about a truck. What type of truck do you envision that would be servicing those operations? >> That that would be more along the size of a smaller box truck. It's a private hauler, so they'll have control. >> Something like a rolloff truck where they drop slide the box off. >> Uh it's probably not that scenario because the trash is going to be stored in the basement. So, it'll be physically carried up and thrown in the back of more like a regular garbage truck, >> like a regular packer. >> Correct. >> Interesting. All right. >> So, just to confirm from that standpoint, there's not a dumpster that's lifting a dumpster into a truck. Correct. >> That's correct. There's not. >> And that function will be done by building maintenance to bring the the compacted trash into the vehicle. >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. >> Or or the private hauler, whatever the agreement is between the two of them. Yes. >> Makes sense. Um, just a few other questions regarding the the loading. Um, I'm just reading the staff memo that was prepared. Um, and I'll just read kind of what they listed as requirement. Um, and then the relief uh that you're seeking for loading circulation. Um, it mentions head-in head out required. Um, and you guys are providing back in head out loading. Um, and it mentions maneuvering into a loading space or waiting to be parked into a loading space shall not interfere with any traffic flow on a street, sidewalk, parking space, aisle, fire lane, driveway, railroad track, or turning area, nor shall they occupy any part of the required lawn or buffer areas. Um, and you guys are obviously maneuvering of loading vehicles on neighboring property with with said easement. Is that um could you just provide a little bit of testimony and speak? You know, I think we've covered the need for the the the neighboring property, but if you could just speak a little bit for the head-in, head out versus back in head out. Um >> uh sure. Again, the sort of head-in head out, it would be a kind of drive-thru situation. You enter in the rear and you pull out in the front. And again, um because of the site's location along JFK, right at the intersection, there's nowhere to found a driveway on JFK. There's no uh good place. Uh it's very congested. There's on street parking. There's multiple lanes. You wouldn't be able to turn freely left or right out of there even if you could. And the county is not going to permit that. So we're really stuck with one small frontage. The amount of time again it would take for the larger truck which would take the most amount of time I would envision would be you know measured in small amounts of minutes. And we're at the end of a deadend street. This is not a thorough fair where other cars will be stopped for this. Um so from my perspective it's of minimal impact to the surrounding neighborhood to be able to use that street and the walk to um maneuver into place. >> Great. I I guess the only other questions is based on these turning maneuvering of the vehicles are there any impacts or anticipated impacts to the curb space modifications going be required for parking for or for sight distance or anything along those lines? I >> I think there's going to be that for the Lowe's project is my understanding. again, they have larger trucks coming in than we do. Um, but we'll have to coordinate that with the city and with Lowe's to make sure that everybody's got the room that they need to maneuver in there. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. Uh, back to planning. >> Just uh, while Charles is setting up for the record, we have we have a staff planning staff report dated March 24th, 2026. a report from the JCMUA dated February 20th, 2026. A forestry review letter dated fee February 17, 2026. Those were the review letters that we received and we will comply with the conditions set forth therein. >> Great. Thank you, council. >> Good evening. >> Yes, I do. >> Yes. Charles Height. Last name is spelled H E Y D T. >> Mr. Height. Good evening. It's the first time I've seen you in April. Is your license current and in good standing. >> It is. Uh it is in good standing. Thank you very much. I hope all the board members are in good health and in good spirits. >> All right. Thank you. You're qualified. >> Right. Um I'll jump right in. It's always a pleasure to be here. Uh I have worked with the project team from a zoning compliance, zoning review standpoint. Um there's a lot of aspects to the redevelopment plan, the zoning, the land development ordinance uh in the city that we're applying here and just the overall function of this building which is at the footsteps uh and the heart of the journal square neighborhood. So just for a reminder for the board, we're in the Journal Square redevelopment plan in zone 3 uh the commercial center zone. Um we are uh taking advantage of a few elements of the redevelopment plan. We're incorporating the uh office commercial use bonus on the second and third stories. Uh we are also incorporating the mandatory affordable housing bonus which allows for the incorporation of the 84 affordable units. Um and uh equally we're in incorporating the arch walk and loading bonus u which deals with creating sufficient space for the art walk along the northern uh side of the property. Um with respect to the compliance and um moving into the specific uh relief being requested with the application, uh we do have a few of them from the redevelopment plan itself. Uh I'm going to not be redundant with much of the project team's testimony, so I'll just make references to a lot of the details that were previously covered. Uh but in terms of the height in stories uh 54 stories are permitted when you fold in all the bonuses. Uh what we are proposing is 55 stories and that is occurring by counting that uppermost floor which is the amenity level as a story. We are in excess of 2.5% which is permitted uh at that 10% level. Um we're still meeting the intent of providing an enclosed amenity space. So, we're not doing something drastically larger than what's being regulated at that uppermost level. Uh, and we think it's a it's a still a good use of space on that upper story. With respect to the commercial use bonus height, uh, again, we are dealing with an overall footage uh that we're proposing. So, 28T is permitted. Uh, with this bonus, we are proposing 33 feet. Um, a portion of that is uh uh with respect to a ground floor to ceiling height of 21 feet um on the third floor and of that uh commercial bonus and 12 ft on the second floor. So when you add those two together uh we're at 33 ft. uh we felt as part of the base the ground floor and what's really visible as the third floor uh produce that prominent base that the tower on a base regulations call for. Uh and we are just uh detailing that with a full 21 ft along the frontage that you can see in the image uh in front of you. Um again both the overall building height and the commercial use bonus still fall within the permitted 590 ft u which we heard uh at as proposed is 588 ft 1 in. With respect to uh ground floor to ceiling height uh this occurs in one location um which is proposed to be at 11 ft. This is a kind of back of house area of the overall building for accommodating the mail room and package room. Um what's required to be is 20 ft on the ground floor. Uh so we're less than that. That's a minimum ground floor. For all intents and purposes, the ger on the ground floor is clearly meeting the intent of a very prominent storefront. Uh this area is in the rear or interior of the ground floor. So, um, we're not really, uh, distracting from the intent of of that commercial storefront and and the presence along the the perimeter. Um, the lobby and commercial areas meet that uh, requirement and range between 20 and 23 feet. Uh, I think there was a question from the board about the transparency and the project uh, architect walked through that. I do agree from a visual standpoint. What's being shown even in this image at the uh southeast corner of the overall property is a very prominent storefront, very visible storefront. Um so we're meeting that intent albeit when you calculate the requirements along all the facades incorporate some of the uh modern design techniques to mask some structural elements deal with some um adjacency to other property boundaries you come up with uh a calculation of a storefront transparency that's less than the 80 80% uh I believe at approximately 65 or 66% um but for all intents of purposes along the frontages the storefront meets the transparency requirements. Moving up to the uh upper story again with respect to the rooftop mechanical screen. Uh there's a couple deviations that uh were referenced earlier in the presentation, but just to remind the board, um the uh the screening uh has a certain limit at which it can be uh um uh located uh both in a setback and an overall height. Um with respect to the proposed screening, we are consistent in terms of extending the exterior facade upwards. So the materials of that screening will still meet the intent of an aesthetically pleasing rooftop element. Um with respect to setbacks for the pertinance, the mechanical screen is at the edge of the building as as that exterior facade runs up that creates the screening element. Um any rooftop or pertinance is uh is required to be set back 1 foot 1 in. We have a zero foot setback in that condition. Um this was provided in a in a layout at the upper uh levels to provide for that. Um we are designing the overall height of the mechanical screen at approximately 30 ft. uh all of the the mechanical screen will screen all but the uppermost equipment which is the building maintenance unit, the BMU unit which has to be able to extend over the screen to provide access to any windows window cleaning and maintenance that would occur. So that's the only equipment that's not screened at that uppermost level. We mentioned the overall calculation of coverage for rooftop uh pertinances uh which the land development ordinance uh regulates at 20% and what's being proposed is 26%. Again, we're working to try and accommodate a sufficient enclosed amenity space as well as sufficient uh exterior and interior mechanical areas on that upper roof. Um so we've felt we've reached an appropriate balance. we're in 6% uh excess of that requirement. So, we do request relief. Um again, from an aesthetic standpoint, the majority of this is either enclosed or appropriately screen screened. Um so, again, we're meeting that uh visual intent as well. Um, one more uh procedural or um legal aspect uh that we are requesting relief from. This is uh an an not a frequent request because the provision is actually not written as such. In most other instances, uh, a redevelopment plan for this type of project that requires coordination with the city, the JC, other property owners, um, does come by the way of a redevelopment agreement. And typically that's approved and memorialized after site plan is approved by this very board. Uh, we have a requirement in the Lowe's art walk and loading bonus for that to be part of site plan completion. There were a lot of details that we weren't a weren't available as the time of the application. Um, we did move ahead with our application. We did prepare the plans that were presenting tonight and ultimately I can tell the board that we do have a draft redevelopment agreement that has been presented and coordinated with the JC. Um, so we are prepared to move ahead and have that memorialized, but in terms of the timing, we're requesting a reliation as it relates to site plan completeness and it will be requested as uh final site plan approval. So, post any decision this board would make, we're prepared to have that document finalized and memorialized. Um, lastly, I just want to touch quickly on loading. And I know the board had a lot of questions. Um, and we had some additional input from our civil engineer. Um, we are prepared to have a a a back in head out loading. Uh, that is a deviation being requested from the redevelopment plan. Um, from my standpoint, I think it creates a lot of efficiency with the function of the ground floor. Uh but also we have taken measures to coordinate access and secure safety for uh any pedestrians or other motorists in the area um with the loading access agreement as well as all the safety measures that were referenced earlier flagmen cones uh any other additional elements there. So I do think we are addressing that appropriately. And then lastly, um, loading birth dimensions. This comes from the LDO. For each loading space size, there's required a certain width and depth. I won't go through all the details. It's in the statement of principal points, but we are preparing to provide an adequate loading bay for each of those appropriately designed uh vehicles. Um the largest vehicle will have the largest bay available uh and the other two bays will have um the appropriately size for approximately a 40 foot uh loading space area. Um we heard uh earlier from our project uh landscape architect about the streetscape design, the tree street tree design. We do have three street trees being proposed. Uh we are deficient. There's 14 required. We are making the payment. Uh the one deviation uh that we are requesting is that these are implanters that are elevated and not within the ground. So I think that was clear as to the design. Um there's a lot of utilities underground also at grade that we're trying to balance uh on the site. So those are the specific requirements. I'm going to shift gears into some of the other aspects of my testimony with respect to special reasons that the board might find to support the requested requested relief. Uh I'm drawing from the municipal land use law. So I do think this uh application uh with the input from this board is meeting purpose a to guide uh the appropriate use and development of the property that will promote the general welfare consistent with the land use law. Um there's a lot that goes into the design, the function uh of this type of building in this area and the board's input, the board's staff's input along the way has been uh helpful in in guiding that type of develop this type of development. Uh purpose E uh to establish approp appropriate population densities. We're in the heart of a transit-rich neighborhood. Journal Square. I heard uh a reference to it as the new downtown. That might strike some uh some some contention in the city, but um we are uh in the midst of uh a lot of development activity in Journal Square. So, this won't be the only uh high dense uh highdensity development, but um what we're providing is uh a really good addition to what is a very active, very urban neighborhood. Um and we believe uh it's a sustainable design given how it's people oriented. It's not vehicular oriented. Lastly, uh with respect to special reasons, I do believe that this provides uh an appropriate and desirable visual environment through creative development techniques. That's purpose I of the land use law. Uh it's always a privilege to work on projects like this that are so visible uh at a visible location in the city. I know there were questions about the materials, but overall the composition, the architectural features that were incorporated into this building uh do in my opinion present a very nice visual environment. We're transitioning this corner of Journal Square from one and twostory retail strip mall essentially into a multi-use highdensity long-term vision of Journal Square. And I think this is a nice completion of of one of the corners in the square itself uh that meets that intent. Uh lastly, with respect to the negative criteria, I think we addressed a lot of aspects that impact or might have a detriment to general welfare. The goal isn't to remove any potential detriment, but it's to address them and try and mitigate them. Uh this came up with respect to parking. Uh, I might also add that for all of the other zoning requirements that might impact adjacent properties, light and air setbacks, overall height, we're within the requirements. So, we aren't requesting relief that would create a substantial impact uh to those aspects. Um, and I think uh the the main uh one of the main benefits is to realize affordable housing in Journal Square. The redevelopment plan was amended with that bonus in mind and we're embracing it and incorporating into this project. Uh so I do think that addresses some positive aspects of the general welfare. Um and with that I don't believe there's a substantial detriment to the general welfare. Lastly with respect to the and I promise this is the lastly lastly. I know I probably said that a couple times. >> Um overuse of the word lastly apologies. um the impairment of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. Um there are a lot of aspects about this pro project that I do actually think positive positively promote the the redevelopment plan and and zone 3 itself. Um so zone 3 just to reference for the board is the purpose to provide for an attractive and intensive use of parcels surrounding the Journal Square Transportation Center with close proximity and short walking walking distances to heavy rail and bus transit systems. This zone complements the establishment of a commercial center of Jersey City. We're meeting that fullheartedly and uh I believe we are also meeting objectives. I won't recite them, but we are meeting a number of direct objectives for the redevelopment of this corner of Journal Square. With that, I'll conclude my direct testimony. Um, always a pleasure to present before this board and uh I believe this application meets uh the justifications to grant the relief being requested. