I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you everybody. Could we have a sunshine announcement, please? Yes. Good evening, chairman. Um, today is Tuesday, May 27th in the year 2025. This is a Jersey City Planning Board meeting with a scheduled 5:30 5:30 p.m. start time. Um, and in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, notice of this meeting has been given to the editor of the Bergen Record, LSPito, and posted with the city clerk on May 23rd 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. Thank you, Cam. Uh, could we have a roll call, please? Yes. Acting Vice Chair Gangadan here, Commissioner Torres here, Commissioner Cruz here, Commissioner Lipsky here, Commissioner Patel here, and Chairman Langston here. All right, we have a quorum. We have six commissioners present. Thank you. Uh, could we swear in the staff, please? Mike, I see you guys. Yes. Thank you. Uh do we have correspondence? Yes, chairman. Um we have one item that issued us a letter today via email requesting to carry and that is the very last item under new business. Item 19. That is case P2024-224 preliminary and final major subdivision. They've requested to be carried with preservation of notice to July 15th. And um the address on that is 222 to 236 Carney Avenue. Okay. Thanks, Cam. All right. All right. And uh we marked the uh sunshine as B1 in. Thank you. All right. So, let's get right into old business. Case P2025-000065 is a 190day subdivision extension. Good evening. Hi. Good evening. Um Veronica from Connell Foley. Uh on behalf of the applicant, I am covering for Thomas Lean tonight. Um I do we did notice for this. So I do have the original notice which I believe was uploaded in advance if I may approach. Please chair. I've had the opportunity to review the notice. It does appear to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1. was originally noticed for the May 15th meeting and carried to tonight with preservation of that notice. Okay. Thank you, council. Thank you, council. Go ahead. All righty. Thank you. Uh, so the applicant here um received minor subdivision approval uh under P2024-000067 by resolution dated September 10th of last year. Um, so the subdivision need to be perfected by March 19th of this year. um applicant now seeks an extension of the time to be able to file that subdivision approval. Uh there is an existing mortgage on the property that is um preventing the perfection. The owner is now the new owner as of last year is asking for a little bit additional time to pay off the note in full and make sure that the property is unencumbered. Okay. Thank you council. Any questions? Anyone? Okay. Is there anybody here from the public that wants to comment? Anyone from public? Sure. See no one from public. I would like to close the public portion. Second. All right. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. General, any uh anything you want to add? Yeah, I just want to ask the applicants to comply with the conditions in the original approval. Yes, we agree. And with that, uh staff recommen approval. Okay. Thank you. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve case B205-0065 as presented together with staff recommendation and conditions from the original approval. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second for approval. Acting Vice Chair Gangan. I. Commissioner Cruz. Hi, Commissioner Lipsky. Hi, Commissioner Patel. Hi, Commissioner Torres. I and Chairman Millis, I. Motion carries. All in favor? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, council. All right. Let's move on to item B is case P205-000069 is an extension of a final major site plan approval with deviations for 78 Bishop Street. This Veronica uh law firm Connell Foley. on behalf of the applicant. Um, we also provided notice for this case as well, the original of which was uploaded on Tyler in advance. If I may come up. Sure. J, see the affidav proof of publication with respect to the application. It does appear to be in order. We are going to mark it as A1 for purposes of the record. And again, I note that this was originally scheduled for the prior meeting in May and was carried through to tonight. Thank you, council. Okay, so the applicant here, uh, Bishop Street 78 LLC, um, they are seeking a one-year extension of their approvals. Um, they obtained their approval under case number P23-014. Uh the resolution was dated April 25th, 2023. So the approvals did expire uh this year. We are requesting one one-year extension to April 25th of next year. The reason being um the previous owners had obtained this approval. Um the current applicants had re recently purchased it and they just are requesting a little bit of time to get up to speed with the project and finalize their construction jacket and pull permits and whatnot. Okay. Thank you, council. Any questions? Anyone? No. Is there anybody here from public that wants to comment? Anyone from public? Sure. See no one from public. I would like to close the public portion. Second. Okay. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Camp, anything? Um, the existing conditions still apply. Yes, we agree. Okay. Um, planning staff recommends approval. Okay. Thank you. So, I'd like to make a motion to approve case B205-0069 as presented to the board together with staff recommendation and conditions from original approval. Second. All right. Motion is made and seconded for approval. Acting Vice Chair Gangaden. I. Commissioner Torres. Hi. Commissioner Cruz. I. Commissioner Lipsky. I. Commissioner Patel. Hi. And Chairman Langston. I. Motion carries. All in favor? Okay. Thank you all. All right. Let's move on to case P2025-000075. It is an administrative amendment for 200 Monttoello Avenue. Good evening, council. Good evening. I'm Rebecca Mariello. I'm an associate attorney at Connell Foley. Um I'm unfort unfortunately I'm not Thomas Lean. Um a few of us are here tonight covering for him as he's on a very well-deserved vacation this week. Um we're here I'm here on the behalf of the applicant Monttoello 200 LLC. I have the notices that were sent out on this case council. If I may approach and mark this as A1. Okay. Thank you, man. I appreciate it. J receive the affidavit and notice proof of publication with respect to the application at 17 Juul A, 20204 Monttoello Avenue here in the city. Does appear to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for purpose of the record. Thank you. We are here tonight seeking amended final major site plan approval for this applicant. This property is located at 72 JW Avenue, designated as block 16801, lot 45.01. This property is located in the Jackson Hill redevelopment plan area. Um, by way of brief background, on September 6 of 2022, this board granted an application by this applicant for preliminary and final site plan approval for the construction of a fivestory building consisting of 38 residential units. two and 2,331 square feet of groundf flooror retail commercial space. We're here tonight seeking amended approval. Um we're still looking to construct a five-story building. We're decreasing the unit count from 38 units to 36. So we're decreasing by two units. Specifically, we're removing two groundf flooror units and we're going to increase the groundf flooror retail commercial space to a 3,816q ft retail space. Um, specifically, the space is going to accommodate a daycare/school. Um, the proposed tenant is currently working with the board of ed right now to um open up this space this space should it be approved by the board tonight. Um, and the second through fifth floor plans are unchanged from the prior application. So, the only thing that's getting changed that the proposed changes for the ground floor. Uh, lastly, I want to note that we're in receipt of the city's planning report dated May 22nd, 2025, and the applicant agrees to all the conditions stated therein. As my first and only witness, I'm want to call Jeffrey Lewis. Hi. Yes, I do. Jeffrey Lewis. J E F R E Y L E W I S. Mr. Lewis, good evening. Your license is current tonight? Yes, sir, it is. Okay, thank you. You're qualified. Thank you. Okay, so we have the plans up. Um, as was mentioned, uh, there were no major changes here. There are no exterior changes proposed to the building. The building was actually built as it was approved, and then this tenant came to us asking us for a little more space on the ground floor. Um, so what we can see on the left, what was built, which is the retail commercial space in the front and those two apartments in the back over here. And then to the right, we see what uh we're proposing here. So what we're proposing is to eliminate those two apartments, convert that space to commercial. That would increase that space to 3,816 ft and reduce the residential units from 38 to 36. Uh just to walk through very briefly, Monttoello Avenue is on the bottom of this drawing and JW Avenue is on the right. So we're proposing the main daycare entry would be at JW Avenue over here. The original commercial space was broken into three separate classrooms. Uh the two new spaces uh the first apartment is being used as a break room and an office and the second apartment is being used as classroom number four. Uh there are just a few minor changes that we had to make to accommodate this new use. Uh all the bathtubs were removed, the washerd dryers were removed, and in that classroom space, we removed a couple walls to open that space up. Um and then as was mentioned, the planning report did request uh six outdoor bike spaces, and that's something we can work with planning to uh find room for. Um that really is all the changes we're proposing here. I'm happy to answer any questions about it you may have. All right. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. I have no questions. Anybody else? Yeah, I just uh Mr. Lewis, I just want to double check with you. The entrance now um in the hallway on your left hand side that goes used to go to the apartments. Now it's going to be just an exit only for Yes. Emergency exit for the daycare. For the daycare. So nobody from there that's going upstairs could go in through that door. Yeah. This door, this door here would have a fire door with an alarm and you wouldn't be able to open it from that direction. Okay. Thank you. And Mr. Lewis, why are your pointers there? Um, that stair to the right side, right where your pointer is, that's the down or that's the up. This This is going up to the second floor. There are a few steps down here to get to the street. Okay. So, that door doesn't open up into the egress of the stair. No, that's correct. Emergency door. There's no That's right. Yeah, the stair the bottom of the stair is right here to the left and goes up and there's nothing going down. Okay, understood. All right. Anybody else? Any questions? Yeah. Is there a drop off? Um, we're I we're not proposing any changes to the to the street at all. And then that space that is on the upper left hand. Um, so you got like like you threw that box over it. And so that's just going to be dead space or I'm sorry, where are we talking about? So where where your arrow is above it? Yeah. This is going to be a break room for the people who work at the daycare. But above that, above that, this is a backyard. Okay. This is yard space that would be accessed from the break room. And then what's capacity for uh students? Um I don't know the number. I mean four classrooms. It should be uh 60 if it's AVID, right? And the remaining will be e-coded for educated for the remainder of the addition for education use. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Of course. Okay. Anybody else? No. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Council. That's your presentation. I don't know if that works. Um, yes, I submit. We have nothing further to present before the board. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Uh, is there anybody here from public that wants to comment? Anyone from public? Chair, see no one from public. I would like to close the public portion. Second. Okay. A motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Eric, do you have anything you want to add? Not too much to add. Um staff agrees with the testimony provided by the applicants professionals. Um the as as we all heard the professional um agreed to the conditions enumerated in the staff memo. Staff recommends approval. Okay. Thank you. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve KP2025-000075 as presented to the board together with staff recommendation and approval. Do I have a second? Okay, we have a motion and a second for approval. Acting Vice Chair Gongan, I. Commissioner Torres, I. Commissioner Cruz, hi. Commissioner Lipsky I. Commissioner Patel. Hi. And Chairman Langston. I. Motion carries. All in favor. Okay. Thank you. Thank you everyone. All right. Let's move on to item D is uh case P204-0178. This is the review and discussion of fire Broadway redevelopment plan amendment. Uh this uh zonering requirements for zone 3. formal action may be taken. Uh my name is Eugene Powellino. I'm with the firm of Chernova Burns and I'm here on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is um uh Aanir Westside Square LLC and a West Broadway Corbin LLP. The one's the developer, the other is the owner. Um this is an amendment to the FET redevelopment redevelopment plan. There was a um a prior redevelopment plan, the original redevelopment plan that was passed in September of 24. Um this seeks simply to amend uh zone three. Um the reason why zone 3 relates to the east side of vacated Westside Avenue. West Side Avenue dead ends at that location. Uh it was vacated by the city and this development is to the east side. You might know it best as the location where Pooini's restaurant used to be. Um the U applicant seeks to u change zone 3 to allow for the construction of a a change in that location. And you may ask why um in September of 24 this was not part of the original redevelopment plan. Here I am in May almost June. Uh the reason for that is we were in fact ready for uh submission at that point in time. However, um planning division had some issues with respect to clarity. They wanted some assurances as to construction of a plaza. there's a plaza that's involved in this and as a result we they continued with the the uh the original redevelopment plan and we sli sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl slid this off to this date. Um the existing condition of the property is is interesting. There's a building called we call it theano building. There's a deli there and um it's on the first floor. It's a four fourfloor a former manufacturing building. The other three floors are vacant. Um, it has historic preservation qualities that we're addressing. Um, there is a building called the Puchini building which is a one-story floor. Uh, memorable meals, but I don't think the the building is historical in any way, but adjacent to it, adjacent to it, I didn't mean to make you laugh, believe it or not. Adjacent to it is a is a um stone building re a brownstone building which is uninhabitable. Uh it is vacant right. Uh we had engaged with the historic preservation uh officer uh Maggie O'Neal and went through a number of iterations as to how this should be dealt with. And the way this is the way the Erkolano building and this other uninhabited building uh is dealt with is that an interesting way is that the facade is retained and a piece of the of the sides are retained uh and then the rest of the building is developed. It is incorporated and the development that's proposed. Um there have been uh a number of um community meetings that we've attempted to organize and were organized by others by uh Mirror Pinser who is was on your board. Um one meeting was in was uh several months ago, November 14th actually. Um the city was there, the architect engineer was there, um department of transportation of the city was there, um and a number of community people. So we had a fairly good turnout. There was a more recent meeting last week, as a matter of fact, in which there were a number of people who turned up and we went through a similar presentation. There were concerns um to be very frank, there were concerns that were raised by the community, but the concerns uh seem to be divided into two different things. I don't want to speak for them, but you'll see that it relates to an existing construction contract construction area and then this area. Um the the changes to the redevelopment plan include um control of when the vacated Westside Avenue would be developed as a plaza because that is not going to be built on. There's not gonna there's no building that's going to go on that that vacated street. It's going to be open public plaza maintained by the developer. And there's another area on the other side uh on Corbin Avenue which is presently a city street which is going to be redelivered to the city as open space uh but is not going to be um developed in terms of a building or anything that's that's going on on it. you you'll hear uh testimony from only two witnesses. Um the witnesses Bruce Stevie who's the architect and Gold Despire who's the uh planner. Um I just want to take a brief moment and I won't be long but to list the amount of community benefits here. This is a property that will be subject to affordable housing. Um it contains um the Pacini building will be removed. It's presently vacant and it's not you know useful right now. The three floors of the of the factory on the bottom floor of which is the Ergolano Delhi. Um they will be placed back into the tax roles. Um and uh as I said before uh vacated Westside Avenue will be developed as a public plaza with uh pavers and you know that kind of thing and Corbin Avenue will be open to the to the public as well. There is a temple at the end of the street. Um to date we've uh the the the redeveloper has allowed kind of a free flow for the for for pedestrians and I guess cars to get to the temple u with the opening of Corbin on the other side. That will probably be the entrance to that temple. Um that's it. I want you to hear the testimony of the two witnesses. the changes uh as I said before to this proposal and you understand that this is a uh redevelopment plan amendment that will require the municipal council to approve. So you're a re you're a recommending body. Um the the changes only relate to uh zone three east of west of vacated west westside avenue and the rest of the the uh the redevelopment plan stays the same. I think there were some uh clerical changes, you know, just clerical, you know, athe or an is or something like that and the rest of the thing that was picked up on doing this change, but other than that, the the rest of the changes are all zone three. Um, let me call my first uh witnesses. It's Bruce, Stevie, March Higgins, and Steve. Okay. Thank you, council. So, council, obviously, in light of your comments and for the public's edification, we're not going to be hearing a site plan this evening. At some point, a site plan will come forth in theory that if the board were to make the recommendation, although obviously the council has the ability to do whatever the council does, this body is just looking to see consistency with the master plan in terms of the amendment. That's exactly to the redevelopment plan. So that's exactly and I at both community meetings I tried to make that very clear that this is a redevelopment plan. We still have to come before this board and get a site plan approval and go through the entire process in that regard. Well and for the public edification right now the only thing this board does is look to see consistency with the master plan. Exactly. And then in order to amend the redevelopment plan, only the city council can take that action which of course council you understand. Uh yes, it is a city ordinance and has can only be amended by the municipal body. So I don't know how much Mr. Stevie wants to be showing of potentially the proposed development of the site. I would ask that we keep it limited because I don't want anybody to think that that does become the end product. Yes. guaranteed. Thank you. I appreciate that very much. I do. Uh, my name is Bruce Stevie. S T I Eve V. Mr. Stevie, good evening. Your license is current. Yes, it is. Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. Thank you. Um so we're here tonight and again uh just to give a brief overview of a concept for the uh uh proposed amendments to Fyet Broadway redevelopment plan. Um I have here a map and outlined in red is the redevelopment plan area and then shaded in white it highlights that redevelopment area and the proposed project is in the red square shape in the center of the project. Um the site is bound by Broadway, uh the vacated Westside Square, uh Corbin Avenue to the east, um and then uh the Seek Temple property to the north and then the path tracks further north of that. Uh the site is located in zone 3 of the Fyet Broadway redevelopment area and um it occupies about 29,641 square feet or 68 acres. Um, as Mr. Pelino mentioned, um, we've been working with Jersey City Planning and the preservation uh, historic preservation commission of the city of Jersey City uh, to integrate uh, two um, historically significant facades. The first is 1072 Westside Avenue. Um, in speaking with um, preservation commission, they asked that we maintain a minimum 8 ft of the building facade. So, from the front facade facing Westside Avenue, 8 ft back into the building. Um, it was also requested when we were speaking with them that the facades be integrated into the design of the building and not necessarily appear pasted on, but rather integral uh into the building design, the concept building design. Um, the second uh preservation opportunity was for uh 54 Broadway. Um, this is the last of the three brownstones remaining on Broadway in this location. Uh, it has the green facade. It's to the left of the red line that you see on the screen. Uh, again, it was asked that we uh maintain 15 ft from the front of this facade back into the uh the building. Um, this is a concept rendering of how we might propose to do that. Um, you can see on the let me get my controller here. You can see in in this location the what we're calling the Eolano building facade um that has been retained um and designed to become an integral part of the base of the building as well as the uh brownstone um on Broadway. Um the the the remaining corner of the building uh is conceived to be uh uh industrial in nature. Um to build on the language of the Erolano building. Um it will wrap at that fourstory elevation. Uh the redevelopment plan has uh certain guidelines. Um 15 ft uh set back on the ground floor from Broadway. uh and that's to create a a generous uh sidewalk and and opportunity for activities leading into the Westside Square Plaza. Um and then um and then the building goes up for uh to the fourth floor and then steps back 15 ft again from Broadway to the uh to the remaining floors of the building. Um there's also uh um we've created an 8-oot setback on Westside Avenue again to respect the uh the the building depth on of the Ergolano building. This is a concept ground floor plan. This really just diagrams the uh 15t setback on uh on Broadway. Um, so with that and the existing 16ft sidewalk, the building will be set back approximately 23 feet at the ground floor, providing opportunities for activities on the ground floor outside. Um, as was mentioned, a section of Corbin Avenue that is currently under ownership of this developer will be dedicated back to the city to allow free access along Corbin to the back of the site and the sites behind us. Um, it's anticipated that all loading, moveins, u deliveries will happen inside the building coming in off of Corbin Avenue as well as access to any required parking for the building. This is a conceptual upper level plan that shows the building stepbacks com that that comport with the amendments to the redevelopment plan. Uh again, above the uh fourth floor, the building will step back 15 feet along Broadway and eight feet along Westside Square. This is just an overall view of a concept idea for the building. Um it shows the existing building under construction uh to the west of Westside Square, the proposed building to the east of Westside Square, and other developments that are happening in the neighborhood. Uh again, further to the right of the page, but again, just for everybody's clarification, we're not hearing a site plan tonight. This is the change to the redevelopment plan. So that rendering is not in front of us tonight. I had a question. Why are we looking at this? I mean, if there's something in the redevelopment plan, then I should be reading something to change the redevelopment plan. I'm looking at something like this happens all the time. It's gone on for years. Yeah. And it's the same conversation. Very confusing to the public. Anybody sitting here thinks that I'm going to be voting on a project for a developer and I'm making a change to an amendment for a developer to build something. And that's not the case right now. I said I just spent whether the sidewalk is at the what the redevelopment plan calls for, it's not relevant right now in this conversation. And we keep doing this all the time. Well, the the sidewalk it's part of the plan, but what he's showing me doesn't mean that's what they're going to build. I don't know that. So, I by showing to me the measurement of the sidewalk now really why am I looking at it? I don't understand. Well, we want the measurements that are we want it to be what the red when they come back. No, that's the site plan. No, that's the changes that we're hearing tonight. Okay. Changes to the phys. see this the nice it's a hard Irman Mr. Torres, I I absolutely agree with you. It's hard to it's hard for a for people that are not