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Height. Any questions? Anyone? Charles, just for the record, because I had I had provided in my opening that this project will be providing a minimum $3 million contribution to the open space trust fund. As you know, what I say is not testimony. Is that your understanding as well? >> Yes, that's part of the um contribution along with the art walks improvements that are that are in the redevelopment plan. >> And then to your knowledge, has this developer been designated as a redeveloper by the JC? >> Yes, they have. >> Thank you. Excellent. Okay. All right. Thank you, council. That's your presentation. >> That is my presentation. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. At this time, let's open it up for public comment. If anyone's here from the public that wants to comment on this application, please come on up. >> I swear you get the truth, the whole truth. Nothing but the truth. >> Absolutely. Give me your home address, please. >> Okay. Dr. Kella, Hudson County, Building Traits, 20 Fairfield Place, West Coal, New Jersey. >> Pat, good evening. Uh, before we start, I do need to say for the record, I do know Mr. Kellaher, um, our paths cross in business all the time. We belong to the same international union, but separate unions locally. So, um, I do want to say for the record that we haven't discussed this project. The only thing we did discuss was, is this on the schedule tonight? Yes or no? That's where it ends. So Pat, if you could confirm that that's the case. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. Thank you. And with that said, >> I don't know if you can do it, but I got three minutes for you. Keep it under three minutes, Pat. >> It'd be short and sweet. Chris, as always, the board members, fantastic job. Uh, it's all about building trades, opportunities to go to work in in Hudson County. project like this. The building trades are always supportive getting on the jobs and stuff. I know there's no tax abatement or pilot. I just met the owner tonight. A conversation about having an opportunity. The trades are here to build the building. I think it's a great design. Nice setup there. I think you do a great job and opportunity there back and forth. I know most most of you or I met you over the years and stuff like that. So continue your hard work and due diligence about build putting up these buildings and thank you for the time. >> All right. Thank you, brother. All right. Anybody else from public? Come on up sir. >> Any testimony you get tonight is going to be truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> I do. Please. >> My name is Evan Federer. That's evan f a der. And I live at 278 Magnolia Avenue. >> Mr. Federer. Good evening. We have three minutes for you. Good evening, commissioners. I I come here on behalf of Magnolia Terrace Condominium Association where I'm the president of 33 units. We live across the street from the proposed development and I I'd like to object primarily to the variance on street trees. I I think we've come a long way. I I brought a a very small exhibit for you. Uh what what I notice here in the slides is that there are no renderings of the artwalk shown. And I think the obvious reason is because it is now an industrial desert. It is a loading zone for multiple sites. And if you look at the60 redevelopment plan as it was originally proposed, you actually will see there is an urban grove proposed where there is now going to be a loading dock. So that is not to say that it is impossible to fit trees into the site. It is simply to say that this is not a design that seeks to. We see there are trees lining the artwalk in many locations. There's another rendering which shows an incredible number of trees. And in fact, what you'll find of the three developers and redevelopers who are attending to the artwalk, the Lowe's has removed trees uh without providing notice to residents in the area. Uh KRE at 808 removed a dozen trees that it told this board it was going to preserve and protect. And now this is the final nail in the coffin where the art walk will have no green space whatsoever. And you'll also find that there are uh art installations, planted medians, benches, tables, and chairs, trees lining uh all of Magnolia Avenue. These trees were all removed by the Lowe's. And rather than having benches and tables, there there's simply no space for them because anyone who tries to sit there will be dodging trucks. And that is the experience of someone living at the end of Magnolia Avenue. And what I look forward to when this if this development were to be approved. >> Um, you want to take it? >> You sound like you want to you want to jump in? >> Do you want me to talk? >> Sure. Go ahead. Uh sir, you just held up two different drawings. I'm going to ask that you show them to that gentleman over there. And we are going to mark them. You're going to have to give them to the board. Obviously, we're going to mark them. >> Happy to part with them. Um tell me again. Yeah. >> 01 and 02. >> One and 02. All right. 01 is uh map three from the Journal Square redevelopment plan. Um and O2 is map six from the journal square redevelopment plan >> square60 redevelopment plan. >> Um and these do look to be uh the maps in fact from the redevelopment plan as I remember them. Um and I I would say that the uh uh Evan here I'm sorry Mr. Mr. >> um is correct in his assessment there is a lot of landscaping shown on these plans. Um, the proposed grove at this site in front of the loading area was proposed by an adjacent property owner or um or pos potential redeveloper at the time and perhaps was a little bit uh aggressive with proposing landscaping on property that they didn't own. Um but and in fact these are the visions that are for the redevelopment plan. So I don't know how to >> those are still within the60 redevelopment plan today. >> I don't know how to address the fact that these are not necessarily being carried out to their fullest. But >> but it is the vision and it remains the vision for Journal Square and I do not see any path for that vision to be realized if this plan were approved. I I'd also like to add that the developer claims that this is a people oriented, not vehicularoriented development. And yet what I see is a space for loading docks and trucks rather than for people. I simply don't see how the artwalk is going to be a desirable place for anyone to spend time if they're going to be dodging trucks constantly. I mean, I I'm concerned about the lows as well. Of course, uh they say it is not a thoroughare. It is not a thoroughare for cars. It is a pedestrian thoroughfare. The pedestrian traffic through this area before its closure was constant. And for those reasons, three out of 14 trees is a um a very tough pill to swallow. And for those reasons, I I ask the council not to approve the plan as proposed. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. We appreciate it. Thank you. My only other comment regarding the trees is that along Kennedy Boulevard, the city has no jurisdiction. It is a county run. >> Sure. Okay. Anybody else from public? Anyone else from public? >> Chair say no public. I move to close. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. U Matt, do you have anything else you want to add? I'm sure. >> Uh yes. Uh staff prepared a a memo dated um March 24th, 2026. Um in it uh we talk about uh the project it utilizing the commercial use bonus as well as the Lowe's artwalk and loading bonus. Uh towards the end of the presentation they put on some of the questions that I was going to ask regarding the contribution to the open space trust fund uh which um in addition to some of the conditions the commissioners put on the record. I'd like to add that one as well was absent from uh from the memo. Oh wait, no it's there. Okay, it's number nine. How about that? Okay. Um, so there are three conditions from uh from the board during the uh during the presentation that would should be incorporated. I just asked if the applicant could um uh echo the fact that they'll meet these conditions that are recommended in the staff memo as well as those that were put on the record. >> Agreed. >> Okay. Um, regarding u bonuses and bonus heights, uh, the majority of the height here is actually an outcome of the mandatory affordable housing requirements, which is not necessarily a bonus. In fact, it's not a bonus at all. It's called an accommodation. That's the majority of the height that's afforded to this project. Um, the remainder is the uh commercial use bonus as well as the Lowe's ArtWalk bonus, which gets up to about seven stories bonus height. Um in addition to that they are requesting the uh varants for a number of stories which staff is in support of um given the scale of this project and and for the reasons they put on the record. Um staff is satisfied with the testimony that they've provided through their professionals as well as their planning their professional planner. Um think that some of the conditions put on the record by the commissioners are are good ones. Staff recommends approval. Okay. Thank you, Matt. Uh before we entertain a motion, council, do you want to address uh the comments from Mr. Federer as far as landscaping? Can anything be done on site? >> Well, I I I believe I can. So, we were actually asked to match the condition that Lowe's had created in their approval with respect to the artwalk. Perhaps Mr. board knows in greater detail, but it is my understanding from discussions with the JC that this is not a final condition. That once the art walk is finally defined that I understood it would be a third party developer, neither Lowe's nor nor this applicant that will be going back and retouching the entire artwalk. That is my understanding. It is part of the 808 um the part of the 808 development or the property that's known as 808 Pavonia. >> Sure. >> That they are required to do the art block all the way to Kennedy Boulevard uh extending from their property. Um a final design for that hasn't been approved yet. Um it is a two-phase project and they are underway with their phase one. >> Okay. So that design for the final design will come in the second phase for 808. >> It should absolutely should and I would hope that we can make the vision that is some semblance of what was shown in the redevelopment plan >> come to existence. >> Okay. >> And chairman I think that's laid out in the redevelopment agreement for that development. So, I just want the public to understand that that would be something for the other developer of that 808 Pavonia project versus uh Mr. Pepe's client who is developing the subject property this evening. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the last thing there is that um I think at the time that that redevelopment amendment was made for the 808 Pavonia project, there still wasn't a uh horizon on what Lowe's Theater was going to be in its next life. um it needs that loading ink dock that that's coming and you saw the uh the the application for all the circulation is I think over and over what we anticipated and expected to service um a facility like that um as well as the applicant that put their record on needing that space as well. >> All right, thanks Matt. Yeah, I'll entertain a motion then. >> Mr. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion at the S to approve case P205-0129 uh with the conditions that were added uh during our meeting today. I think they were already uh called out uh by Matt uh and um and uh and and vote on it. >> Second. >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second for approval with conditions. >> Vice Chair, Dr. Gonzalez. >> So, I like the program the uh project here. I do really I I haven't seen a 3D model in a while. So, thank you for doing that. That does very visual and I really really like it. Um the presentation of the materials was also very very modelike. I like that a lot. Um I do think uh that I would have loved more trees uh here. Um but I I understand the the the problem that we have. I do think this project meets and promotes the general welfare of the public. I do think that it promotes the redevelopment of zone 3 and I do think that the plan meets the justification to grant relief of the variances. So, um I I'm going to go go ahead and vote I good luck >> commissioner Gangaden. >> So, I just want to thank the um labor union for being here this evening and listening on to this project and hopefully the developer can work together and I want to thank the public for coming out as well. Um this is a very detailed presentation and I love it. Um the change of this will definitely change general square outlook and like mentioned before the new downtown. Um the design is very very nice. Love it. But most of all the affordable units uh we have not seen much of the affordable units whereby twobedroom is 51. I just want to um emphasize on that. and the three bedroomedroom 17 units that um that is very good and I commend the developer on that. I think their variance requested um doesn't possess any detriment to the public and so my vote is gladly I. >> Commissioner Wick >> I. >> Commissioner Stamato. >> I concur on my board members. I vote I. >> Commissioner Kaplan. >> Uh I I agree with the comments earlier. I think on the whole this is a fantastic project. Um, I'd love to have seen more trees, but I I do note that in lie of trees are providing a monetary contribution as required and perhaps outside of this project, we can look at other trees that the city can provide in the area. Um, but on the whole, you know, it looks like a great project and a great addition to a growing part of the city. So, with that, I vote I. >> Commissioner Patel. >> I vote I. Chairman Langston. >> Yes. So, um I I I've never quoted Charles Height before, but um the the when you said the long-term vision of Journal Square, th this you know, it's it's still a work in progress. Um we've seen a lot of development in the area and um you know, this is just the next piece of the puzzle and uh >> it's starting to come together. So, Uh, I think it's a good project. I I appreciate council uh agreeing to our conditions and um with that, I look forward to seeing it built. Get it done, guys. All right. My vote is I. >> Motion carries. All in favor motion approve with conditions. >> Okay. Thank you. We're going to take a 10-minute break, everybody. Hey, >> I'm going to call item number 11 is case P2026-000037 is a minor site plan uh for 2854 JFK Boulevard. >> Good evening, sir. >> Good evening. Uh for the record, my name is Christopher Quinn Q with Halford here on behalf of the outfit PCS LLC. Whoever knows um property question you mentioned 2854 Kenny Boulevard. >> Yeah, I don't know. >> Sorry. Better. >> Okay. Uh again, property in question, it's 2854 Kennedy Boulevard, block 10602, lot 8. Um it's in the zone 3 commercial center of Journal Square redevelopment area. Um what we're proposing is a new telecommunications facility on the rooftop. Uh antennas and equipment on the roof. Um it's actually replacing a site. I was just trying to figure out during the break if it's replacing a site that was on the building that's now that you just approved, but I think it's either there or right around there. But effectively it's replacing antennas that were on 50 Journal Square that were up for decades. But in any event, um what's being proposed are uh 12 panel antennas on the roof extending above the roof like you've seen probably time and time before. Equipment that's on the roof as well, but it's uh not particularly visible because it's behind the parapit wall. Um the use is permitted here. We do need a minor site plan approval. Uh we had a design waiver because because of this design of the building and the design of the antennas, they can't be flush against the parapit wall. Um but again, it's pretty common and typical of what you've seen before throughout Jersey City. I've seen time and time again as I drive through the streets. But um we have our civil engine here tonight uh to give testimony. Um we also have received the playing department's review letter with their conditions which we will comply with any of the conditions including painting the antennas matt gray as requested. Um but I can have our engineer uh give testimony and to provide I guess run through the photo simulation we provided. Um if the board has any questions or we can handle as much or answer any questions you have. Yeah. I mean, let's be as brief as possible. This isn't, you know, obviously we see these all the time and it's a formality. >> Sure. >> Just want your testimony tonight. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> And for the record, you speak your name. >> Ecta. E K A T A. Last name Sha. S H A H. >> Miss Shaw. Good evening. I don't believe we've qualified you before, have we? I was qualified years ago. Maybe not this board, but the board before that, >> but in Jersey City. >> In Jersey City. >> Okay. So, is your license current tonight? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified then. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, you're prepared the plans are affiliated with this application, correct? >> Correct. >> And you uh your official prepare the post simulations that were provided. >> Correct. >> Okay. Uh I made some representation to the board about the design. Can you just verify that that was an accurate representation? >> Correct. >> Okay. I'll ask you to throw to the board what's being proposed. again just briefly understand the board's familiar with the project. >> Sure. Um as as >> it's on, I think. >> Okay. And the exhibits are just that you have mounted here is exactly what was done before for the board and submitted already. Just mount on. >> Correct. These are the photo simulations for this proposed site. Um the um we have them the other way around. The first view that you see over here is looking northwest from JFK Boulevard for the this is the existing view. What you see below over here is the proposed view with the uh with two sectors being seen over here from the northwest direction which is the alpha sector and the delta sector. The second view is looking northeast from JFK Boulevard. This is the existing view what it looks right now. This uh view uh shows the uh proposed um uh u gamma sector over u on the far end and beta sector on the front end where the antennas are being seen as the as um Mr. Quinn said that the equipment is not visible because it's there's a parapet and it's within the uh uh roof area so it's not visible from the from grade. The third view is looking southwest from the of the proposed site where this the first page this top view shows the existing condition and the bottom uh view shows uh sector D uh on the uh on the roof of the building. Um and there is a slight um from from this view you can slightly just see the top tip of the cabinets from the of the equipment uh platform from this view and view four shows the southeast of the proposed site. Uh the top view is showing the existing condition and the proposed condition as seen over here on the bottom uh corner over here where you can see the gamma sector antennas and the beta sector from the side. >> Okay. Thank you Michelle. >> Okay. Um again uh there's no variances required as part of this application. Correct. >> Correct. >> Just the design waiver for the antennas that was described. >> Right. >> And we'll comply with the conditions in the planning department review. Correct. >> We will. >> Okay. For the question. >> Thank you. Anybody? Any questions? >> No. >> No. >> All right. Thank you, council. Uh at this time, let's open it up for public comment. Is anybody here from the public that wants to comment on this application? >> Seeing no public, I move to close. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Uh Cam, you want to add anything? >> Planning staff recommends approval. >> All right. Cam, I am going to throw a curveball at you though tonight. On my way over here tonight, I don't remember if it was on Summit or Baldwin. There's a brick building. The antennas are actually painted to look They're obviously not brick. They didn't fool me on this trip over, but um you know, maybe we can do with a pop of color once in a while on antennas. I'm not opposed. Maybe we get, you know, the city um, you know, the arts program involved in it. >> You know, I don't know. >> I like it. Moving forward, we can certainly do that. Um, I'm not sure if it would work at this site here this time around. >> No, no. I'm just >> thinking in the future. >> Definitely. >> You know, we could look into it. >> I love it. >> All right. Me, too. All right. Okay. Mr. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve case P206-0037 as presented to the board tonight. >> Second. >> Second. >> All right. Motion made and seconded for approval. >> Vice Chair Dr. Gonzalez. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Gangaden. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Wick. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Stamato. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Kaplan. >> It's great to know the the 840 dwelling units across the street will have good cell service. I >> Commissioner Patel. >> Hi. >> And Chairman Lon. >> A lot of copper on that building. Andy, I don't know. Um my my vote is I. Motion carries. All in favor with conditions. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you everybody. >> All right. Let's call K uh item 14. Case P2025-0163 is an administrative amendment for 155 Newark Avenue. Good evening council. >> Good evening everyone. Uh Michael Higgins of Castanoquigley Tramy for the applicant this evening. Um we did notice for this application I have the affidavit here if I may approach. Sure. Thank you, council. Sorry. Chairman, I received the affidavit of public proof of publication with respect to the application at 155 Newark Avenue. It does appear to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for purpose of the record. >> Thank you, council. >> Thank you. So, this is 155 Newark Avenue. Um, we are here for a site plan amendment. Uh, it's a fairly simple change. The applicant is removing a fitness center in the the building that was previously approved and replacing it with a one-bedroom apartment. Um there's no variances triggered by this change. Uh and um we're still going to comply with all the conditions from the previous resolution and the recently provided staff memo from planning. So without further ado, we can have uh willmen, the architect sworn in and qualified. >> All right. Thank you, council. if we could um be before we even swear, Mr. Wackenman. Um there's no change to the outside of the building. Correct. >> There are some material changes to the facade, I believe. >> Okay. All right. And uh there's no public programming that's being changed. These are all internal amenities to the building. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, let's just let's focus on the facade changes and >> understood. Thank you. >> Thank you. testimony tonight. >> Yes, I do. >> Sure. It's William Wackinman. Last name W C K E N M A N. >> Mr. Wackman. Good evening. Your license is current. >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. >> Uh it will be very brief with my uh testimony this evening as the changes we're proposing are fairly minor. Um there are no changes to the the site plan, the cover sheet. These are just um uh uh numerical changes to the unit counts and the square footage of the building. Uh so I will move up to the seventh floor uh which is the penthouse level. Um you can see here we have the proposed plan and the approved plan. Um this is the location of the fitness center uh which is being removed and it's being replaced with a uh a one-bedroom uh unit. Uh it's entirely within the footprint of the fitness center. No other changes are proposed. Um, we're also proposing a a minor material change to the roof deck. Uh, we had previously specified a wood pedestal paver. The client would like to use a uh porcelain paver instead. Um, same configuration, same system. Um, another change is that uh they would like to remove the dog run on the roof. It was just a maintenance issue and something that they didn't feel was a um was in many. they wanted to uh move forward with. So, they're looking to remove the dog run uh on the proposed seventh floor roof. Um and the the facade changes are are very minor. Um on the Newark Avenue, this is a this building fronts on both Newark Avenue and Columbus Drive. Um, so the changes on the Newark Avenue side are uh the elimination of these uh side lights next to the commercial storefront door and the relocation of the intercom panel to the sidewall from the uh front facade. Um, no other changes are proposed uh at this time. And then um the Columbus uh Avenue facade um again very minor changes. We just are including uh the location of the uh sprinkler stand pipe which wasn't indicated on our approval set. Uh it's it's shown here as a freestanding uh fire department connection. Um and then finally uh the uh elevations at the cellar level changed due to some site config um uh subsurface conditions uh once the the building was removed. So, uh, again, no no impact on the exterior of the building, just some slightly different um ceiling heights, uh, in the seller. And then, um, I do have, per staff's request, we do have an update to uh, the rendering indicating that change. So, fairly minor. >> And that that concludes my my testimony. Okay. answer questions. >> All right. Thank you. Any questions? Anybody? >> Nope. >> No. >> All right. Thank you, sir. Council, that's it. >> That concludes it. >> All right. Thank you. Is anybody here from public that wants to comment on this application? Anyone from public? >> Seeing no public, I move to close. >> Second. >> All right. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Cam, you have anything you want to add? >> Just the plan is compliant with the redevelopment plan. No new variances. Objectives and goals of the plan are being met. Um, thank you for agreeing to the conditions in the staff memo. And with that, planning staff recommends approval. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a motion to approve case P205-0163 as presented to our board tonight. >> Second. >> All right. Motion made and seconded for approval. >> Vice Chair Dr. Gonzalez. >> I, >> Commissioner Gangadan. >> Yeah. I just want to say I appreciate you guys coming here to um do you present to us the changes as proposed rather than after the fact built out. So thank you for that. >> Um I >> Commissioner Wick >> I >> Commissioner Stamato >> I >> Commissioner Kaplan >> I >> Commissioner Patel >> I >> and Chairman Langston >> I >> motion carries all in favor with conditions. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Let's call uh the next two items together is uh 15 and 16. We're going to call case P2025-00008 for 68 Wayne Street and also case P2025-00009 for 66 Wayne Street. >> Okay. Uh Michael Higgins Castano Quigley Chami again for the applicant. Um these are minor site plans we did notice for both of them. I have the affidavit in hand if I may approach. Sorry. Mr. Chairman, I'm received the affidavit and knows proof of mailing with respect to the application at 66 Wayne Street and the sister property 68 Wayne Street here in the city. had the opportunity to review them. They do appear to be in order. We're going to mark 66 Wayne Street A1 and we're going to mark 68A2 so there's no confusion. >> Okay. Thank you, council. >> And uh I may have gotten ahead of myself by handing both affidavits, but our our plan is to consolidate these into one application if that's okay with the >> Sure, please. >> Yes. >> Um we would have to vote on them separately though. That's all. >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. So, 66 and 68 Wayne Street. Um, these are two identical projects. It's, uh, two presently vacant standard 25 by 100 lots. Uh, the proposal is to construct a fourstory, four-unit structure on each. Um, these both have been approved by uh, Historic Preservation Commission already. Uh, we received those approvals last month. Um, and that's really it. So, our architect is Antonio Aello. If we could have him sworn in and qualified. >> Testimony you get tonight is going to be the truth. The whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> Yes, I do. For the record, you name >> Antonio Ielo. A I E L L O. >> Mr. Ayel. Good evening. Uh, your license is current. >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. >> Excellent. Thank you so much for your time tonight. Uh, we have here two projects. So, I'm going to present the first one and basically the second one is an identical uh adjacent property. Uh 66 and 68 Wayne Street are is currently a vacant lot. Uh we're proposing buildings that will fit in with the historic fabric of the of the uh neighborhood. It's already been approved by historic. We're not requesting any variances. Uh it is a fourstory building over a basement with four dwelling units, one per floor. Um, as you can see here, we have the brick facade, uh, materials and stone. I have here the material board, uh, to show all the different materials that we've proposed and as we were approved by historic board. Uh, the site as as mentioned is on Wayne Street near Barrow. The other side is Grove Street located in Vanvor historic district. Uh, no variances proposed. We have uh an exterior stair, steel stair that acts as both a deck as well as a uh secondary means of egress for the structure. Uh wood fence along the perimeter of the rear yards throughout the building as you can see here where we're proposing these two structures. Uh fairly in line with all the buildings along that block. U mostly three and fourstory buildings. So it fits in well both material and size. Uh as mentioned, building floor plans, building utilities and storage on the in the basement level, small one-bedroom den on the first floor and then uh we have two bedroom with a den on the other floors. roof deck access by both the steel stair in the back as well as a um roof structure from the internal stair uh that allows us to swing open the hatch and allow access to the roof deck for a secondary means of egress from that location. uh color facade here uh displaying all the different materials as shown prior with the uh red brick red uh brownstone sills and uh and headers cream colored uh windows and then the uh rear facade is going to be a white stuckco on the sides and the back along with this uh black steel uh stair. Um overall the building fits well. We have not made uh any increases in size compared to the a lot of the other buildings in that neighborhood fronting Wayne Street. Um and it'll fit well with with the project over overall neighborhood. >> That concludes my presentation. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. >> Just one question I have for you on the hatch going up to the roof. Is that a legal means of egress? >> It is. When uh when left open, it is a means of egress. So the as long as once you're up there that remains open. It's easy to access uh inside and out with a swing gate. >> Okay. >> Left open. Then we have the secondary steel staircase in the back that's fully compliant. Uh the roof deck is small enough that just a steel staircase in the back would uh meet the requirements required for it. >> Okay. So each unit has access to that stair in the back. So there's no climbing up to the roof to go down the >> the stair. >> No, no. Absolutely. And then the the first floor actually has both the the internal stair that exits directly outside and then the secondary one that has its own fire rated corridor from the rear. >> Okay. Gotcha. Yeah, that's my only question. Anybody else? >> Okay. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you, >> council. >> That concludes our presentation. I hope it was short and sweet. >> All right. >> Quick question. Sorry. Uh came late. Uh do you have any bicycle parking in the developments? Uh we have bik bicycle storage that can be uh in the in the basement. We do um we do have tenant storage set up down there so that they can access it both from the internal staircase and the rear which is wide enough that you can uh bring it upstairs and out to the front. No problem. >> Gotcha. And there's no elevator, correct? >> No. >> So is there like a ramp system in the stairwell to allow the bikes to get to the basement level? >> Uh we can propose that if >> or or is the basement level on grade? >> No. No, the basement level is below grade. But there's a large well and a large steel stair in the back where uh it'd be easily uh be easily brought upstairs. I mean, for me at least. But we can propose um the um ramp systems that you can add to the stairs to make that easier. >> That'd be great. Thank you. >> We have seen in the past just a a little tiny single track that runs along the side. that would, you know. >> Yeah, we can absolutely uh propose that one that flips up and down so it doesn't block uh the egress and just be used for that purpose. Absolutely. >> Okay. So, uh we could make that a condition and just work with staff to to handle that. >> You got it. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Um anything else? Anybody? >> No. >> Okay. Is there anybody here from public that wants to comment on this application? Anyone from public? >> Seeing no public, I move to close. >> Second. >> All right. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Sophia, any uh comments, concerns about either of these? >> Uh staff asked that the applicant agree to the conditions listed in the memo dated March 6, 2026 in addition to the condition of the wheeling ramp on the stairs. >> That's fine. >> And with that, staff recommends approval. >> All right. Thank you. Okay, Mr. um sorry, it's okay. My god. Chairman. Jeez. My god. I'd like to make a motion to approve case P2025-00008 as presented to the board. >> Second. >> All right. Motion made and seconded for approval with conditions. >> Vice Chair Dr. Gonzalez. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Gangadan. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Wick. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Stamato. >> I. >> Commissioner Kaplan. >> I. >> Commissioner Patel. >> I. >> And Chairman Langston. >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor with conditions. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Good evening. >> All right. I'll entertain another motion then. >> Mr. Chair, I'd like to make another motion to approve case P2025-00009 as approved by the board today. >> I >> Okay. Motion made. >> Second. Second. >> Vice Chair Gonzalez. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Gangadan. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Wick. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Samato. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Kaplan. >> Hi. Commissioner Patel. >> Hi. >> And Chairman Langston. >> Hi. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> Thank you. Thank you, council. You're free to go, council. Uh, all right. Let's move on to item 18 is uh amendment to previous approval P18-120 for 87 Broad Street. >> Good evening. >> Good evening, Stephen Joseph, the applicant. Um, I think the first thing we should do is confirm everyone read the many transcripts or watched the videos before we proceed. Cam, do you want to run down? >> Oh, yeah. >> I actually missed September 30th also. That was my birthday. >> Okay. Happy belated birthday. >> Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. >> Long time. >> Um so yes, I did have a chance to uh review testimony for both applications uh both both meetings. Um Commissioner, >> I can confirm that I watched the videos of all of the previous meetings um as distributed by Secretary Black. >> Okay. Thank you. Um we should also enter uh Skyler's opin appearance as well and opposing councils I guess at this time. >> Sure. Uh Skyler Abbott of the firm Cassando Krilly Cherami on behalf of the applicant. >> Good evening council. >> Hi. Um good evening commissioners. I'm here um substituting for Ann's student home. She was here for all the prior hearings and I believe in February she said she had a trial in April and she's on trial right now. So uh Cynthia Hajanis on behalf of the opera at Vanvor Condominium Association at 8385 Bright Street. Okay. Thank you, Miss Aianis. >> All right. What a mess. Um, I think since everybody's read the transcripts, watched the videos, has been here, I think we all understand how we got here, uh, through a calamity of whatever happened. Um, I think our goal for this evening is figure out where we are, where is here. So, we have uh Mr. Lewis here this evening who has went out to the property. He's prepared asbuilt plans. He's going to testify about what is there. Now, we have Mr. Warner here this evening who is going to come up and correct the plans that he presented last time that had a that had an error on them. We have Mr. Bellamy here this evening who is going to present testimony um that these changes don't affect the variances that were presented at the prior uh the original um application and then I think we'll understand where where we are and there's obviously objection to that. Um it's still our position that this is a variance-free uh application. Um, notwithstanding that, there's been a great amount of confusion and and we acknowledge that and we're hoping to clear that up uh this evening. >> So, Mr. Le, uh, Mr. Joseph, sorry, Mr. Lewis, uh, he could take my spot if he wants. >> I'm pretty sure he doesn't even want to be here. Mr. Joseph, I don't know how you roped him in. What is the relief that you're seeking on behalf of your client? Why don't you give me that in a very short concise statement so the board understands what you're even asking? Amended. Amen. An an amendment to the prior site plan approval. There are conditions that changed, many of them interior, some of them exterior, uh that have changed from the original approval. And I I also understand that uh there's been some further investigation and there were some plans that were signed from that were found in Hoboken that were maybe signed by the zoning officer in Jersey City at a later date. I I think that that's something that uh staff had found. I think that just adds to the confusion. Um, we're going based on the original signed plans, not any subsequent plans >> which you have and which Mr. Lewis has reviewed and is going to testify as to what he reviewed and what he witnessed in the field. >> Yes. The comparison of the original signed plans that the board has has had from day one versus what is there now. So the relief sought though is a amendment to the site plan to capture some changes that were made that were not approved. But the applicant's position is it does not trigger any variance relief as a result of those changes. >> That is correct. >> Okay. So, I think the board can understand that in their mind and we'll hear the testimony and see how we progress this evening. >> Yes. Okay. So, we're going to start with Jeff because I think that will just center everyone and then we'll come back we'll come back to George after that. So, Jeff, why don't >> um Santo these are builtout changes that were >> Yes, these changes have been constructed. >> Okay. I just want to have that for the record as well. >> They're on site as of today. >> And everything was signed off on by them. >> Let's not use too many pronouns. What was signed off by who? >> Whatever was built. They're looking for >> approval on that. Correct. >> Correct. So, there was an approval. They built something that was not approved and now they want to correct the paperwork if they can to get the approval to match what they built. So, Mr. Lewis has been retained to tell us Well, we're going to let Mr. Lewis tell us what he was retained for. >> Okay, >> Mr. Lewis. Tonight is going to be the truth. The whole truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Jeffrey Lewis, J E FF R E Y L E W I S. >> Mr. Lewis, good evening. Your license is current tonight? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. >> Thank you. Okay. So, as was mentioned, um I was brought on to uh review the changes that were made to that original approval by this board, uh and clarify exactly what it actually is that was built there now, what it is that we're looking to get approved here tonight. Um, I did watch all the previous meetings. I visited the site a few times. I did speak with the building tenants, and I don't know that this matters, but for the record, they're all very happy with their new homes. Um, so what I want to do is walk through the plans, uh, talk about all the changes for completeness sakes. A lot of these changes don't affect the inside the outside of the building. I mean, the outside of the building, excuse me. Uh, but I do want to emphasize the ones that really do affect the exterior. I think those are the most important. Uh and so what I want to actually start with is the last sheet of the drawings uh that I had uh and focus on the back of the building because uh there was a a little issue here. Um so looking at the survey on the right, I just want to emphasize this little note here at the back which says area not accessible. Uh so what happened was the surveyor could not get to the back of the property when he did his survey. So, he just kind of put a line of where he thought the building ended. Kind of a guess. Um, and at some point a mistake was made and that line actually became the line of the back of the building because our architect didn't have access to the back of the building either. Uh, but that line is in the wrong place. That's showing the 16-inch setback that we were showing on all of our drawings. Um, but we actually uh I looked on the portal at the drawings for next door at I believe it's 89 uh Bright Street and on their survey their surveyor did have access and when he drew our building he showed a 9-in survey a 9-in setback at the back of the building. So 9-in setback is what was always there. Um and that that survey was taken before we even had our permits issued. So it was before any construction happened on the site. Uh so the drawings were wrong. The drawings were showing a smaller building than the existing building. The back wall that's there now is exactly the same place that the wall has been as long as this building has been built. Um, so I wanted to clarify that that adds about 8 in to the back of our building on the first and the second floor. Uh, the second thing we want to talk about is the new fire escape. Again, this fire escape is not built on our property. It's built uh in the egress corridor. And I did measure um everything to see for the clearances to see that they met with the code. We have 40 in between columns. We have 3T2 between the stair and our wall. And we have a little over 7 ft as our ceiling height uh for the platform. So all of these uh clearances are in compliance with the building code. So uh anyone can walk through here as far as the building code is concerned. I think that was something we were looking for some some clarity on. >> Mr. Lewis, can you clarify that further and do it without using pronouns? Anybody can walk through where >> I'm sorry through just underneath underneath the uh underneath the platform. Uh the building code has, you know, minimum requirements for the height and the the width that you would need for for building code purposes for uh egress. And we are in compliance with those uh dimensions >> to traverse underneath the platform. >> Correct. >> Of the fire escape. >> Yes sir. >> Uh and I do have a few photos here on the left if you wanted to see a little more closely and I will zoom in a little. So here we are looking uh from what would be the right side. Uh you can see this is the back. This is 40 in clear. Here's the stair beyond. And you would be able to walk through here and through this space here. And this is looking just from the other direction. >> Let's try it again without using pronouns. From here to there. >> Yes. I apologize. >> Go with direction. >> Let me get a bearing. >> Facing which way? Um, this is Oh, I got to see this north arrow. I'm sorry. I don't have my I'm still pretending I don't need glasses. >> Okay. So, it would be from the the first photo was taken from the east looking west. >> Okay. >> And the second photo was taken from the west looking east. >> And you would be able to traverse either way, >> east or west underneath the platform. Yes. >> And the 40 inch clearance is post to post of that platform. >> It's interior of post to interior of post for the platform. So that's the clear distance between the posts. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um with that, I'm going to jump into my plans and just talk about the differences that we have uh between these two buildings. Um here we're looking at the seller plan. There are some minor changes. Um, I added the utilities that were not shown. This is where our electric meters, our gas meters, and our sprinkler and water meter is. Uh, there was a door here. It was not necessary and it was not uh ever installed. And then we added uh storage cages in the back. These are just uh uh chain link cages for storage for three of the apartments. And we added one uh furnace which is for apartment number one. And there's no problem with any of these changes here. They don't affect the exterior of the building at all. Uh moving to the first floor, there are a few changes to the entry hall here uh where we just moved the mailbox from what was the west side of the wall to the east side. And what was a double door as the second entry door uh was turned into a single door with a sidelight. It still has the same profile, still looks the same, just operates differently. Uh inside the lobby, we had our trash and recycling directly in the lobby. that's been relocated uh to the garage, still accessed from the main lobby. And the door that the second door which was providing access directly to the garage is now providing access to that trash room. Uh inside the apartment, we do have a few changes as well. Uh again, the first one, the building is about 8 inches longer at the back. Just to emphasize that, uh there are a few minor changes made to the apartment itself. We added a second door into the bathroom. The stair, you can see, changed from a switchback stair to an L-shaped stair. Um, and let me explain what's going on here. Uh, what we have is everything from this location to the front of the building is on the first floor level. The rear section has is a split level where we're stepping down about five feet into a sunken kitchen. I mean, excuse me, a sunken in living room because the grade at the back of the property is actually lower than the grade at the front of the property. And then we have some steps up to a mezzanine area. So, here I'm showing a photograph of that lower uh sunken and kitchen area. I mean, I said it twice, sunken in living area uh where we have the door here on the right and then a bunch of windows along the back of the building. Here we're looking at that mezzanine level with the stairs up. A few minor changes here again where you can see the um the platform which leads to both of the bedrooms has been slightly revised. Uh the layout of the two bedrooms has been revised where we removed a closet and this is where we uh took this wall and turned it into a glass wall and there was some discussion about that at one of the meetings. So, I did want to clarify that I have the photograph of that location here. It's taken uh from the kitchen area here looking to the back of the building. And this one, I just have a larger version of this photograph that I want to bring up. This is the same photograph that's in the drawing. >> Mr. Lewis, slow down. >> Yes, sir. >> Go back one slide. So this photograph, >> do you have the measurement of the entire building >> depth? >> Yeah, sure. It's uh 99 ft 3 in. >> Okay. You had stated here 75 ft, 70 ft, 85 ft. Just help us identify how far. Oh yeah, the back space is about 25 feet. So yeah, it's close to 75 ft in the front and then about 25 ft where we step down and up to the mezzanine. >> Thank you. >> Okay, so in this space you can see uh can I go back to the photograph now? >> Yeah. Can we zoom back in please? >> Okay, so here's that photograph uh standing in the kitchen looking to the back. So you can see the stair down and then here are the windows in that sunken in living area and then the stair up and then this is uh those those windows that were being discussed at one of the previous meetings. Um really what we did here is we were attempting to get more light into the kitchen area, the interior kitchen area and we were hoping that it would be able to come through these windows into that space. Uh this is not a loadbearing wall. It's not a demising wall. Uh there's no fire rating requirement for it. I know that's something you had concerns with. It's really no different than a regular interior dividing wall except it's glass. And while we're here, I do want to uh bring attention to a few of the really nice details that they did maintain here. Uh the brick barrel vaulted ceilings are on the first floor and second floor. They're really quite beautiful and they did a nice job of restoring them. We also have on the sides of the wall um brick exposed brick walls which were done very nicely and I think uh some of the details and materials that were chosen to complement that brick was uh chosen well. I think they did a pretty nice job here. With that, I'm going to go back to the plans and we're going to move on to what is the second floor. The second floor has two apartments. There's one in the front and then one in the rear. Um, again, there are some internal changes uh that mostly do not uh affect the exterior of the building. Most of them are, you can see there's revised bathroom layouts, kitchens that went from galley kitchens to L-shaped kitchens, some closets that also turned around and changed. Um, again, but no major changes to anything. Uh the one uh major change that we do have of course is at the back with the fire escape. Uh previously we just had a terrace. Uh now we actually cut an opening into that terrace and it leads you out to a platform where there's a drop stair or drop ladder, excuse me, down to the medium platform. I think when I go through the elevations we'll be able to see that a little clearer. I do have a photograph uh showing that terrace. Uh we'll talk about this this ladder which goes up to the floor above. Here's where we have a gate and I do have better pictures of those gates as well. And this is the drop ladder. Uh this is the third floor. This floor and the floor above are apartment 4. It's a duplex apartment. Um again, there are some interior layout changes here. The most important one is moving the staircase up. It was previously in the living room area and it's been relocated to the back here. Uh to do that, we did remove uh one bathroom and a few closets. Uh also the the kitchen was changed a little bit. Um and there were two doors at the side here, here and here. One and two doors. Those were changed to windows, but they have the same same opening. Basically the same profile. They're just windows now instead of doors. That's something that was requested. >> That's on the front of the building going out to the terrace. >> It's on the front of the building going out to the terrace, but this is a very high parapit wall. It's about five or six feet. So, it's something you can't even see from the street >> along that front terrace. >> Correct. And we do have some photographs here at the roof deck. Uh so here are a few changes that do affect the exterior slightly where we have three uh condensers that were relocated from the top roof down to this lower roof. And we also cut away a little section of this parapit to have that stair going the ladder going down to the terrace below. And here I'm going to zoom in on these photographs as well. >> And Jeeoff, I'm sorry. Just to to backtrack a little bit, the terrace on the front is not a >> it's not something you walk out onto. It's not a occupiable. >> That's correct. It's not an occupied terrace. It's all green. It's going to be all green roof. It's just a green roof terrace. >> Uh this is >> that's on the third floor. >> That's on the third floor. >> At the top here, this is the ladder going down from this third floor roof terrace to the second floor roof terrace. You can also on the left you can see the gate here on the second floor as well as the platform for the second floor roof terrace. I mean the second floor uh fire escape. This is the gate on the third floor which leads out to that ladder. And then this is st stand standing on the roof uh roof deck looking back at the building. The third floor and the fourth floor and let's move on to that fourth floor. So again we do have internal layout changes. Um it does remain a three-bedroom uh two bath apartment. There are three bedrooms and two baths on this floor. The uh area of the floor remains the same. However, the layout has been completely changed. Um also the other thing, the only thing here that affects the exterior is the skylight, which I'm going to move on to the roof plan to talk about. Uh we were hoping to preserve uh one of the skylights in the