familiar with what we what we do uh to understand that you know we're not talking about a particular building. We're talking about a generic lo location and but however the redevelopment plan is a zoning document. So it has to have a lot of the time dimensions you know like it's going to be this far set back or that or that high or this And so you it's my attempt is always to try to make it real. Um and maybe that confuses people and I hope it doesn't because we kind of try to repeat and I repeated in community meetings but that that's the confusion. I understand I get it and I understand this is a conversation we have for years. I understand that we need to see it. It can be done in writing but when I'm looking at this like this it's it's just very why am I looking at this? Absolutely. I got it. And it's it's tough on the public. They're looking at a rendering and it looks great. It's a great picture, but it's it's not, you know, the the hard facts of what we're looking at tonight. And clearly when there is when there is a specific building that you want to build with all the dimensions and all the sidewalk, you know, measurements and the heights and the size of the rooms and everything that's involved, we've got to come back and do that. But that's not tonight. No. And we'll got that dig in both hands when that comes back to us. But, you know, let's stick to Why don't we get to numbers now? I am amendments to the redevelopment plan and how they're consistent with the master plan. Yep. That's it. Before he goes, anything for Mr. Stevie? Thank you, sir. Next time. This I'm introducing as a witness goldpire from topology and she'll take it from there. I do. Gold Spire. I have my business card in case you need it. G O L D A last name S P E Y E R. Miss Spy, good evening. I don't believe we've ever qualified you. It's your first time here. I've been before this board. It's been years a project on community, but I've testified before this board. I actually back in 2017 worked for the department of community development for the city um since been more than five years out but I've also testified before the uh Jersey City zoning board as well. Okay. Um and I have my license. I'm a planner and my masters in city and regional planning and my AICP. Okay. And that license is current tonight. Yes. Okay. Thank you. We're qualified then. So just kind of hearing the feedback. Um, I presume copies of these plans have been with the board and to I don't want to like itemize every single amendment, but it is zone three. I don't know if you want me to just turn to the page numbers and then I'll get right into the master plan consistency. I'm just trying Are we able to share what those changes are on the screen or is it something that you're going to need? You wish. I I haven't planned for that because it's it's it's just that one section. If we could let's get you on mic council just so the recording the recording is not picking you up. Thank you. I'm sorry. So I I it's in a portal. We haven't I haven't gotten it on a on a I can't put it on the screen. At least I can't put it on the screen. I don't even know how. Which section of the redevelopment plan are we referring to? Sure. So it's page 20. Cam, can you help us out? Can you bring something up for us? I got it. If you go in the portal, I mean, but getting to the portal, you're going to need cam because if you go in the portal, it brings you to the artist. And if you go into the search under the case, council, if you have it on your laptop and want to put it on the screen, I'll accept that. I don't know where he got his tan. Not New Jersey. Definitely New Jersey. I haven't been anywhere. Okay. But your fingerprints are all over this document. I see all the edits. No, this is the one that's on the port, right? The redevelopment. You want to scroll? I'm just going to scroll. Um, thank you council. It's on your screens. Yep. Yes, page 20. So, this is zone three. And zone 3 is actually divided into two parcel well not two parcels but two we'll call it areas of land, the west side and the east side. And there is a site plan that has been approved. It's been in construction. And if you're looking at the bird's eye aerial that would be on the east, I'm sorry, the west side of Westside Avenue. Um the intention no zoning changes that would remain in place. Um so we're really focusing on that um key piece of land to the uh east side. And so as uh council said, what is relevant here in a redevelopment plan is it is your zoning code. It's your zoning ordinance. it supersedes. And so what I'm just going to skim through and I'll I'll kind of hit on the points, but what we're looking at here is zoning to that area that wasn't really previously zoned for land use. So a project when you have a redevelopment plan, you need to have a project. And so that's what the zoning is envisioned through communications with the city planning division, neighborhood meetings, um through this developer and a real collaborative project. um well thought out and intended to be, you know, memorialized in this plan and through a redevelopment agreement to have public benefit give back. So, I'll I'll get into that consistency in a moment, but the high points is that a public plaza will be incorporated into the plan. Um zoning parameters allowing for a mixeduse residential building up to 18 stories as well as that historic preservation. But these will be all the amend the amendment is putting that zoning into place. So for the sake of not repeating too much, I would like to just get into the um master plan consistency at this point unless there's any specific questions. Okay. So under the municipal land use law and what we have here is another layer of New Jersey law which is the local redevelopment housing law. The city has conducted a rehab study of this area which allows the city to enable such a redevelopment plan. it was found as an area in need of rehab, this parcel amongst others. And so this is really in response to that and within the redevelopment plan, which is already adopted, it speaks to a requirement of um being substantially consistent with the master plan and to effectuate that master plan, which is a pretty recent master plan actually in the city. So I'm going to do a twofold thing. I'm just going to do a macro how this redevelopment plan continues to still be uh consistent with the master plan and then get micro into the redevelopment plan, this amendment and and what the uh master plan speaks to. So there's a couple chapters within your master plan. I'm going to mostly speak to the land use element in this regard. And what your master plan says on a macro level, which lays back to this um redevelopment plans, is it really recognizes the need for a scale of buildings and a mix of buildings and housing. So page six to seven specifically of the redevelopment, I'm sorry, of the ma of yes, of the redevelopment plan cross references your master plan. It speaks to continuing efforts to enhancing residential neighborhoods through this mix of various buildings. Um, it talks about different types of variety of building typologies between town homes, mid-rise apartments, as well as high-rise apartments. It speaks to consistency with um the Journal Square neighborhood and the path and buildings that respond to activate that type of environment. what the um redevelopment plan says that cross references to the master plan. It also speaks to about strengthening neighborhood oriented commercial centers through trans transit stations. And this is all going to relate back in a moment to my the zone 3. But as you um can see we are looking to do a public plaza in respect to a envision future path station here. So this is what I would say really responsive to all these key points. And then lastly, it speaks to ensuring the city's available housing is balanced and that all current and future residents are part of this diversity as well as inclusionary housing. So, getting a little micro now into zone 3 specific. What the general theme of this amendment is is it's taken what is really an underutilized parcel that's really not reflective of your R3 zone anymore. There is that adjacent parcel that was approved by site plan actually by use variance in 2019 for high-rise because at the time it was a high-rise apartment proposed in the R3 that was a mid-rise low-rise neighborhood and that that speaks a little bit of volumes as to where this neighborhood's going is a different type of building typology that's more mixed use as you saw in um the aerial that was presented under the architect. This is that donnut hole in the redevelopment plan. So absent of this zoning, there is kind of no zoning. It's a weird floating zone right now. And so we're trying to establish, you know, what is that consistency with what the other zones are, zones one, two, and four, and what their um typologies allow, as well as what has been kind of happening in the trends over here. So, it also is responsive to activating what is going to be a path station that really isn't going to be I wouldn't say impossible, but not easily accomplished under traditional zoning to give that you know, we were talking about that setback and and that um easement to give back to the city. That's really all um not, you know, under traditional zoning, especially the existing R3 zoning, it's um it's very challenging. And so what the city saw and what was the genesis of, you know, some of the pieces, but this piece of the redevelopment plan is to be able to have that public give back as well as these sidewalk improvements, public maintenance things like easements to the city that's really better suited within a redevelopment agreement, within the zoning of a redevelopment plan, and really with that city oversight that you just cannot get under traditional zoning. I'm sure this board has seen that before. So the land use element um specifically I want to get back to that rail transit. Um what page 27 of the master plan speaks to is about expanding those services and expanding Westside Avenue with that new station. So, um, again, I've already talked about the Fiatt setback that's all envisioned, uh, continues to be consistent with that. And also, your redevelopment, I'm sorry, I keep changing those terms. Um, master plan speaks to is about, um, open space and working closely with developers through the redevelopment area. And again, the public, you know, it might not be that um public park exactly, but it is a public space that isn't um not as prevalent in Journal Square as you would see in other neighborhoods. Um your master plan, especially on page 179, it speaks to working closely to serving these areas and that, you know, there might be a lack of this in Journal Square. So this is part of that project vision and to um you know do this through that thoughtful design. Again you have a housing element which has an inclusionary zoning ordinance. So this would be consistent with that. The new residential units would be have that set aside. And um I'm sorry I know I'm jumping around. So the open space element is actually where it speaks to on page 34. It talks about the historic downtown un munipal having those higher concentration of public parks whereas this neighborhood as well as other neighborhoods like green greenville westburgen west side and the heights and the five corners they tend to have less. So this is why this project is um been thought out with planning this mixed use. Um everything I see points to consistency. Yes, my mic is off. Um we lost your your feed. You lost my feed. Your feed onto the screen. Oh, can we bring that up just so we can, you know, the public can follow along with what you're you're presenting? Yeah. You're gonna have to log back in. Oh my god, there's a lot of ones. Mhm. It's just ones. So take it from what's the consistency with the master plan? So for my pro professional planning um review, I find this consistent with all of these points, the open space element, the housing element, as well as the land use element. I don't see anything that's inconsistent. It's my professional opinion that this is consistent with the master plan and I'm happy to take qu um questions, but may I ask some questions? Sure. Sure. Go ahead, council. So, is the is the uh plaza area at the vacated Westside Avenue uh is that a consistent element of with the master plan? Yes, I would say that's consistent with your open space element as I stated before where it talks about the concentration of parks and open space and the lack of in the journal square and that this can give that opportunity and the preservation of the specific buildings that are indicated in the redevelopment uh plan amendment that is the Erkolano building and the residential building. Is that consistent with the master plan? Yep. I know the city has um an April 2024 historic element. Um, I would say that's consistent as well. It's to follow protocols. We've worked with HPC and I would say that's consistent as well. Yes. The construction of of a a high-rise building, is that consistent with the master plan? Yes. It speaks to the typologies. And the inclusionary inclusion of affordable housing in that in that development, is is that consistent? Yes, we would follow any inclusionary zoning ordinance. And I assume if that it's true with respect to the vacated portion of Westside Avenue would also be true with respect to the give back of Corbin Avenue. Is that correct? Correct. And again that's something as I said not easily accomplished under traditional zoning and that's all outlined and memorialized in this redevelopment plan. I I have no other questions. Okay. Thank you council misspire. Um, can you point us towards anywhere in the plan where it mentions what the inclusionary housing element is? Is there a number? Is there a percentage? I think it would be um, you know what, let me look it up before I speak off cuff, but it tends to just cross reference your your zoning ordinance. So, I just want to make sure. So chapter 187 is your municipal inclusionary zoning ordinance. And so it would so while this plan supersedes it does defer to your land development ordinance either typically when it's silent on something or in this case it just cross references but that's not a proposed change to the plan. It's section five. It's in the plan as existing already. So there's an affordable housing requirement for everything in the plan. Okay. Everything that got amended is subject to 187. Okay. Understood. Right. Um the historic element on the let's call it the Urkalino building. It only goes back 15 feet on the north side the north facing facade. Mhm. So that ghost sign on the roof or I'm sorry at the the upper edge of the building. Is that preserved? Is that not preserved? Is that spelled out in the the changes? I'm just going to turn to that page because that's a very technical question that is probably very technically answered within the page. But as you saw, right now it's illustrative renderings and we'll respect and acknowledge what's in sure the plan and um you know that probably will be designed out more by the architect. And I would imagine under redevelopment agreements that could be contemplated as well for kind of that extra layer of security if there's concerns. I don't know what page exactly is on chairman on this one perhaps. Sure. The uh discussions with the historic preservation officer Maggie O'Neal involved the facade of the building of both buildings. Um I don't think it involved uh retainage of signing or specifically referred to signage on the building. It referred to basically the architectural look of the building. Yes. So anything so as you turn that corner from the the west facing facade to the north facing facade. You got me? So the front of Eralenos is being let's break it down. Um, the front is being preserved. Yeah. The Erkalino's entrance is being preserved. Yeah. As you go around the side of the building, is anything being preserved on there? No. Okay. Either side. Okay. And the back. Because I mean, I'm not the historic preservation officer. I think that sign on the the north facing facade has a historical element. I don't think that was ever mentioned, sir. Okay. I don't think it was ever brought up as being a historic characteristic. Sure. Required requiring. Okay. Understood. Um, go ahead, Santa. Sorry, council. Perhaps we should just look at the amendments. there seemed to be a significant amount of verbiage added for this zone three and that's going to be the bulk requirements and as I understand it that's now being placed into the redevelopment plan. So the only other change uh Mr. lamp. Uh with respect to the um part of the property that is uh west of vacated Westside Avenue, west of vacated Westside Avenue was one of the issues that planning wanted to get clarified, which is there's a plaza being built. When is that plaza going to be built and what does it look like? you know kind of what are the dimensions that had to be and there's a bond requirement there for to make sure that it is built right so that that language was thr was added in okay and then we it dealt with the the east side of uh of the vacated west side but it sounds like we're literally now laying out the zoning for the site yes so we've added the zoning for the east side on the east side of vacated Westside Avenue. We've called it the zone three. Zone three includes both but this is west side of zone three now right and it's divided into two sections. So the section the first section which is but it did not exist and does not exist as we sit here today. What doesn't exist east and west of zone three there there is the the west side of zone three currently in the plan exists and is under construction that's the building that's under that's the west and on the east side on the other side of of vacated west side that was that was that had that was kind of left as as subject to further discuss discussion and that's what this is yes so that's my point yes yeah you're There's no zoning for this site under the redevelopment plan currently. I think they just preserved I think they just preserved the status quo for the zoning and then this fair statement for the west side or for both. No, no, no, no. Just for the just east side east side east side of the west side a plaza. So the east side continued with the same standards that were on the west side without the benefit of knowing how the property was going to be developed. So we just left it the way it was, right? And said, "Okay, we may have to amend this when the project comes to fruition." So now we're putting those standards in place. Exactly. Much more specifically now. Now we're specifically identifying the bulk standards like we always do in zoning. And the testimony you heard is what's being proposed in those bulk standards are consistent with the master plan because it satisfies this goal of the uh housing element of your master plan. this goal of the open space element of your master plan. If I'm understanding the test, you understand it exactly correctly. Well, the only the followup to that is in the on page 24 it says zone 3 west of vacated Westside Avenue portion and then it's the one two three fourth fourth one down says this redevelopment plan establishes the prior site plan approval as the permitted zoning for this portion of lot 30.01 01 west of the vacated. So that goes back to Eddie's point about prior site plan approval and that how that could No, it's a little different. Uh okay, the Oh, that confused me a little bit. This is a confusing location. I mean, we're that there we're trying to clarify two different pieces of property on two different sides of a vacated street, right? So, the west side of vacated Westside Avenue, if you follow me, that's already been approved and that's the zoning, right? And all this is saying is that's been approved and we're including it as it's been approved, prior approval. And then the east side, that's the new stuff. Can I just say one more point? So, we're recognizing that approval because that was a that was a zoning board approval at the time, right? Exactly. And abs, I would say absent of this language, it's kind of a non-conforming building. And then what happens if you want to, you know, do a little micro change, you back to the zoning board, redevelopment plans can't go that way. So, it really is just in a way administratively making things less complicated. Yes. So if if that language isn't in there, that site plan isn't conforming with the the redevelopment plan. So it's just adding that into the redevelopment plan after the fact. Any other questions? I have a go. Yeah, I have a quick question. Well, just uh a clarification if you just mind. Um, you mentioned the uh property uh in the master plan for the path station that if it ever comes into fruition, which I bet everybody that's lives there is praying and hoping that it happens one day. Um so with the amendments that are being proposed now you made a statement that it's going to make hopefully if it have comes into fruition this will make it easier than what the master plan already has forward. Yeah. So the bulk standards now I'll get a little technical with some of the bulk standards. it the fiot setback is to envision for that and you know make that site plan realistic so that it's zoned to kind of accommodate that and then um you know it's it's not a redevelopment plan item but with redevelopment plans you have to have redevelopment agreements right and that's legal and very technical and that's where you get a lot of um public benefit and what makes it really a public private partnership kind of lives in that document And like I said, under traditional zoning R3 like this project, that project that type of benefits unlikely. Yeah. So basically and now the master plan and that would still be a vision one day hopefully. Oh yeah, it could come through. Okay. I was just I want to be clear on that. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Any other questions? No. All right. Thank you. That's it, council. I I've done it. Okay. Um Tanya, do you want to give anything or do you want to open up public first? Um I'm happy to just give a little color to a very I think confusing um application. I believe uh Chairman Linkson, you were on the planning board approval for this first site when Absolutely. kind of at the at the hearing they decided to give the 30 feet to the um train uh station right away. Correct. Yes. This whole property is one site. Um whoever owned Puchinis um and had all those parties had a lot of political connection because they were able to vacate both Westside Avenue and Corbin. So if you're looking at the parking lot, Westside Avenue, Eralanos, Corbin Aav, and then the building next door, it's all one lot. And so it was first a planning board approval. It met all the R3 standards and had the 30-foot setback. They went back to the drawing board, went to the zoning board to ask for a height deviation on the parking lot. So it was five stories and 12. The 12 stories is kind of what kicked it over with additional density. um also providing that 30foot right ofway. So that's why it's confusing with the east and the west. The westside avenue will become the public plaza and that's why we kind of differentiate it um between that way. I believe they're being condoed. Is that I I didn't want to get into that but I can. I mean it's not condominium units. I don't want you to get into it coun I just wanted so um that approval is what's being held the 5 to 12 story approval it also did include approval for Erolano's building and the building next door that is now kind of being separated out and that's the west part west portion in the red in our plan we do take into consideration if they wanted to continue that approval and do an amendment we can kind of talk about that if you really want to um The big clause there is that zoning board approval didn't really have um a way to make sure that the public plaza was given back to the city. So they can do a site plan amendment for the zoning board approval which we call west side west of westside. Um and now it will catch the developers agreement for the public plaza if they decide to never do this application. Um that's some of the the coloring shading to that. Yeah. Okay. And that's built into the first paragraph under the Yeah. amended. Correct. The other thing though is is further down it says now that the height can go upward of 18 stories. Does say that? Yes. Great. It's R3, but the prior approval kept that building exactly as it was. It was just going to be readaptively used for retail. And the building next door, I believe, was seven units. I'm not 100% sure. that building would be denied demolition today which is a part of why we have it as the it's being preserved under this redevelopment plan both buildings obviously so in my head I mean so there's zone three in my head municipal land use and then there's what's before us which seems to be different differentiations on that correct just between the west side and the east side okay and the east side is the one that's looking to have it differentiated yeah and as as a part of the upzoning for that um you Corbin Avenue is being given back to the city. Um the buildings are being historically preserved and of course the affordable housing and may may I sure add to this? and the Erolano building which has as I said has the deli on the first floor and then the three stores above it are just basically vacant and the apartment building on the other side that is part of the historic preservation that's vacant right now that's uninhabitable so the intent is to bring those into back into a a fruitful kind of use for the city I'd love to see solemn ecuano remain historically well there's an answer to that if you want me to answer that no no I mean, that's just tongue and cheek. That is that is a serious consideration of of the but that's but that's not what we're talking about. And and chairman I did the ultimate sin and texted the historic preservation um specialist on their maternity leave and said if you wanted to move the go sign to the west side avenue frontage to just that she she thinks it would be fine. Okay. I I mean I think it's appropriate. I think it's I just I just wanted to make sure it wouldn't be not unappropriate. Inappropriate inappropriate. I I think that ghost sign is as historic as anything on that building to be honest with you. So I I just don't know how you historically move repaint it. You just repaint it. That's all. You repaint it. Yeah. It's not Yeah. There's there's no real historic preservation. Just kind of keeping that. I know. Yeah. That's we can look into it. That was the wish. I have no it's, you know, obviously it has no bearing on the master plan consistency. I understand. It's a wish list. This is an aesthetic judgment, right? Yes. So I'm, you know, it has no bearing on any of this. I got it. But if you know we're preserving this, we can preserve some of that, too. Sounds like a great idea. Okay. All right. So Tanya, if there's nothing else, I'll go to public. Nope. Okay. Anybody here from public that wants to comment on this? Anyone here from public? Please come on up. Spell your name and give me your home address, please. Natalie Leone. N A T A L I E Leone. L I M as in monkey. O N as in Nancy. 