existing building. Uh this proved to not be the case. Uh it was not possible. It was just they were just too damaged. So instead, we added a few different skylights, uh, smaller ones that just worked a little better with the layout we had below. Also, we only have two condensers on the roof now instead of the four we were showing previously. Uh, other than that, the bulkhead stays the same. Everything looks the same from the front and the rear. Okay, here we are at the front of the building. uh and the rear, but we're going to start with the front. Uh there's really one major issue here, and that's that PSENG connection. Uh we were hoping to bring them in over the top and inside the building. That's what we were showing on our drawings. PSENG had other ideas. Um I wasn't there at um when they came out to the site, but I could imagine they saw that they would have to come in the building and go through two brick barrel vaulted ceilings and decided that wasn't happening and that it would be much easier for them to just go down the outside and generally what PSEG wants PSCG gets or we don't get electricity. Uh so we did try to make the best of a bad situation. Uh we painted uh painted those electric conduits the same color as the brick. And we also zoom in on the photo. >> Yes, sir. So, we painted we painted that a brown yellow color to match the brick. And we also pulled out this sign to be in front of the uh of the conduits. Previously, this was just against the building, but we pulled it out in front. And actually, they did a pretty good job here. They didn't just pull it in front. They actually boxed everything out, so it feels more like a a solid deep sign that's like 5 in deep as opposed to just floating it out in front of everything. So, I think they did a pretty nice job here of making the best of a bad situation. Um and that's actually the only thing that um we're asking relief for at the front of the building. Uh looking to the rear of the building, there are two differences. The first one is we had this uh exposed steel uh around all these windows at the lower level. Uh this was a decorative feature. Uh however, it was not installed and instead the entire rear elevation is brick. Uh I do think that brick is a is an acceptable material especially for the back of the building. Uh we generally don't see full brick buildings especially on the back. So having a full brick at the back of the building I think is is okay. Uh and then secondly of course is the fire escape which we have been talking about um pretty endlessly. However, you can see what we have is from the third floor level. We have the ladder coming down this little sidewall here, which we'll see on the side elevation. Here's the gate which comes out to the platform at the second floor where we have a drop ladder. That drop ladder goes down to a second platform located right in between these windows with a stair with a permanent stair going down to grade. And this is something that was worked out in the field with Hoboken with their fire um fire sub code official. And you can see it again here on the side where we have the ladder going down, the basket projecting out with the drop ladder and then the platform and the stair down to grade. And then we're back where we are. Uh so that's what the building is. Those are the the changes that I think are the most important ones that affect the exterior of the building. Um, is there anything you want me to address directly? >> I think that summarizes the relief that we're asking for. Those are the the changes and that is where we are in terms of of the building. The fire escape was covered in this presentation, but we have the fire escape architect who's going to correct his testimony from last time about the about his plans. There's questions for Jeff, >> but I could answer any questions about what's there now. Absolutely. >> So, council, would you rather I directed questions to Mr. Lewis and maybe if >> George can answer them? Yes. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. So, I have some questions based on previous testimony that I wasn't here for as well as things that have things that have come to light in front of me tonight. Um, okay. So, I I think number one, the rear wall has been changed since, you know, that's the first I've heard of the building being set back another 9 in. Correct. That hasn't been part of any testimony yet. >> So, correct. There was nothing testified to that. Um, I think Jeff's testimony this evening is the building itself has not has not moved at all. The building has not changed. That is not something that that changed. It was uh Jeffa >> it was drawn incorrectly. >> It was drawn incorrectly like many other things. >> Okay. So there was no demolition of the back wall previously. >> There there was a demolition of the wall but it was rebuilt in the same place. >> The foundation remained and we just rebuilt the wall. >> Okay. Gotcha. All right. That makes sense. Um that's going to be for the next witness. Um, the rear glass, >> yes, >> on the building, >> is that fire rated? >> This class? >> Yes. >> I don't know the answer to that. >> Okay. So, it was, you know, it wasn't your testimony, but in in uh the September hearing, um there was talk of, you know, moving that fire escape off of the building to protect someone who's in an egress situation from the windows blowing out onto them. >> Yes, I think that was a a code issue where that wasn't allowed to be on the building. >> Okay. Is egress possible on the ground level next to those windows if that's a concern? >> No, I think the concern I mean if it's a code issue, it's a code issue. >> Well, I think that's probably a question for uh George because it was I think it was a code issue with the fire escape specifically. >> Okay. So, let's let's address that next >> because there's certainly there's not an issue with walking past these windows code. wouldn't want to walk down a set of stairs next to those windows. That's my question. >> I wouldn't have a problem with that. Again, I think it was more constructing it next to it. It was about the construction itself. >> Okay. Okay. Well, >> I I know a big part of the problem was the length that's allowed for the ladder, the height that's allowed for the ladder. I get that. >> Which is why we needed the platform. >> Yeah. No, I understood that. >> And they're not going to let you build a ladder against glass. >> Sure, but stairs you could. >> The stairs are not against the glass. >> I know. But could you build them next to glass? >> So the testimony that I'm referring to is that the stairs were moved out away from the glass. >> Correct. >> So if there was a fire inside that that window wouldn't break and shower someone with glass. >> I don't know the code reason that again. My impression was more it was a construction issue where you just can't >> Let's do it this way. Mr. Lewis, why don't we stick to your testimony based on what you know? >> Yes. >> You didn't provide that testimony, did you? >> I did not. >> Okay. So, >> I'll move on. >> Let's just >> questions then. >> If you know whether or not you could build that staircase next to the glass, >> I can't say that. I don't. >> Okay. >> And that's okay. >> It's a safe space. >> I'm happy, but I don't know. >> Um, all right. So, let me move on to my next question. Um, the first floor egress door going out to the back. >> Yes, >> that opens in. >> It does open in. And that's the one thing I messed up on my drawing. I drew it right here. You can say, you can see on this drawing >> A110 >> right here, it does open in. And on A110, it still opens out. It's the same drawing. I don't know how it happened. I apologize. >> Okay. Not open in though. >> Now, that's code compliant that it opens in. We usually don't see egress doors open in. >> Yes. Uh there's a occupancy load where you're allowed to open in. I think it's under 25. >> Okay. >> Um >> can you show it on the elevation? >> That's uh this right here. This door. It's actually designed, you look at the photograph, it's designed to look exactly like the windows. It has the same profile. I can show you the the photograph of the rear where you can where you can see that. Let me show you the interior photograph. So, here's that door here. You can see it looks exactly the same as the windows. So, you step up to the egress door there. Yes, there is a one step up and on the outside there's about one step down. >> Two steps. Um Okay. So that's code compliant as well. Correct. >> Yes. >> You can step up and over. >> Yes. This is a means of egress. It's not an accessible means of egress. That's the front door. >> Okay. Um Okay. So we covered that one. >> Uh in the basement. >> Yes. the sprinkler system and the electric in the same room. Is there a fire pump involved here or is it just a backflow meter? >> There's no fire pump. >> Okay. So, it's just backflow meter. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um the ladder on the fire escape that goes from the third floor down to the second floor. >> Yes. There's no safety railing to the back. So I guess the right side if you're climbing down that ladder from 3 to two. >> Mhm. >> There's nothing preventing you other than holding on to >> That's correct. >> Falling into the schoolyard. Is that a code issue right there that we need to look at? >> Um I would say that the inspector did approve it. Okay. But I think that's probably a George question as well. >> Okay. Uh let's stay right on that view that uh we have in front of us right now. I don't know if we should stay there, but let it's going to lead to there. Um as far as any gates on the fire escape itself. >> Mhm. So, and walk me through the egress situation. You there's a fire in the building. You come down those stairs. You walk out to the nearest street through that egress through that east. >> Well, you would walk behind the buildings and then out along the means of egress to Bright Street. There's only one way out. >> So, there's no >> which direction? >> You would walk to the west. the west and then to the south to Bright Street. >> Okay. >> North. >> North. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I think we did submit drawings that show the easement. >> The easement agreement has been submitted. >> Yes. >> Yeah, that's correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, there's no locked gate anywhere between there and you know in the easement at all. Correct. >> There's not. >> Okay. So, there's nothing impeding any egress. That's correct. >> Is there anything impeding someone from coming from Bright Street, climbing up those stairs which lead, if we could go back to the view that I was looking for. >> Chairman, I'm sorry. I do want to just clarify if I'm following correctly. There there is a gate at the end of the easement, not on not near this property, but at the very very end of the easement area that's locked coming in, but you can go out of it. >> Okay. >> But that's the egress to Bright the entrance to Bright Street. >> Okay. >> So, how the property line of Bright Street? >> Yeah, I believe that was installed by the by the school or whoever had the first easement that was that was pre-existing. >> Okay. But there's a gate that you can't come into the easement area from Bright Street. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Because my concern is, you know, someone can just walk up those stairs, end up on I'm pointing to that landing right now. You can't see it, but climb up to that landing and you're right there to just jump over the fence into the schoolyard. Yeah. Okay. >> Used to climb fences as kids. >> Yeah, he used to do it all the time. Um I I'm not sure if this is the first time I've seen it or not. Uh there's a difference in the brick color on the front facade between the >> Yes. It's a darker It's a darker on the bottom than it is on the top. >> Okay. And that's >> that's original. >> That was in his original plans. >> Yes. Oh, that's the original brick. >> Different colors. >> I think the original plans just specified that we were going to clean and repair the brick. It didn't specify the colors. >> And so that's that's the brick cleaned and repaired. >> And the brick on top is original as well. >> Yes. The orange. >> There's no new brick on the front of the building. >> Okay. >> Can we go to the photo? >> Yes, sir. >> Did you have a different crew that cleaned the brick on the top versus the bottom? Because it's a >> You think the bottom cleaner difference? Yeah. Right. It is very different. Come on. >> So, yes, it's a very different brick at the bottom than it is on the top. >> Did you take this photo, Mr. Lewis? >> I did. >> Do you have any idea when you took this photo? >> Uh, it was uh just before O, I had that date written down. I think it was before the last meeting. It was a week before the last meeting, which would have been was that February, the last meeting. So, this would have been early February. No. >> Think there would have been snow on >> Yeah. No, it's not that. It was It was when I was hired. So, I think this was Was it September when I went out there? I had this written down. So yeah, the last hearing was February 10th. >> No, it was before that. It was before It was after the meeting before that. What was the meeting before that one? September. >> September. >> It was in se It was sometime in September. >> Okay. Uh for now, those are my only questions. >> Okay. >> But yeah, I would like to follow >> I would like to follow up on the fire escape question. Absolutely. Okay. Um council want to Um, before we do that, anybody else any questions for Mr. Lewis at this point? I >> I just had one question and and forgive me, I'm not sure who to direct it to, but just on your plans where you show what was built versus what was approved, >> if you could um just go to one of those pages where you you show both at the bottom of that you show that the the elevation has HPC approved um compared to the asbelt. Um what's the role of the historic preservation committee in this scenario with the asbuilt differing from what was approved? >> Well, so HPC this is in a historic uh neighborhood. So HPC has certain jurisdiction over this particular site. uh in terms of HPC's concerns and approval is Miss O'Neal was here and her concern at this juncture to my recollection had to do with the preservation of the sign. Uh >> not that she didn't have other concerns. I can clarify. Her concern was that the shop drawing that we submitted to historic did not match the sign that was actually installed. And our intention is to replace that sign with a sign that does match the shop drawing >> relating to signage. That was her >> that was just the main the front sign. >> That was her concern. >> Yes. >> At this juncture. >> Gotcha. So they don't >> I if I may councel just to there there's a set of plans that are on the portal there they're photographs of signed approved plans and those plans are signed by both this board and by the historic preservation officer. HPC actually denied this application originally and and this board approved the the project originally in spite of that denial but the plans still needed >> they didn't deny they just didn't approve. They didn't have enough votes to approve. Yes. Thank you. >> So, it wasn't a denial. >> It wasn't a denial. They they didn't have enough votes to approve. >> Um, but the historic officer still needed to sign off on the final approved plans as did this board and that's that's what Jeff compared. >> Thank you. Okay. Anybody else for Mr. Lois at this point? >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Hi. >> And I know you're going to speak into that mic louder than your predecessor, right? >> I will try. >> I had a tough time listening to that testimony. >> Okay. So, um, good evening, commissioners. Good evening, Mr. Lewis. Um, so, um, could we are which sheet of your plans are we on? It's >> We're on A200 now. >> Could we go back to A100? >> Absolutely. Okay. So, okay. Um, so on sheet A 100, you're on the asbuilts, you depicted partitions between the storage areas, and they're drawn to look like they could be solid walls, but your note says they are divided with screening. Can you clarify which it is? >> It's chainling fence. It's chending fencing. >> Okay. Is that Is there a reason it doesn't look like a chainlink fence on there? >> That's just how it was drawn. >> Okay. Did you And you drew this yourself. You didn't get it from your predecessor. >> I used the originals from him and I modified them. >> Okay. Um the and then you you testified that the door between the tenants storage areas and the common utility was removed. Correct. >> Never installed. >> Okay. And and why was that? >> It's just not a necessary door. >> Okay. Um there's a hatched area now showing um at the Yeah. to the right u at the rear of the property. What's what's the difference between the hatched area and the drawing above it? >> Just for clarity sake, I hatched it here because this plan was being shown on this floor and on the first floor and I didn't want to double it up. So you can see I'm showing nothing here and then on the first floor plan I'm showing that step down area. This is this is what is at close to the seller level but I'm showing it as the first floor and then we have the mezzanine shown separately. >> Okay. So that the hat it so that is the rear of the building is is on the seller the the sunken living room as you described it is on is sort of on the se sellar level. >> Right. We have a first most of this as was mentioned the first 75 ft or so are on the ground floor level and then we have steps down about five feet and steps up a few feet. >> Okay. So it had been shown the sunken living. >> It was just shown it was shown twice. It was just a >> but but it had been shown on the seller level and then >> it was shown twice. Yes. >> Okay. Now but but what's more accurate being on the seller level showing it on the seller level. Isn't that where it is? >> Yes. But when you draw a floor plan technically you're drawing a section through 3 ft above grade. So at basically this level. And if I was cutting a section through the ground floor, you would see this this level on that floor. And for clarity sake, since it was part of that apartment, >> it made more sense to show on the first floor plan >> as Okay. So, so this um is is this a this is a section or that you're >> It's a floor plan. >> Floor plan. Okay. So, the floor plan kind of does it goes up and down, but it's hard to tell from looking at that. >> I thought we kind of clarified it by not showing the same thing twice. Mhm. >> Um but yes, this is all there are steps down and that that back section would be basically on the seller level. >> Okay. Um can we move to sheet A10? >> We are. >> Okay. Thanks. Um your asbuilt first floor plan shows two steps up to a rear door which opens outward into the rear egress area. Um >> that was a mistake. It does open in, not out. >> It opens in. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, the depiction of that same door on the fire escape plans is correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um, are any of the rear windows on this level operable? >> No. >> Okay. So, none of them open in or open out? >> No, those are picture windows. >> Okay. Um, you have the I guess you have photos of the fire escape ladders on the second and third floor and there's a gate um in front of each of the ladders. Can you can you tell us which way the gates swing? >> Um I sure I'd have to look. I don't quite remember. >> Oh, I guess this is A120. Sorry. George, >> it might be a better question to ask George >> because he designed it. >> Mr. Lewis, do me a favor. If you don't know the answer to the question, >> say you don't know the answer. >> Yes, but it opens. They open it opens in. >> Not is it it's on your drawing or just on the photo? >> On the photo. >> Okay. Um, can we move to sheet A300? Is that three? Oh, okay. Okay. So, I guess there there are dimensions on this on the survey. Did you or it's a fire escape that were Okay. So, um, the dimensions on the fire escape, did you verify the dimensions yourself? >> I did. >> Okay. And what's the size of the structural columns that support the platform? >> They're 3-in square columns. >> Okay. So, 3x3. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, and what's the dimension between the structural column that's closer to the building and the stair? You're asking for the dimension from here to here. >> Yes. >> That would be uh 2 foot 2 in. >> Two foot >> going straight across. Yes. >> Okay. Two foot two inches. And then um what's I guess and then where where at that point where that platform is what's the height of the >> platform? The platform is a little more than seven feet above grade. >> Okay. Um, now you now you talked about how you had a drawing that said 8 in was added to the back of the building. Um, so but then but then you've corrected that with your testimony. >> Um, I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. What what what happened? So on A3 I guess A300 you you have something that says 8 in was added to the back of the building, >> right? Originally Whoops. Unfortunately, they used uh the dimension that was provided at the back here of of 1T4 in which was incorrect. So this this was just a correction of the actual depth of the building. >> Okay. And that dimension was I think you had explained that it was there was a the survey was wrong. >> Well, the survey didn't have access to the rear yard. So, they estimated where the line was and at some point we took that estimation as fact when indeed it wasn't. >> Okay. And that was your own client's survey. >> That's on our survey. Correct. >> And what's the date on the survey? Come on. I'm sorry. I'll get it in a second for you. >> Date is 12 it looks like 1216 of 2014. >> 2014. Okay. And was any new survey done for the asbuilts? >> I don't know the answer to that actually. >> Okay. Um and then I guess you mentioned that you looked at an 89 bright street survey. >> Yes. >> And that that's and then through a process of deduction you determined that this survey was incorrect. Well, also I measured the building and determined that the building was indeed larger than it was shown than it was shown on our drawings. >> Okay. >> The the current building, not >> exactly. >> Okay. And when did you do that measurement? >> That's uh when I went out in September. >> Okay. But you you weren't involved with the project before. So you never did a measurement? >> I didn't do any measurements. >> That's before construction, >> correct? >> Okay. Um, and then you testified uh tonight that the grade at the rear of the building where the sunken living room is is is lower. Is the grade on the plans? >> Yeah, the grade at the at the rear of the property is lower than the grade at the front of the property. >> That's why when we're down at the seller level, we can walk basically right out to the >> What's the grade? >> The grade difference is not shown on the survey. It's it's somewhere between four and 5t difference. >> Okay. And and there's no like I guess the base flood elevation isn't reflected on the plans anywhere. >> Uh it's not I know from what I understand when we submitted these drawings, we didn't have problems with the base flood elevation. >> Okay. I mean, what type of problems would you have? Well, from what I understood, the base flood elevation was below, you know, we wouldn't we weren't in a flood zone basically is what I understand, but again, I wasn't part of the process at that point. >> Oh, okay. So, um, and how did you get that understanding that you're not in a flood zone? >> That was really through discussion with our team. >> Okay. Okay. Um, I think that's it for my questions. Thank you. two quick uh question. So, so I may have misheard Jeff, but we were talking about the operable windows at the rear of the building and and you may have misspoke about that. I believe the rear windows open out and I think you may have said that they open in >> at the first floor >> on the the door opens in. >> The door opens in, >> but the windows I believe are operable and they open. Oh, the windows are awning windows that open out a little bit. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> That's my fault. I apologize. I got that wrong. >> And when you went out to the property, did you see any evidence of uh a foundation on the ground where a wall could have been? I I know there's been previous testimony that the wall was rebuilt exactly where the the prior foundation was. Did you see any any evidence in the rear yard that the wall was moved? >> No. >> All right. Thank you. Miss Aianis, any followup? >> Just one question. I'm just confused about the windows. The I thought you said the windows don't open in or out. That was my mistake. In or out? Okay. >> I was thinking something completely different. I apologize. The windows are awning windows that do open out. >> Okay. And is that I guess these are these gigantic windows like how much every every pane of glass opens or how much of it opens? >> Well, they open but they only owning windows only open generally at a 45 degree angle or something. >> Okay. Okay. But every you know there's like nine panes of glass in each window. So each each pane potentially >> I'm not sure that the upper ones do, but I believe the two of the lower ones do. >> Okay. All right. Thank you, >> Mr. Lewis. Do we have any detail that shows that? We don't. And that's why I messed that one up. I apologize. >> Okay. Are those the only windows that operate like that or are there others? >> Um the building >> there are some here that are the same windows basically. So they would operate the same way. Um basically they're in places where we don't require egress windows because we have the door here and we have the door in that room. So we have that door which takes the place of egress windows. Okay. >> All right. Understood. Anybody else for Mr. Lewis? >> No. >> All right. Thank you, sir. >> Thanks. >> Do you want to get a break in now? >> Yeah. While we're switching testimony, council, um, yeah, let's get a break in and then, uh, when we come back, we'll just take it right through to the end. >> Council, who's the next witness? >> George Werner. >> Okay. And then Mr. Bellamy. Mr. Belly for some very brief testimony. >> All right. Okay. Thank you, sir. Everybody please give the truth. The whole truth. >> Yes, I do. >> George Winer. W I N E R. >> Mr. Winer, good evening. Um, I do have to ask this. Is your license current tonight? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. >> All right. Uh, George, you you previously testified there was a a small error on on your plans. If you could just just walk us through these three pages of of your revised plans, identify that error and the correction that you made and then we could get into the chairman's questions. >> Okay. This uh this drawing was correctly submitted initially um and it it shows in dotted line uh that there is a a drop ladder is a dotted rectangle there and then on the top of that dotted rectangle coming perpendicular from the building is a drop ladder. There was a prior submitt of another page showing the next level up which I was not focused on and I I missed making the correct correction of the location of that ladder to the to this uh position that is to say perpendicular to the building. That was that's the only change based on or my omission with regard to the last >> Mr. Joseph, let's identify what's on the screen. >> Sure. >> Okay. What's on the screen is an asbuilt fire escape uh plan showing a platform uh of dimensions. So I show center to center dimensions and I show the dimension from the uh uh up and down as well as uh and it shows the there are three 3-in square posts uh with uh with footings for each of those posts. There is a very small brick area uh between the two principal windows. If if you walk up from the um from where the doorway is, uh there's glass and then there's a brick uh section that is literally uh faced upon the glass behind it. So the elevations that were shown uh by Mr. Lewis um showed also with the photograph you could see the unity of of those windows. Uh but from the exterior there is a brick section. >> So this drawing is dated February 12th, 2026. >> This one? Yes. >> And this is an asbuilt fire escape drawing showing the first floor. >> Correct. So we're going up with a stair to grade uh to this platform. From that platform then going up is a drop ladder. Now this uh this plan which also uh >> this is the second sheet of the exhibit sir. >> Yes. >> Same date February 12th, 2026. >> Yes. >> As built. >> Yes. >> Side view. >> Correct. The uh stair is correctly shown. uh the platform is correctly shown as as as being just about to the a little bit above the height of the uh of the entry door. So there is clearance headroom clearance. Uh what the challenge here was to be able to deal with what we have from the uh from the second floor. Let's say where where have where we have the new this new landing. There's a balcony up there existing balcony. the uh distance from that down to grade is 21 feet. So having a simple drop ladder would not suffice would not uh be compliant uh with the spirit of the FTO3 guidelines >> be limited to 11 ft. And so that's one of the reasons we did here. >> Yeah, you you testified to all that last time. Let's let's uh go to the third page. Describe the third page and then we'll we'll try to answer some of the chairman's questions. >> Okay. So, this is my corrected drawing on the third page that shows >> as built third and second floor again dated February 12th, 2026. Third page of the exhibit. >> Yes. >> Thank you. This shows the uh the exit way from the the rear of the building uh to our new opening in the uh uh parapit wall with a fixed ladder going down to to the the balcony below the second floor balcony. Then d then to uh the right side through again remove some brick off the parapit wall to a a small balcony uh let's say fire escape projected uh non-combustible fire escape and a and a drop ladder from this the east side that is to say perpendicular to the building >> and and George while we're while we're here right and in no particular order the there were some questions about uh like a safety guard for the drop for the drop. >> Before we get to that, let's clarify the correction. So, this drawing is a corrected drawing. >> Yes. >> And it corrects a previous drawing of the fire escape. And if I understood what you were testifying to, the change has to do with what is depicted on the drawing as the drop ladder between the second floor balcony and the first floor platform. Is that correct? >> Yes, that is. >> Mr. Lewis, if you could put up the elevation on the rear of the building drawing please. Can you zoom in? So, Mr. Lewis, can you identify what sheet it is for the record, please? Is she A200? >> A200 for the record. >> So I see the fire escape escape. I see the staircase up to the platform. Is that fair, sir? >> Yes. And is it your testimony that the brick wall flush in between those nine grid windows is the brick wall you were just trying to articulate on your drawing >> going approximately 4 feet wide um >> in between the two nine >> right >> pane windows >> right the windows remained on the inside as original. Hence the photograph that was taken from the inside showing that. But the exterior has a brick section more or less in line with where the uh the platform is. There's actually a a darker line there that you see that uh that is in in fact brick. It was one of the reasons that it helped us locate the uh the platform in the safest possible area. perpendicular the brick work in between the windows. So there are four ninepane windows on the first on the ground floor and the first floor. Is that correct? >> Yes. And there's exposed brick in a T configuration between those four windows. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> So if we go back to your drawing, I think it's sheet two, Mr. Lewis. Maybe one more sheet one. So, at the bottom of the drawing, there is what appears to be the outline of the building wrapping side wrapping around to the rear in a dark L-shaped bottom of the drawing. Mr. Lewis, >> that's 89. That That's That's the building to the uh to the east. >> See where Mr. Lewis has his cursor? >> Yes. That is the exterior wall of the building. >> Yes. >> That is all brick. >> Yes. >> Then there is the door on the rear of the building. Mr. Lewis, can you circle that? >> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Next to that is another brick. >> That's window. >> Is there not a brick between the window and the door? >> There's a It's a mullion. It's a structural million. >> Okay. Then that white space between where his cursor is, that is window. >> Yes. >> And then what is above that on the drawing? That >> that's window on the left side and brick on the outside. >> And that's what's depicted in the elevation. >> Right. And what is the rectangular box? The dash rectangular box. >> Dash rectangular box is the dotted line showing the fire escape above. That is to say, the platform that was built out from the brick where the gate then allows access to the drop ladder. >> Is that depicted on Mr. for Louiswis's elevation drawing. >> Yes, I think pretty much the brick the brick's missing on the outside. >> So that's above the window. >> All right. A little bit more to the right. Above the platform, above and below the platform. >> I think the photograph would would bear that out. So what was the mistake? >> The mistake that I had made was inadvertently showing the drop ladder from the new platform above the third floor. Second third sec >> ground first second. >> Okay. Ground first second from the second floor down. The ladder is here correctly shown as perpendicular to the building. It's a drop ladder that goes down to the platform. >> Okay. >> The prior drawing had it >> flush >> flush to the outside of the uh that basket. >> So tell me if this is a correct statement. Ground floor, first floor, second floor. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> So we're on the second floor. There is a platform that sticks out off the face of the building. >> Right. It's actually the face of the balcony. >> Face of the balcony. Correct. >> Yes. >> And then the drop ladder is perpendicular to the face of the building which is the rear elevation. >> Yes. >> Attached to that platform. >> Correct. And the mistake was that that drop ladder was depicted as being flush with the building, not perpendicular. >> Flush to the plat to the basket. >> The basket, which I've been referring to as a platform. >> Um, okay. First floor, second floor, third floor. First floor stair, second floor platform, third floor basket. Typically, it's part it's like a mini fire escape at that point that just has the drop ladder. >> So, it's called a basket. I've been improperly referring to it as a platform. >> Is that fair? >> That's fair. >> Okay. I can be wrong. Just ask my wife. Uh, that was the mistake on your drawing, >> correct? >> Okay. Is that clear to you, Chair? >> I I can't believe I'm going to say this. I'm more confused than I was before >> as to what the >> So, Mr. Winer, can you Just please help me out with this. Help me understand this. Third floor from that gate that's been cut into the balcony. The drop ladder is that's the second floor because we have the ground floor, first floor, second floor. >> Okay. So, let's tell you what we'll do. Let's start with this. You're on the third floor. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. There's a fire. How do you get from there to the ground? From third floor to the ground. >> Okay. From that, the second third floor, >> we're going to Jeff Jeff is going to follow you as you're talking, right? The ground floor we're not referring to as the the first floor. Ground floor is going to be called the ground floor, right? And Jeff is going to follow you, George, as as you're talking about this with the cursor. So he is in the wrong spot. Please tell him. >> So what where now the cursor is shown is what we're now referring to at the third floor. That is where the big deck is that leads to the higher uh section for the duplex of the back. And from there there is a cut in the wall and a fixed J ladder that goes from there down to this second floor. >> Where is the cut in the wall? >> It's on the side. >> It's on the side. Yes. >> Yeah. This is a notch. It's cut in about six feet. So the what looks to be a two dimension is actually >> sure >> that third dimension. >> And is there a gate there as well? >> Yes. >> Okay. From that platform, you can then use the drop ladder to be able to get down to the platform. >> There's another >> on the other side of the gate. >> Yeah. >> You have a photograph, Mr. Lewis. >> And did I confuse it by adding ground floor instead of first floor? Is that >> No, we'll get No, we'll get through it. We'll figure it out. >> So, >> all right. Go back. >> Go back. Let's start. Start there. Okay. So, that's the highest point down that fixed ladder. >> Perfect. >> Right. There's the fixed ladder. Goes down to this balcony. Beg your pardon. Then there's the gate that goes to our new little basket >> with a gate. >> Right. So you open that gate, you step out on the basket, you drop the ladder down and climb down, >> and you're now down, you're now down to the platform. >> Okay, understood. >> From there, the building department and the fire department of Hoboken has approved this kind of uh design uh in other projects. I've used it also in Jersey City, but it needs to be a stair. It can't be another drop ladder. >> Understood. But that was your testimony. So the the mistake on the drawing that you submitted was that the drop ladder between >> the third and second floor was flush to the building when in fact it's perpendicular to the building off the basket. >> Off the basket. >> Got it. Okay. Okay. That was the whole purpose of his testimony was just to clarify that point >> to we got caught up last time with a mistake in the plans. There's a you know a big thing about it. So we we >> wanted to correct George's testimony. >> That was the mistake that that >> and his drawing >> correct his drawing from last time. And these are signed and sealed also. These are >> Sure. >> All right. So, um, we'll go through some of the questions that the board had and chairman, please feel to jump in >> if I can. I >> Yeah, absolutely. >> I did want to start with one. Um, >> FDO3. I've never heard of that code before. I'm surprised I've never heard of that, but enlighten me. That's the fire escape. >> It's the fire escape code. U, you know, the the state finally came up with something that was generic enough to where everybody could have the same information. >> Okay. it set the standards for it. >> Okay. But it sounds like it's it's a very flexible code. So >> there's language in there that allows for the for the code inspector to be able to make changes that are in the interest of making things safer. >> Okay. So that was my question. Probably the first line in the code is the authority or the the authority having jurisdiction has final say. Correct. Something like that. Okay. Okay. >> Um All right. So then let's go to and I just wanted to get the question out about the glass and I know the building's been inspected. It's been you know we're still waiting for final inspections. Correct council? >> Everything was inspected. We're just waiting on final CO there. There's people in the building. There's a TCO but yeah we had final inspections. >> Okay. So there's no more inspections that have to happen. Okay. So the glass on the back of the building, your testimony in September was that the stair was moved away from the building. The stair going to grade was moved away from the building in case there was glass that shattered during a fire. Is that glass fire rated? And the reason I ask is I if we're providing egress for any of the other buildings, let's call it upstream from this. Now we're putting them in a position where they're walking by windows that your concern was that the windows would break in a fire, but we're putting them in that situation. So, you know, can we talk about the fire rating of the glass? Is this something that you're not allowed to you shouldn't walk next to? >> Well, excuse me. First of all, the um FTO3 tends to discourage having fire escapes next to uh window walls. That's why you never see a contemporary looking building with with a fire a conventional fire escape. But that said, the platform needs to be 5T and they put the fire stair in a fire escape. That that's as far away from the building as you can go. That's a 22 inch requirement for an FTO3. And it can't be steeper than 30°. >> Okay. Anything any egress door of which there is an egress door in the in the rear left here shown in this photo >> is required to have within 2 ft of it. The glass must be um fire tempered glass. Yes, >> tempered glass and fire safety tend to be a little bit nebulous. This isn't bulletproof glass. Be nice, you know, whatever for whatever. But the bigger it is, you know, sometimes they'll use double strain glass. >> I'm not sure what they used here, but I'm I'm sure it wouldn't have passed building code in Jersey City unless it was at least tempered. >> Okay. >> But again, and it, you know, I don't want to say the Hoboken buildings department didn't do their job. So did the Hoboken building department inspect this based on Hoboken code or Jersey City code? >> They basically everybody has can only rely on the FTO3 guidelines. >> Okay. >> However, that's being said, Hoboken is a class one fire district because it used to I when I lived there in the 70s, you had a fire a day out there. I mean, and so they could override the code. And so about 10 years ago, uh, I had to come up with a solution to the 11 foot maximum drop ladder. And we did a dozen buildings using a platform for the base. But the platform and the this wasn't just a fire inspector. This was the fire chief of the fire department. >> Okay. Basically, they they evolved interactively with with me to say that it had to be then a fixed stair. >> Sure. >> Didn't have to be a 45 degree, but it needed to be a fixed stair. >> But I guess the question is, does that stare have to be a certain distance off of the window, off of the rear of the building? Why is the staircase at the furthest point of the platform? Is that the question? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> It's consistent with the FTO3. If this was a fire escape, a a a regular conventional fire escape, that's the way they're done. Um it gets the stair furthest away from the the building and and parenthetically the glass. Uh, so anything that fronts a fire escape ideally should be required to be safety glass or or >> So, sir, is it your testimony that the fire stair being at the furthest point on the platform away from the building would be irrelevant to the fact that there are windows there, that the staircase is not there because the fire official was concerned with glass blowing out during a fire or is that one of the concerns? >> I would say that that's fair. It's one of the one of the factors. Ultimately, the fire code official, inspector, and so on, approval proving party has to on the side of making it as safe as possible given the constraints that you're dealing with with different kinds of buildings. If there was no windows there, would they allow you to locate the fire stair next to the building or would it still have to be that five feet off of the building? I think I don't know the answer to that except to say that I've never seen a fire escape that has the fire unless there's some secondary configuration like a fire a proper fire stair. Then you can get next to the building. But a fire escape, they always have it kick it out to the to the outside. probably partly because of construction reasons, but it it is also uh further away from the windows. >> Okay. >> So, I don't know if that's an unanswer, but >> and and presumably the building where a fire would be >> regardless of whether there's windows. >> Okay. Gotcha. Um Okay. My next question was the is it typical to not have some kind of I don't know if I would call it a railing but thank you Mr. Lewis that's perfect. Um so to the right of that ladder is there a fall hazard? So, you're you're walking right backwards off of that third floor balcony onto that ladder. So, is that standard that you would walk backwards to a >> Yeah, it's a it's it's typically done, let's say, from the top of a fire escape to a roof. It it's it's standard practice. This is really a standard practice the way a fireman would get to that level. Uh hopefully a person doesn't have to go down there and smoke and everything. But uh that is the conventional practice. >> Okay. >> And it was accepted. It was reviewed and accepted and more or less >> okay safest way we we could but we couldn't go from ladder to ladder to ladder. >> Yeah. >> You know it's enough ladders right the time you made it to the platform. you know, you're home free. >> Okay. So, there's no there's nothing in FDO3 about having a some kind of safety railing to the right of that ladder. So, you're you're exposed. You're on the edge of the building right now with nothing between, you know, essentially a foot over is is the edge of the building. If you fell, you go that way, >> right? It's last resort. >> Okay. So there's no code saying there has to be some kind of safety mechanism there. >> No. >> Okay. >> I think that was it for me. >> That's all I have. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. >> Anybody else? >> Council. >> Council. Okay. Good evening, Mr. Winer. Oops. Sorry. >> I'm sorry. >> Oh, thank you. Thank Thank you. Okay. Um so the the recent set of drawings um that are labeled as built are are these drawings that were given to and discussed with the Hoboken building department for the variation. >> I prepared all of the plans uh for the Hoboken building department specific to the uh this is this was a part of them. This one I prepared. >> Okay. But these are dated February 12th, 2026. >> These are submitted uh a number of months ago. >> Okay. So, you just change the date then. >> Updated or revised date? It's typically you'll leave the original on and you'll put revised. >> When you say a number of months ago, how many months are we talking about? >> Um, sorry, I don't remember. I've been at this probably for close to a year and a half. >> Okay. Um, >> so the so the Hoboken code official did see drawings of the fire escape. >> Yes. >> Okay. But they only saw them after it was already built. >> No, no, no. Uh, they we had a very rigorous process of of application. Uh, it started and we have a whole file here that that shows what that paperwork was. I prepare an application asking for a variation. We have a copy of that. It's signed. It's it's signed and >> Okay. And it's it's the handwritten application that's in the and but it did it doesn't reference any drawings in the handwritten application. >> Well, typically this justification a request for the variance. There are reasons >> this has to do with this is this is a going to be a constructive easement. It also required the uh school that owned that property to give its okay. Okay. Um, now on um the the drawing labeled as built fire escape first floor, I think that's what's up right now. Um, how wide are the stairs on the fire escape? >> I show them it's 24 in. >> Okay. Where is that dimension on there? >> Let's see if I on there. Okay. >> Yep. It it must be at least 22 inches. It it is I believe 24 in width. >> Okay. Um how are you com are you doing the math like looking at the plans or how are you coming up with the 24 in? >> The only allowable dimension minimum dimension for a fire escape stair which this is emulating >> okay >> is 22 in. That's required. >> Okay. >> Minimum. You can make it bigger though. >> Okay. When you say emulating, what do you mean by that? It's not a fire escape steer. >> This is a hybrid of uh of an FTO3 interpretation that is arrived at um by making making a a platform with clearance underneath that has a fixed stair to grade. that has been required uh in similar situations in Hoboken projects. I've done this also in Jersey City as well on Martin Luther King >> Boulevard, but I'm don't want to digress. Sorry. >> Um I'm just curious. I mean on other projects you're referencing are are are these old buildings that are being retrofit or when when does this normally come up? >> They vary all over the place. Sometimes they have an illegal first one I did it it had a drop ladder that was excessive in height. That is to say more than 11 ft. And so this was the first time we started to say let's create a separate platform. We meet that requirement, check the box. But it has to have a fixed stair. >> Okay. Um I'm just curious also on you you have a fixed ladder, then you have a drop ladder, then you have this stair, this the stairway. Um why a drop ladder in the middle of the fixed ladder going to the going to the balcony and then the fixed stair? like why a drop ladder in between those two? >> We didn't have an ability to to build a fire escape basket much bigger uh than what we had here. So we have a minimal one next to a brick section uh of of the window wall. >> Okay. And and drop letters usually under FTO3 are only go down to the >> maximum ground maximum 11 ft. >> Right. But that they usually are only used on going down to the to the ground level. Why? What's the rationale for only allowing the drop ladder >> to to be used going from like the I guess the top of the first story to the ground? Like what's the rationale for that? Normally >> if we could have used a stair we would have but the whole configuration did not allow for conventional fire escape. But I'm just talking generally about FTO3 when it says you're only supposed to use a drop ladder going down to the ground level when the distance is 12 feet or less. What's the what's the reasoning behind that? Are you familiar with that at all? >> This this was basically hammered out between the not just the fire inspector in Hoboken, but the fire chief and the chief building inspector. uh to deal with this kind of thing. We're literally creating an artificial ground >> that says you've you've made it. So the drop ladder goes to this artificial ground, >> but you can't go down with another drop another ladder. You need a stair for the last part of it. >> That was the the requirement. I've used it in various shapes and forms. >> They're trying to get us the safest uh solution that they can. >> Okay. So, back back to your drawing. Um, what's the distance from the And I asked Mr. Lewis the same question, but I so sorry if I'm being redundant, but what's the distance from the edge of the stair to the column supporting this platform? >> The edge of the stair that I >> the edge of the stair to the column supporting the platform. >> Uh, they're roughly they're roughly coincident. They're in line. You're Are you're saying that you think it looks like it it uh intrudes on the the area way? It doesn't. It's below the platform. The stair goes >> Yeah. >> But that wasn't my question. My question's just about that distance between the edge of the stair and the column. >> Um not sure. I'd have to >> Okay. But the edge of the stair and the column. See, we're we're shooting to get a 5 foot wide platform as close as possible to that because it's getting trying to emulate or get as close as possible to the requirements of a standard fire escape which is five feet >> minimum. >> So I got it made it as big as we could. >> Five feet minimum for what? width >> and width. Width of a I guess the width of what? >> Okay. If I'm going out that window and getting onto a fire escape, that fire escape wants to be five feet. >> Oh, >> wide because the fi the 22in stair is going to be the outboard side of that. >> Okay. Okay. I think I think I'm following you. Um and um I asked Mr. Lewis this question, but I'm going to ask you too. Are the are any of the windows on the rear wall um at on the first floor level operable? >> Uh that I don't know, but I believe he did testify that they are of an awning type window design. >> Okay. >> That do project out a little. >> Okay. Now, um I guess if we could go to the next drawing, the side the asbuilt side view. Okay. So, um there are no heights given on the drawing, but there is a graphic scale. Um according to the sta scale, can you estimate approximately or can you estimate the approximate height of the bottom of the fire escape platform to grade? It's It's approximately seven feet because there is I've I've walked it. It It has been walked. There is clearance. >> Okay. >> It's pretty close to seven feet. >> How tall are you? >> I'm f I used to be taller, but I My wife points out that I'm probably about 5' 8 and a half now. >> Okay. Um All right. Uh now the drawing also this this this drawing also shows the rear property line. I guess that's the dashed line to the right of the fire escape platform, which I think we we all know is incorrect. >> Well, what is that where >> or you have to address council? So council's question is I don't know that there was a question count council statement was the dash line on the