55 Wales. And I have um just a short some some signatures that are related to uh what we've ma'am what I'll be speaking about tonight. You can speak to it. This board can't accept petitions. Okay. And we have three minutes for you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. So, good evening. We are fresh off the heels of a well attended community meeting about this issue last week in which residents expressed a universal desire to stick to the original redevelopment plan that left this corner of Broadway and Westside dedicated to retail only with no towers on top. Um, one note to start, the plaza that has been referenced several times is already part of the development plan and has already been planned with or without this amendment tonight. So, we're still getting that public benefit. Um, regarding affordable housing and the inclusionary housing element, between the two sideby-side projects from the same developer, there would be about 837 units, but only this new dream tower, cuz you know, it's not 100% yet, has affordable units. Um, we were told maybe 34 to 36. So, that's about 4% affordable housing amongst all of the units that this developer is building. That hardly honors the goals of creating mixed income housing like is stated in the inclusionary zoning ordinance. There's also not a varied scale of housing as is also mentioned in these goals um where there are no town homes. It's all uh towers and five to sixtory brick buildings. One thing about this plan that upsets folks is the fact that it proposes to preserve just the facade and first 8 ft of the historic factory building that houses Ergolanos which is um a legacy deli but also the only banquet space in Marian and to some extent Journal Square. In the earliest talks with this developer about their envisioned projects on Broadway, residents were adamant that Ergolon has remained and this was promised and as a result of this and other goodfaith promises involved community members made numerous concessions and endorsements regarding different aspects of the first phase of this project that they would not have made otherwise. Now, the neighborhood is being told that the promises will be honored, but not necessarily the way we all understood because Ergolanas will likely have to move to another retail space um in the other complex. Um because if this amendment is approved, they will be demolishing all but the front of the building it is in. Um this is unequivocally not what the community understood when promised years ago that would quote remain. The development plan is currently approved would allow for Urkalanos to remain in its entirety and for the preservation of more of this historic, cherished and active actively used building. This sort of bait and switch appears to be a trend with this developer as there was a similar misunderstanding regarding a block of street trees that that was removed for their existing project of Westside Square and folks are also disgruntled that the original um Westside Square plan had promised town houses on Broadway that they felt blended in and this was later changed. But most importantly for tonight um the developers have refused our request for traffic study u to look at implications um on Corbin Avenue before proceeding with any new plans. Corbin Avenue is already significantly burdened with traffic because of the sick temple back there and the Ergolano's parking. The street dead ends by the railroad track. So, there's only one way in out for all cars going to the deli and the temple. Any proposed project, including this one rendered, would likely have some built-in parking that would also enter and exit on Corbin given Westside Avenue is a pedestrian plaza. Um, the developers have told us they're not required to do a traffic study at this stage, but residents don't feel any amendment should be made to the redevelopment plan that would affect an already overburdened street like this one without a traffic study first. I collected about 25 signatures about that. Um, on this petition, a final concern of the community is the height of the towers that is proposed. Again, 19 stories were an amendment to be approved. Numerous people suggested that the towers at least be consistent with the height of the other one, which is only 12 or 13. And um I can't believe I got through all that in 3 minutes. Um please consider the community and leaving well enough alone and denying this petition at the very least until some of the community requests are honored. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Good evening. Good evening. Truth. I do. Michael Manzo Manzo 82 right Avenue. this lifelong Jersey City resident. Mike, good evening. We have three minutes for you. Good evening. I'll try and talk fast, but um it it seems that where we're going with this is a little different than where we should be at. First of all, I want to clarify this is the Marian section. This is not Journal Square. And anybody who wants it to be that way should just go to Journal Square. This is Marian section. When we came when the developer came to Marian with the project that's being built now, and I'll refer to it as the square. It's west of Westside Avenue. There were certain amenities that should have been realized that were promised us. Porches to indicate the facade like from Tongley Avenue going west to Wallace across the street. Maintain the height in the front three and four stories. Not to see the big towers in the back to blend into what the forefathers of our community had a vision for. One, two, and three family homes. There were some big ones here and there, but they agreed to that. little porches, trees, mature trees that were good for the environment. All of this was agreed to. The plaza that we have now was an agreement to offset the extra stories and making two towers instead of one tower. All of these things they're throwing in now like they're giving us something. There's nothing to be given. It was already spent on the last favor the community gave them. Still to this day, I'm requesting that the flag on top of their crane be changed from the Canadian flag to the American flag. I think it's an insult that don't they don't respect the country that this project is being built in. We started with the community to try and get their input. Two other developers came. We had mutual agreements. We got into uh this can help us, this can help us. Everybody was mature and we got to an agreement. They refused to come back once we told them the traffic on Corbyn Avenue does not work now. It can't work after they put all of these units. And that's without the square even in its fruition right now. We can't get on Broadway to go west to get to 440 or Route 7. We can't get out of the side streets to get onto Broadway to go westerly. This has to be resolved before anything gets built. Not to mention the infrastructure. We can have swimming pools in the back there. They have to shower every other day. They can't shower every day because the infrastructure can't take the the drain water. To build a a water detention tank under the public rightway is still a mystery to me how this was even approved. The public has to benefit from what they do. I I don't see that. I only see the developers being the beneficiaries of whatever they want to do where they want our neighborhood to go, not where the neighbors want the neighborhood to be. I hope that everyone realizes that the community that was there that kept Jersey City floating beared the brunt of when things were bad and we we made a good foundation. I hope that this application is denied to a future point where they come back have a reasonable mutual agreement with the community and therefore we all move forward to a better Jersey City. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay, anybody else? Please come on up. Testimony tonight is going to be the truth. The home truth. I do. Sure. It's a Joseph Capazolei. C A P O. Two Z's like zebra. O L I to Bryant Avenue. Mr. Capazolei. Good evening. We have three minutes for us. Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity. Uh I just I'll make it quick. Uh I certainly agree with the sentiments of both uh previous speakers, members of the community. I also want to thank you for yourself stating that uh this is very confusing because I will say it's confusing to me too. I came tonight actually thinking I was going to speak about a particular project uh that was presented to us last week and now I understand we're really not here for that tonight. But I just want to say quickly that when this I'll call it phase one uh when they came to the community uh to propose the project that's being built right now I guess on the we're calling the west side of Westside Avenue. There were certain uh promises and asurances that were provided to the community about things that we asked for. Uh because of that we did um we didn't want to be as tall as they are now. But we we agreed to that because we felt that they'd be in good faith give us what we asked for. One of the main things we asked for and stressed was the preservation of Erkolanos at the end of Westside Avenue to keep it as is. Originally that was part of their their phase one plan. They were going to do do retail on the um Puchini restaurant as it is now. And that building was not going to be uh hindered in any way. was going to be remain as it was. This is actually now changing that and they're looking to build uh higher on that prop on the Puchini restaurant, knock it down and build a tower as they say and it also now puts that Erkolano's restaurant in jeopardy. They have to move because they that building will not remain as it was which originally we were told it would. So that's my only comment for tonight. Uh I hope that uh going forward if this is approved uh I particularly think it should be it shouldn't be but if it is that at least we can go back to the the table with the developer and so on and hopefully they'll they'll listen to the community and provide us with the original promises that they did. So thank you. Okay. Thank you sir. We appreciate it. Anybody else from public please come on up. Yeah. Hi. Yeah the truth. I do. Next, Mina Abadier Ma Abadier Aba Dir 605 Pavonia Avenue for with my mother for the um she liv she now lives in a renting um one of the highrises. So, good evening sir. We have three minutes for you. Yes, sir. Um, basically I have a couple of talk questions but also concerns um from several I watched several of the the planning board meetings and uh my mother actually was s we sold her house um one of the high-rise another high-rise building coming and then I put her in a renting community rental one of the highrises. I began to realize that I guess she's immobile. So I I walk her through Jersey City now that I see a lot of these highrises coming in all these these areas. I think church city should have a demographic uh just like you're doing a study and now it's becoming a transient society. There's no elderly, there's no uh commuters. Mostly the commuters are coming out of transient. No, nobody really living in Jersey City. I mean I could say that but you could do the study to verify this. Um but that's that that's one of the major issues. Another thing is in terms of the planning board approval things previously and promises from these high you know high-rise developers. Why are the changes now? And if there's changes coming aboard, there should be more news new news traffic studies occurring. Um, new planning in terms of how the how the actual community is being affected by this. So, I don't see this. I see this kind of railroaded bait and switched by some of these developers and the planning board. Uh, in my own personal venue, you opinion is it's, you know, giving access to them but not to the public community. Thanks. Okay. Thank you, sir. We appreciate your comments. Anybody else? Good evening. I do. Charlene Burke. C H A R L L E N E B U R K E 56 Duncan Avenue. Miss Burke. Good evening. We have three minutes for you. Good evening. Um I'm here as the president of the Westside Community Alliance in support of the Marian section neighborhood um that I went to that meeting last week as well and a project was basically portrayed to the community. So it's very confusing when you see these large towers and the development that you had seen even the images tonight and yet people don't understand exactly bulk standards. I mean really that's how it should have been more portrayed and I don't understand why we're going from okay the variances were confirmed for the west side of Westside and now we're going to now incorporate them into the redevelopment plan but yet this site will be allowed to 18 or 19 stories. I'm not really clear as to why that's higher, why not equal to what the variances were approved. To me, that would be zone three unified. And for this area, the master plan was referred to many times, but where is about the integration into the surrounding neighborhood? That was all throughout the master plan process. what neighborhoods were clamoring about that much of this new development is not being integrated into the surrounding neighborhood. And when it's a low-rise neighborhood, where's the step up? Why do we go from three stories to 19 stories? And aren't there buffer zones that are stepping up into these higher elevations? And as some of the previous speakers, this isn't Journal Square where high-rise is an expectation anywhere in Journal Square. Now, this is one of the surrounding neighborhoods, the lower neighborhoods. And when they talk about traffic, Broadway is a nightmare. It's like 440 on steroids. and why this board doesn't even require or the planning department a traffic study that speaks about how it's going to circulate in this area given that it's only one one lane going towards Route 440 is just ridiculous. That should have been a requirement before this even went forward. and those plus the last thing I want to mention your um zoning board um agenda it doesn't even have the proper link to this redevelopment plan. It's to the artists that you're going to be approving later. Why? And I called Cameron Black and told him that link was incorrect and that was a week ago and yet it still remains incorrect. So if people want to find information about a redevelopment plan, how can they do it easily? They have to call in order to have it sent to them. To me, that should be a requirement that if that's not proper, then this is what's emailed out to everybody as well as hung on all of the city city um city halls uh wall. So proper information notice to the public was not done. So those are my comments. Thank you Miss Burke. Anybody else from public? Anyone else from public? Sure. See no more. See no more. There is no one I would wish to close. Second. Okay. We have a motion in a second. Public is closed. Uh Tanya, we had your comments before. Do you have anything else you want to add? Uh nope. Other than I just wanted to make sure it's clear in this redevelopment plan that um the dedication of Corbin and the dedication of the public plaza along with all of the specifications of its being public and maintenance is prior to the co for the east property not the west. I think the idea is to use um west in part of construction phasing. Okay, thanks Tanya. So, I would like Santo to just go over the the redevelopment process as far as how this comes to the board, what the board's responsibility is. It's ultimately city council's decision. We're just giving them a recommendation, but I'd rather have Santo do it from uh keep it all legal. Legal, right? Go ahead, sir. Thank you, chairman. Uh, as the board knows, and for those members of the public that are here, uh, so the redevelopment process is a little different than what you see us normally doing, uh, every other Tuesday. Please come on out. We're here eight hours every other Tuesday. uh in the redevelopment process there is a chance that something like this can happen where there's a redevelopment plan. So first there's a study that's done that study is presented to this board and this board is looking at certain criteria to determine if the area that's being studied is in need of redevelopment. If it is found by this board to qualify, this board makes the recommendation back to the council that the council take action. This board cannot take action. We make recommendations to the council. The council takes action through the adoption of either ordinances or resolutions and that's how uh the different parts of redevelopment happen. We're at the stage where the study has already been done. A redevelopment plan has already been done. Now, we're going to consider making changes to that plan that would allow for various uh development to go forward. Well, you've heard what those changes are. And the question that this board has to determine is, are the changes proposed consistent with the master plan? That's the only thing that the board at this stage in the proceeding is concerning itself with. Yes, it's consistent. No, it's not consistent. And whether or not we make the recommendation to the council that they go ahead and consider the redevelopment plan amendments because they are or are not consistent with the master plan of the city. With respect to the master plan, you've heard people talk about, you know, on page 197, this board sat through the master plan. Most of you were on this board and went through hearing upon hearings, studies, and the master plan is over 250 pages. The last time I counted it, I had to break it down into multiple uh exhibits in order to submit it to the court. I actually gave the court a colored copy so that all of the judges in the Hudson County courthouse have their own colored copy of the Jersey City master plan because it is something that they need and they don't like to look it up through links. They want to touch the paper. So we have given that to all of them so they can readily look at it. We reference various sections. But again the question is is the amendment consistent or inconsistent with that document which is very voluminous. So chairman board again I understand all of the comments. I understand all of the current concerns. I know all of you do but the only thing that guides you at this junction is whether or not what's being proposed is or is not consistent with the master plan. That's going to go over to the council. What the council chooses to do, the council chooses to do. It is just our recommendation with respect to consistency with the master plan. And chairman, as always, if anybody has questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Okay. Thank you, council. But with that being said, council, isn't that the understanding or the mindset that u bore the initial redevelopment plan that it be consistent with the master plan? And that I mean anytime it comes before this board or the city council, it's going to be uh up for interpretation at that particular point in time. Yes. Whenever we're amending redevelopment plans, the question is always consistency with the master plan. That's why we have people, professionals give opinions and back up those opinions through their review of the documents as to whether or not they find it consistent so that the board can actually weigh those testimonies and that evidence and help guide the board in determining it is or is not consistent. and then the council obviously will will consider that and how they move forward. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. If not, I'll entertain a motion. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve case P204-0178 as presented to the board with staff planning staff recommendation and sent to the city council for um approval. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? We have a motion and a second for uh a favorable recommendation to city council. Acting vice chair Gangadan. Yeah, I would just want to say based upon the um recommendation, I think it's consistent with the master plan. I vote as I. Commissioner Tarres, I want to uh thank the public for coming out and um and thank council for the clarifications all the time too to clear things up because I like I stated in the beginning of this when they were showing us what they plan to do in the future, things get confusing. And um so with that said, this battle is not over, right? because we're going to vote on I'm going to vote on what's consistent with the master plan, right? That's what I'm looking at. What they plan to do, whether the deli and the historic site, those are different departments. Those are different elements of what's in the future. People could talk to their council people. Whether the business stays in business or not, I don't know. that has nothing to do right now with what I am um here and asked to look at. Um and that's how my trip council's clarification of this. Um, I was on this board when 2019 when they looked at it the last the first time they came to us and um, I find that right now what they're asking and what they're willing to give us with the street and the park and hopefully the dream of having a path station there um, is consistent with the master plan. So with that, I thank the public for coming out, but I'm going to vote I. Commissioner Cruz, I vote no. Commissioner Lipsky. Yeah. So, you know, the master plan, I was on the the board uh when it was approved. I read through the documents. Um and that's great. I mean, master plans are master plans. Um in this particular area, you've got a school across the street, PS23. You got a church down the block. uh we've heard some of the concerns of um the traffic so you know and then when I hear about Salomuria Echolano I mean so on uh September 11 2001 I had gone down to Liberty State Park and was down there when Pasquali and Natali were giving food to all those people were coming from throughout the country when we went over to the pile and I'm on the world trade health program I got a purple heart the whole Um there's there's more to to redevelopment than just brick and mortar. It's heart and soul. I mean this town when you hear the people who came up who've been in that neighborhood for you know Mike's parents have been there for countless years and I think that plans are to serve people and communities and I and I don't know that this I mean it just sounds like a big disconnect between what Gene Pino says is meeting with the community and then the community coming up here with petitions and people who are valued and trusted and long-term members lifelong members of that community. So without belaboring this, I vote no. Commissioner Patel, I and Chairman Langston. So I I don't disagree with any opinion up here tonight. Um I I think there's some inconsistencies that still need to get ironed out. Um, but as far as the bottom line is is my vote is based on consistency with the master plan and that's here. Um, I think a lot of the issues that we've heard tonight can be brought up in front of city council, should be brought up in front of city council and that's where those changes can happen. This board has no power to make those changes. So my vote is I um again my recommendation that I think you know maybe we should have a little more historic aspect on the building saved. Um but again consistency with the master plan is there. My vote is I. Thank you. Motion carries. Four in favor oppose to favorably recommend to city council. Okay. Thank you everybody. We're going to take a 10-minute break real quick. It's only going to go up. Last words. Hey, how are you? just good luck. Okay. Could we come to order again everybody and we'll get to new business. Item nine is the review and discussion of certified artist Jonathan Fanaeka Shu Yang Aman Cooper Williams Abdul and Bruce Bea. Um good evening board. Um so these artists have been deemed eligible as certified artists to receive the um artist housing we have in Jersey City. um certified by the ACB, the artist certification board, and they've met criteria one, two, three, four, and five. And planning staff just recommends that the board approve these artists so that they can enter into the lottery to receive the artist housing. Okay, thanks Cam. Any questions? Anyone? No. Okay. Is there anybody here from the public that wants to comment? Anyone from public? Chair, see no one from public. I would like to close the public portion. Seconded. Okay. Motion is made and seconded. We have Cam's uh recommendation. So, I'll entertain a motion. Chair, I'd like to make a motion, a favorable motion to approve the um various certified artists as reflected in the agenda um for approval. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second for approval. Acting Vice Chair Gungertton, I. Commissioner Torres, I. Commissioner Cruz, I. Commissioner Lipsky, I. Commissioner Patel, I. And Chairman Langston, I. Motion carries. All in favor? All right. Thank you. Let's move on to item 10 is case P2024-000035 is a preliminary and final major site plan with C variances for 135 Garfield A. Good evening Steven Joseph Casano quickly trai for the applicant. This is a notice application. I do have our certified notices here. He turned around. Chairman, I receive the affidav proof publication for 135 Garfield Avenue. This had been previously scheduled and carried through tonight with preservation of that notice. I have had the opportunity to review it. What has been handed to me appears to be the original of the uh uploaded version. We're going to mark it as A1 for purposes of the record. Okay. Thank you, council. Great. Thank you. All right. 135 Garfield Avenue. This is located on the corner of Garfield A and Gates A in the R1 zone. Uh the applicant's proposing a new three-story multifamily building, 16 dwelling units, ground flooror parking. In order to accomplish this, the applicant is requesting preliminary and final major site plan approval with C variances for minimum front yard setback, maximum lock coverage, maximum cur curb cut width. What you'll see is all these variances are necessary to accommodate the parking which is not required because of the affordable housing being provided but was something that was strongly requested by the community that we met with. We went back and forth on the different versions of of the parking the parking count multiple times. We've have a few review letters that we'll talk about after uh uh direct testimony as well. Um but we do have two experts this evening. We have our architect. We have our planner. We're gonna have Ahmed get sworn in and we'll jump right into it. Okay. Thank you. I do. Sure. Ahmed Amara. E M A R A. Mr. Omar, good evening. Always a pleasure. Uh, your license is current tonight. It is. Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. Thank you. And do we have to mark your presentation? You do. We do. Mark, it is A2. How many uh how many slides? It is 20. And council will submit that after the hearing, please. Yes. Okay. So, A2 is the 135 Garfield A, Jersey City, New Jersey planning presentation dated of today's date, May 27th. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Go ahead. Uh I'll be brief. if I understand the scheduling. Um, this is 135 Garfield. It is on the corner of Gates and Garfield as Steve mentioned. Um, this is a slide showing the aerial view and the massing in the area. We have a school across the street. Um, there's also um, uh, two, uh, taller buildings along uh, Garfield Avenue right here. It is in the R1 zone. If I zoom in, it is the corner right there which is the 75.12 by 100 um which is about 75,000 7500 square feet. Um this would be the basic zoning which is the uh R1. You would have 75 and at a minimum uh lot of 25 by 100. You could have three um two families. Um the uh density is 42 units per acre and uh a minimum uh an additional one parking space you could provide. This is what's being provided on using the AHO uh unlimited density and uh eliminates the parking um requirement. Uh while that's the this is the proposal right here for the corner. While that's the case, we are providing 12 parking spaces. We've had the pleasure of meeting with the neighborhood, discussed the project with them, and the feedback we've got is parking is something that is uh needed and wanted in the neighborhood. So, we are providing parking. There is 12 parking spaces that are accessed off of a curb cut that's currently existing and we're keeping the existing curb cut. We've actually we're actually making it slightly smaller. Um, it's on Gates Avenue where my arrow is right now. And inside the parking, partially covered and partially exposed, is 12 parking spaces along with the uh nine bicycle parking that's required. And Ahmed, sorry to interrupt. Uh, we did get some uh review letters from traffic engineering and they did request removal of of one of those parking spaces. Yes. Yes. Uh, parking space number one, which I'll show in a second. We are requesting three variances. All three of them are relating uh in one way or another to the parking. Uh one is about coverage and the second is the um curb cut width which 10 is uh required. 16 is proposed, 23 is what's existing um and as well as the um uh the the front setback. Um this is the gates of avenue view. This is the garage entrance. Um, so the parking is completely masked from the from Gates Avenue. It's not visible and it's all behind the building. Um, this is the layout of the building on the ground floor. The parking is on the right side here. You come in and this is the spaces. This is specifically the space that the attorney just mentioned. Stephen just talking about this as the traffic report. They requested to for us to move um uh parking space number one, which is something that we're willing to comply with since parking again isn't a requirement. It's something that we would we wanted to provide in the project. Um move or eliminate. Eliminate. They wanted to eliminate. Correct. Yes. So, you're going to have 11 spaces, not 12. We will have 11 spaces, not 12. Okay. So, let's say that. Yes. Uh this is the second floor and the third floor. Uh this is a the threebedroom which is an affordable unit that's being provided. I should mention that there's 10% affordable requirement that comes with the HO um utilization of the HO. The 10% in this case are two units and we have a um a two-bedroom and a threebedroom and this is the threebedroom that's being um provided right here. Um the roof deck the roof uh of the building has um a green roof area as well as the mechanical area. There is no roof deck open to the public or to any private units. Uh this is a view of the entrance of the building along gates. And this is the building set back on the ground floor here along Garfield. And this is a night shot of the building. Um I do want to mention one other thing on the floor plans uh which is because this came up in the neighborhood meeting. U there was a concern about noise and um we did explain that on the inside here the bu the units that are facing the rear of the building. Uh these units don't have anything facing the rear. They're facing the street here. And then the units here that would be facing the rear are set back significantly from this neighbor by about 37 ft. And then um in this direction there is a there's a 3-ft setback from the building. Uh and then all the windows are facing in that direction. Not to mention that the assembly of the building will be in accordance with the building code. So any um uh sound classification will be met. Stephen, maybe anything else? I I would just want to ask you to confirm that we do satisfy the uh EV statute. We do satisfy the EV statute. Yes, this this project will comply with the state's requirements for EV. Are the the chargers are internal to the building or are they in the outside? there. The parking um is partially under the building and partially outside the building, but everything is is is like nothing is actually enclosed. Okay. It's all open. Uh and the chargers will be open. Okay. But they're in the internal portion underneath the structure or they're No, they're in the area outside. Okay. Gotcha. Um Okay, that's your presentation. Pretty brief. Any questions? them up. If you could just uh bring us up to the rooftop. I just want to see there's no mechanical equipment on the roof. There is there is mechanical equipment on the roof. Okay. Can you show us uh screening? Yes. With this area here will have a 4ft um uh screening. Okay. Fence. Okay. Very good. Anybody else? Any questions? Should you be demoing? Yes. The existing building. Correct. Three or just one existing? It's just one existing building right now. the way it is. It looks like it's two built right now. Yes. And there's a garage in the in in the same location with the same cut which is like I said the existing is 23 ft 7 in. Makes it look like it's it does it looks like a a bigger building than what it is right now. Um on the Garfield Avenue, if I'm on Garfield Avenue looking towards the building, um you have a space there with the the other existing building that's about what's the width of that space now that's going to be it's going to be about 5T or 3 ft. It's it's right now it's about 3 ft. It's going to stay the same way. Yeah, it stays the same way. Okay. And I should mention actually one thing that I in the site plan um as it at the built as the construction stands right now there are no trees and we are providing six trees. You're going to so the current condition no trees around the around the corner and you are going to supply trees. We're yes six trees right now and and and you should mention this area here this area that's has dotted space and that area as well are both depressed curbs. This is something that came up from um uh the planning staff and in in the review process and we did depress these areas to collect rainwater um in case of a storm storm during the um like from the streets actually not from the building itself. So the um entrance into the garage is facing the school. The entrance basically it's about maybe 100 ft from the entrance of the school too. Maybe or 50 feet from the entrance of the school. Yes. Yes. Um, would you consider some type of alarm when the cars are coming out or is it absolutely? Yes. Is it it's not to to indicate that the car is going to be exit? Yeah, it's it's only 11 cars, but yes, we can do a pedestrian alarm system that when the door opens, it goes off so people can alarm that something is coming. Have the children running there, you know. Absolutely. Give them an idea. Okay. I appreciate. Thank you. Absolutely. Yeah. Okay. Anybody else? All right. Thank you. All right. We're going to bring Charles Height up to do uh some planning testimony. I do. Yes. Charles Height. Last name spelled H E Y D T. Mr. Height. Good evening. Your license is current tonight. Bill current. Okay. Thank you. All right. Good evening board members. Uh I just want to reiterate a few uh uh pieces of uh of the presentation tonight. So we are in the R1. This application is implementing the affordable housing overlay district. So we are able to generate um a mix multif family development where we're proposing 16 units but part of the overlay uh affordable housing overlay is the requirement of two affordable units. So we are realizing two affordable units with this project. Um we do have three variances that we're requesting. Um with respect to the maximum lot coverage variance, what's permitted is 85%. What's being requested is 95.7. So just to reiterate a few of the design aspects that um go inside with the the notion of of a a good civic uh and urban design. Uh with respect to uh storm water mitigation, we do have a on-site detention system. Um we are also proposing 1,000 square ft of green roof. You saw that on the prior slide. Um we are integrating the six street trees and bio swailes uh connecting two of them or actually three of them. Um and there is atgrade landscaping that's being reintroduced along the front along Garfield and the sideyards. Um, so that does offset some of the additional coverage that's being proposed and the additional coverage uh is necessary to accommodate the rear yard parking. Um, with respect to the uh curb cut, um, I think it was uh covered pretty straightforward. There's existing 23 feet there today. We're actually decreasing that to 16 ft. that still exceeds the permitted, but uh given that the location of the curb cut, um where other utilities are, where the street trees are, just made it sense to to uh settle at 16. Um we are introducing the uh warning system and again this is for 11 vehicles, mostly residential. Um they typically all don't leave at the same exact time. Um mostly residential leave in the morning, come back in the late afternoon. Um but they're spread out across uh across a a set of hour hour two hour time. Um with respect to the front yard setback, I did just want to reiterate one point. Um we are requesting zero feet setback along Garfield and um Gates. What's required along Garfield is is 14 ft. Uh gates is a little less than that. But um with respect to the design, we're dealing with a corner property. Uh with the R1 standards, we have a rear corner point that's measured for a rear yard setback on the interior corner of the property. So while we don't while we don't have the necessary front yard setback, we're benefiting the interior of the property with greater rear yard setback. So just to