right side of the exhibit reads and is identified as the rear property line. >> Okay. Question was coming though. Um so >> that that dotted line is not the rear property line that um that's where the the school fence is. >> Okay. which abuts us but our property line is in the in the face of the building there >> is is the property line uh depicted on this plan at all >> it's it's depicted on the uh the former plan I think we showed that but again we we need we did make a correction showing the 9 in uh difference between the this being 9 in less than the uh 89 bright street >> can you actually can you just go to the the page before this so we can see if the okay so is >> at the bottom there's a dimension that I I had made made a field dimension that should be correct approximately 5 foot n but again that wall then on the right side is actually is a batten wall it has it's >> sorry I don't think there was a question >> okay so there there so there's no property line depicted here. I either >> I do not show a property line. No. >> Okay. Um, is it is it possible that someone reviewing the plans and seeing the dotted line or seeing the baton wall would get the impression that the fire escape is within the property boundary of the 87 Bright Street property? >> No. >> And why not? it it's full. This is basically a full lot coverage building. The the survey shows very clearly that the building doesn't have any wiggle room. It has to it has to be allowed to use this easement to be able to to uh put this >> and the the Hoboken code official saw the survey. >> Sure. >> Okay. >> That's why I was asking for the variance. >> Otherwise, I wouldn't need a variance. Well really I I thought I thought the variance was for the design of the fire escape, not the fact that it extended beyond the property boundary. >> Parallel with this was the application that went to the school to allow that us to to uh build this configuration. >> They gave approval for it. >> They wouldn't need to give approval unless it was their property. So I wasn't trying to airs >> it actually the fire escape my my understanding is this this fire escape doesn't follow the design the normal fire escape design parameters and that's why you needed a variation from Hoboken not because of its location extended extending beyond the property line The variation was for both the design I mean >> for the design because Hoboken can't give me approval to build on the school's property. >> Right. Right. But even even if you even if the even if the property like the the the sort of rear passageway belonged to the 87 bright property, wouldn't you still have needed a variation from Hoboken? The reason uh it was kicked to Hoboken for this uh part of the design that I'm the caboose here. This is the last thing building was ever basically done. >> Wouldn't you still have needed an approval from some code official in some municipality no matter what? I mean >> in Hoboken. Yeah. >> Okay. >> That was a decision made by the Jersey City, >> right? But I'm I'm I'm actually not asking about why it went to Hoboken. That was not my question. My question was the the project, this fire escape that was constructed after the building was substantially completed required a variation. Please explain to me why the variation was required. >> Did they give you a copy of the variation? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So that you have the answer. It's my original. >> So can you explain? >> We'd like to hear it too, sir. >> I'd be glad to. Can I do you have a copy of the variation, please? Thank you. >> These this is my handwriting and I think this has all been put together. >> My applicant statement, >> sir, what's the date of that document? >> Council, you can't just be handing witnesses documents. >> I'm coming back to enter to enter it in. So, >> council, has it already been marked into evidence? >> It it sure has. Uh what is it? >> So this is pages uh this is page you're looking at page two. Uh I don't recall the exhibit number but it's on the portal. It's labeled exhibit marked at board hearing hearing presentation 87 Bride Street 210 2026. >> It's not how we mark exhibits. Council, you and I both know that. >> I I understand that council. I don't recall the uh >> it's A4 A4. Thank you. >> Stop. I see it. >> I just wrote them down. I promise. >> Okay. So, I think my question's still out there. >> Council can give us one second. Give me one second. Thank you. Council. >> Okay. So, so Mr. Winer, could you just briefly >> Council >> Yes. Oh, >> both of you. Yes. Yes. Both of you. This is A4. Do we agree? >> Yes. >> This is A5. Do we agree? >> I have no reason to disagree with >> Okay. >> Do you want to show those to the witness for your questioning? >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Okay. >> These are yours. So council for purpose of the record A4 was marked in September. It's the application for variation for fire escape. It's dated March 15, 2024. A5 is Hoboken permit number 2019 3141 plus B. >> Okay. Thank you. Um so um Mr. Miner, I wanted to just hand to you what what we all agree is A4, which has been marked into evidence already. Sir, hand the documents in your hand to Mr. Joseph, your documents. >> Okay. And I know you've already um offered testimony about this application for variation, Mr. Winer, but if you could just briefly explain what what was the reason you applied for the variation. >> I could not design a conventional fire escape. Uh and so we wanted to come up with a design that was as close to conformance with FTO3 as we could. This first justification or request is basically explaining that the existing glass curtain walls did not allow for the install of brackets that would be for a basket. Uh and then beyond that a drop ladder would not be allowable from the second floor because it's excessive. It would exceed 11 ft substantially almost twice as much. >> Okay. and a platform uh the alternative to the sub code that I I came up with which is this is a platform with post support supporting allows adequate headroom for egress you know underneath and then a fixed stair degra from the platform and fixed ladder to the second floor. Uh this is uh uh then uh embellished by the fact that there is a small section of brick facing the window >> that window wall that uh so that fronts the the platform. So this was the safest possible place that we could find and still meet the requirements to allow egress beneath it and the minimum three feet. >> Okay. And when did you submit the application? When did you submit the application for the variation? >> This this >> Yeah. >> 31124. >> Okay. Um >> Okay. Thank you. Um I just had one last I think I should take that. Okay. I just had one last question for you. Um, you you had testified. Let me actually let me make sure I don't have more questions. Um, okay. Okay. you had um testified, I think, when we were looking at the the ladder um that goes from the third the third floor to the second floor, the one that um doesn't doesn't have a railing as Chairman Langston pointed out. You you said hopefully a person doesn't have to go down there. um >> originally talking about from the top level, that is to say the that level. Yep. To to this one, that's a fixed ladder, >> right? >> That's like a J ladder that would go up to a roof, which that nominally is. >> And and you had said normally that's something that a fireman would go up that kind of ladder. >> That's how they fight fires. They go from the bottom up. Everybody else is going top down. >> Okay. Normally >> nobody up there. >> Okay. And normally a person wouldn't have to go you you said hopefully a person doesn't have to go down there. Um I mean is isn't that the whole point of designing a fire escape when you you know you're you're planning for worst case scenario? >> Yeah, I know. I I do fire escape inspections. >> Okay. >> Hundreds of them. You know what? It's terrifying. And I always think of the poor kids or older ladies or men that have to go down these things and say, "I pray to God that nobody has to use it." That's just my own >> That's just me. >> It's not easy. That's why you don't see people going up and down fire escapes, maybe kids. Mhm. >> But that's also why they have drop ladders rather than a fixed ladder to limit, you know, anybody coming in >> a little more. >> Okay. Okay. Well, thank you. That's my last question. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, councel. >> Those are Mr. Joseph if you wanted to return them. We're going to bring Sam Bellamy up now to uh conclude our direct testimony. >> Okay, council. The time right now is 10:05. We have a hard stop for 10:30. >> Okay. No testimony whatsoever after 10:30. >> Yes, I do. >> Samuel Bellamy. Last name B E L L A M Y. I have no idea. Mr. Bellamy, good evening. Uh, your license is current tonight. >> Yes, Kernan in good standing. >> Okay, thank you. You're qualified. >> Great. Um, so my firm, Jres Robin and I were brought on to this application to review the original approval and the resolution and review the asbuilt plans um as submitted. Uh, our firm was not part of the original application and and approval. Um, so this was coming in with fresh eyes and reviewing the documents to see if there were any additional variances or or deviations needed by way of the changes and amendments that we're seeking tonight. Um overall my conclusion after reviewing the prior plans that were submitted and approved and the resolution that they were recorded in and the asbill plans um that we since seen tonight um is that there are no changes to the uh original variances that were approved and that there were no additional variances um with by way of those changes that were made to the plans. Um after reviewing the resolution uh there there were three prior existing non-conforming conditions that remained the same uh with the original approval. Those were for building coverage, lock coverage and rigard setback. So those did not change. You heard testimony from Mr. Lewis. Um based on a survey and his um field visit, there were no changes to the the actual um building itself. uh as far as coverage or or setbacks from the rear yard. There were two C variances that were approved with that original application. One was for building height and the other was for on-site parking. Those conditions remain the same and were unchanged by the uh the amendments that we're seeking here tonight. Um the special reasons giving and recorded in the resolution for application P18120 um included uh advancement of purpose A, purpose G and purpose I and purpose J of the municipal land use law. I think all those purposes uh of the municipal land use law remain intact um with the proposed amendments that we're seeking. Um and overall this was an adaptive reuse project in the Vanvor historic uh district. it was bringing a non-conforming use into a conforming use. I think the reasons given by way of testimony and recorded in the resolution and therefore approved by this planning board remain intact with the amendments that we're seeking tonight. Um unless Mr. Joseph has any direct questions, that would really conclude my direct testimony. I >> Okay, council, anything for Mr. Bellamy? >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. >> All right. So with that, that does conclude our direct testimony this evening. We will uh reserve a closing statement until after opposition. >> Of course. >> Of course. Okay. Thank you, council. Council, >> so um we we we do have two witnesses with us here tonight, but um the first witness is Cecilia DeLeon. She's a licensed architect. She would testify about a plan review, but her presentation is somewhat lengthy and she didn't want to get cut off in the middle. >> Yeah, I'd rather not cut off any testimony. >> Okay. So, um if we could I guess if we could uh resume the hearing on another date. >> Sure. Okay. >> Sure. So, you want to cut right here? >> Yeah. If if if that's okay with the the board. Yes. I think I'm going to say no to that. Okay. So, um Cam, what are we looking at for a uh continuation date here? >> Um and if it helps, I want this right up front. Nothing in front of it. I don't know if that's possible. >> So, we can't do April. We can't do May. And um I think it would be best to have it on an agenda um to itself. I'm I'm thinking the second meeting in June, which would require renoticing. Um and that would be June 23rd. >> Can't we carry notice? So, >> actually, I'm sorry. Um, it it would be June 30th. would be June 30th. June 9th and June 30th. >> Yeah. June 30th is that last June meeting correct? >> Yeah. >> June 30th. >> I am here, >> council. That's okay. >> So, if that's the earliest possible day, that's the earliest possible day. We'll we'll, you know, take what you give us. Uh we we did conclude our direct testimony. Believe cross-examination's been completed for those witnesses. Um, I I would like to get some sort of assurance that that people aren't going to be removed from the building between now and and then. Um, I there's been some violations issued and uh >> yeah, that's not my purview. Um, I assume there's somebody you have to speak to about that. Uh, I'd like Tanya to confirm that we're not going to have to you know, deal with that between now and then. >> We're not going to make any of those decisions right now. We're going to push this to the next available date of June 30th. And hopefully, even though it's summertime, we have a full complement of the board to hear the continuation of this application, which is now on for the better part of a year and nine months. Understood. >> Okay. So we are carried to June 30th and you will renotice. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you everybody. We still have one more item and I see that no one is here to present that item. So Cam, do we have a Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Harrington. I >> Thank you. >> I lost you there. >> I wanted to stay for the end of the movie. >> Good ending. >> It's a trilogy, baby. Okay. So, we're uh talking about item 24, case P2025-0133, >> right? And I I'd ask that it be carried uh well, my understanding is the May 28th is all already done, >> I believe. So, >> um so I' I'd ask uh maybe for June 9th and my understanding is that I'd have to renotice that we're go you're going Zoom. >> I don't know. I haven't been that is correct told yet >> officially. >> I'm sorry I let that the cat out of the bag. >> I don't know where you get this information. >> I guess we're going to have an executive session, aren't we? Tonight. >> Sorry. >> That's okay. >> Thanks. >> Um >> June 9th. >> Okay, so June 9th. >> Thank you, council. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. So, let's move on to memorialization of resolutions, please. >> Mr. Chair, I uh make a motion to memorialize the following resolutions. I have eight, just one late addition here. Resolution number one of the city of Jersey City Planning Board. Case number P205-000070 for minor site plan applicant Venet Kuganti address 28-30 Winfield A Jersey City New Jersey block 29502 lot 39 second resolution of the city of Jersey City Planning Board case number P205-0113 applicant at 208 uh I'm sorry applicant 208 Thorn Street LLC at 208 Thorn Street City New Jersey block 20001 One, lot two, decided on Tuesday, March 10, 2026. Memorialized on Tuesday, April 14th, 2026. Application for minor site plan. Number three, resolution of the city of Jersey City Planning Board, case number P206-0015. Applicant is Gary Maer. Address is 3442nd Street, Jersey City, New Jersey, block 11107, lot 6. Decided on March 24, 2026. Memorialized on April 14, 2026. Application for time extension number four. Resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City extending preliminary major site plan approval for one year. Case number P20 2026-0016 submitted by Newport Associates Development Company at 1066 Street block 7302 lot 555.01 and 16-60th Street block 7302 lot 55.02 formerly known as Second Street. uh block 7302 lots 43 and 55 resolution number five of the city of the Jersey City of the planning board uh case number P2026-000038 applicant Mojo Westside LLC address 445 Fairmont Avenue and 784-788 Westside Avenue Jersey City New Jersey block 16301 lots 9 and 65 decided on March 31st memorialized on 20 um April 14 2026 application for Extension of minor subdivision with C variances. Number six, resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City, Grove Street Partners LLC for extension of preliminary and final major site plan approval of 659 Grove Street block 60002 lot 8. Case number on that P2025-0171 7 resolution number seven of the planning board of the city of Jersey City approving an extension of final major site plan approval applicant 36-364 uh 6th Street LLC for extension of final major site plan approval C variance at 3646 street block 9803 lot 8 case number P2025 0248 >> and finally the >> oh I'm sorry final number Yeah. 8 resolution of the city of Jersey City Planning Board in the matter of Kennedy Boulevard acquisitions LLC 28 uh 2859-2873 John of Kennedy Boulevard 10601 lots 43 to 48. Case number P205-0167 decided on April 14, 2026. Memorialized on April 14, 2026. Uh zone three commercial center application for preliminary and final major site plan approval with deviations. >> Okay. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Roll call, please. Can >> vice chair Dr. Gonzalez. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Gongadan. Hi. >> Commissioner Wick. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Stamato. Hi. >> Commissioner Kaplan. Hi. >> Commissioner Patel and Chairman Lson. Hi. >> Motion carries. All in favor to memorialize resolutions. >> We do need an executive session. >> Sure. I'd like to make a motion to open executive session.