reiterate those dimensions, um the distance uh from um gates is required to be 25 ft um where 37 ft's proposed. Uh and again that dimension um with respect to the rear yard requirement along um Garfield is 18 feet where 42.7 feets proposed. So there's substantial rear yard setback that's being provided. Uh in my opinion, I think the screen just went off, but um that's a benefit that's balancing the overall intent and design of the project. Um and one other thing to just reiterate is that this is at the intersection of uh Gates and Garfield where there are three other structures that are relatively unique, not necessarily the true R1 standard. Uh one is a school. Uh it's a relatively large institutional structure. Uh one is a mixeduse building with ground flooror retail, zero front yard setback. uh the existing structure today is a mixeduse structure with uh less than required um or or yeah less than required front yard setback. Um the fourth is really an industrial retail furniture store. It's it's kind of more of an industrial massing again with a zero front yard setback. So, we're just kind of completing the intersection, the the fourth intersection um with the design, and that's a good um design approach for the project. With respect to special reasons that the board could uh advance this application, I do think we're furthering purposes a for guiding appropriate development in in in the state of New Jersey. Uh implementing the affordable housing generating the two affordable units in my opinion is is meeting that uh guidance. purpose C to provide for appropriate light, air, and open space. Again, I I'll refer back to that balancing the building mass, bringing it closer to the to the public right of way and creating more light and air inter internal to the build internal to the lot. Um, purpose E to provide for appropriate population densities. Again, we're implementing the affordable housing overlay, which removes the density restriction and allows for um for multifamily uses. and then purpose I to create for a good civic design introducing the street trees increased landscape the sidewalk improvements so overall uh the application does advance those special reasons um with respect to the negative criteria um I don't believe there's any uh substantial detriment to the public welfare uh Mr. Mr. Torres has brought up a very good point. There will be kids likely walking along these streets being near um the the middle school. Uh having a safe safety detection system for for pedestrians is appropriate. Um we also are uh balancing light and air with uh the overall massing of the building. Um we did do a shadow study and that interior space is beneficial to uh to the overall property and reducing the impacts of shadows on adjacent properties. Um with respect to any impairment to the zone plan or master plan, uh again the R1 is uh the intent of it is to allow for compatible infill residential development and allow for the uh maintenance of a residential community. This is a multif family structure. It's going to be residential use. So that's very consistent with the R1. Uh and in my opinion, it is a compatible infill development. Um, with that, I think I've addressed my direct testimony and be happy to answer any questions. All right. Thank you, Mr. Hay. Um, there's no parking maximum here, correct? In the Not with the affordable housing, component. No. Okay. Understood. Uh, anybody any questions? All right. Thank you. So, just a couple of cleanup items that I I want to address. So, uh, like I said, there are a few review letters on the portal. One is a uh parking traffic uh memorandum from November 2024. Um there were some comments in there. We submitted revised plans in hopes of addressing those comments. Traffic was still not satisfied. Still recommended removal of the one parking space. We did submit subsequent plans. We were hoping to have more comments back tonight. Um but rather than delay the hearing, we've just agreed to eliminate that parking space and address the other comments on there. There's an MUA letter from November 2024. with no issue addressing any of those comments. There's also a a sewage uh comment letter that was on there I don't think I've ever seen before, but it's basically requiring us to replace a sewer line. Um all those comments are acceptable. Uh I think there is a small typo in the staff report that Cameron will address in staff comments. Uh but that concludes our direct testimony. Okay. Thank you, council. Uh is there anybody here from public that wants to comment on this application? Please come on up, ma'am. Good evening. Good evening. Okay. The truth. Thank you. Gail Waltz. G A I L W A L TZ 6 Bryant Avenue. Good evening, Miss Waltz. We have three minutes for you. My family's property is right next door at 81 Gates Avenue. Our concern is that the parking area is right underneath my sister-in-law's windows and my tenants windows. And I'm afraid we're trying to not have a problem in the future. We would like a better fencing put up so to stop the emissions from the cars hitting the windows. Um, we really like the project. We're supporting it. They had said that initially they said that there was going to be a rooftop party area. Then they said it wasn't. Now today they said it was for one tenant. So I don't know what the story is. Is it if just for the one tenant? Is it not for the tenants or we would like clarification on that and also we would like to know who is going to maintain this property in the future in case we have any problems. And if they could possibly put a sign in there where the parking area is that says no working on cars and no loud music, that would be awesome. It's reasonable. We're really happy that it's only three stories. Thank you. was I really don't like the pini property, but I didn't talk because everybody else did so eloquently. But yeah, we would like this project to go forward, but we do have reservations. Understood. Thank you. We appreciate it. Council, um I think those are more than reasonable. I I'm Yeah. No. Um I I did speak with John, I believe, uh Gail's husband this morning. Um, I did forget to mention about the sign. I I did tell John that we would agree to put the sign in the parking area 100%. Um, with regard to the to the fence. Um, we did a board on board fence. Um, I think the concern is the the gaps in between the boards because they're offset. We're happy to do just a classic stockade fence where there's no gap. Um, but we've engaged with with Gail and John and um the neighbors extensively on on this project. Um, they're also connected with the with the owners of of the property. They have their their phone numbers and are connected with them. Go ahead. That I'm remembering correctly. That is a six-foot fence too, right? Correct. You're putting back there six foot high board on board. Yep, that's correct. And and the that's the fence that typically is recommended by the city, but we're happy to do the just the Okay. the classic six foot stockade if that's Cam. Any objection to that? In this case, it's acceptable. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, council. And as far as maintenance goes, there's a there's staff on hand. somebody there will be a management contractor or something. Yeah. The intent is it's a rental property, so it will be a rooftop. Oh, and there's no roof deck for private for one unit or multiple units. There's no no roof deck on the building at all. Okay. Just a green roof. Just a green roof. That's correct. So, no access by anybody from the building. Just for maintenance. Okay. Gotcha. All right. Thank you, council. Anybody else from the public? If you'd like to comment, please come on up. Chair, see no one from the public. I would like to close the public portion. Second. All right. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Gam, anything you want to add? Okay. Um, planning staff is satisfied with the professional planning testimony given by Mr. Height. He testified as to the master plan reconciliation. He um addressed how this meets the objectives and goals of the AHO and the R1 um and how the variances um can be approved without having any detriment to the public good and the community benefits of the deviation would substantially outweigh any detriment. Um, this project's very interesting because um, this board likely remembers AHO projects of similar um, density and bulk um, with no parking. And this applicant has decided to put in the parking um, which is a more expensive process here and it was at the community's request that they've done this. So, um, planning staff believes that this meets the design criteria for the zone and it has um, met many of the concerns of the community. Um, planning staff only would like to add that um, we have a ninth, 10th, and 11th condition um, of approval. Um the ninth being that the garage will have an alarm to notify pedestrians as car cars exit and enter. Um a 10th to add a sign in the parking garage area as specified by um the resident and the 11th which is a fence with no gap um to block the car headlights. So um we can get that literature more um lawyer. Sure. I I could I think I could do that. Uh those conditions are acceptable. Okay. All right. Thank you, Kim. And planning staff recommends approval. All right. Thank you, Kim. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve case P204-0035 as presented to the board together with all the other additional conditions as discussed. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second for approval. Acting vice chair Gangaden. I want to say it's a very nice project. I like it. Um I felt the variances are very minimal and not detrimental. Work with the community. It's very important. Um my vote is I Commissioner Torres. Um I uh I double checked make sure I wasn't in that 200 radius so I could listen to this project. Um I do live in the neighborhood and um well I got a bunch of good neighbors. You know I didn't realize that they were able to get 11 parking spaces. That is awesome. Um, we seen another project down the street and there is one about five blocks away that did pro provide parking too. So, we got one that provided parking north, one in the middle decided not to do it and now this one going south of uh Garfield has gave us parking spaces and it's definitely needed. Um, it's uh well, great community. I'm I'm I'm glad for that. And um so with that, I'm going to vote a big I for this project. Thank you, Commissioner Cruz. Hi, Commissioner Lipsky. So, it's kind of ironic that Miss Walsh would come up here, who lives in the Maran, not Journal Square section of uh Jersey City, and sit there and have to suffer through the last application, but uh this application seems to not only benefit the neighborhood, but her um relative and her tenants. So, I vote I. Commissioner Patel, I. And Chairman Langston, I motion carries. All in favor with conditions. Thank you. Go to E2. All right, let's call item 11 is case P2023-000093 is a minor subdivision for 42 to 46 Nostrandav. Good evening, council. Good evening everyone. Michael Higgins of Castanoquigley Tramy. Uh on behalf of the uh applicant, I do have the original notices if I may approach. Turn receive the affidavit notes proof of publication with respect to 42-46 Van Avenue here in the city. This matter was previously scheduled and carried through to tonight's meeting with preservation of notice. Had the opportunity to review it. It does appear to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for purpose of the record. All right. Thank you, councel. Thank you. So, this is 42-46 Van Nostrand. It's in the R1 zone. It's an oversized lot in block 2591, lot 44. It's uh 8,14 square ft. Um the proposal this evening is to subdivide the existing lot into two new lots. Uh lot 44.01 will be 2,698 ft. And then lot 44.02 02 uh will be 5,46 ft. Uh so those are both a little bit larger than a typical 2500 square ft uh lot in the R1 zone. Um there is an existing building with historic features on the lot that will be on lot 44.02 and that building will be preserved. Uh and there are no variances at all as as part of this application. So, um, with that, I do have a, uh, surveyor here if the board would like to hear testimony. Um, but I'd leave that up to the board's discretion. Um, I don't know if we need it. Does anybody want to hear survey testimony? I think it's very straightforward. Um, Eddie. Yeah. Okay. No, I think we're fine. Okay. I know, right? Um, all right. Is anybody here from public that wants to comment on this application on a subdivision? Chair, see no one in front from the public. I would like to close the public portion. Second. Okay. Motion is made and seconded for uh public is uh motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Um Sophia, do you have anything you want to add? Any problems, comments? It is a relatively simple subdivision and there are no variances. I did want to put on record though that um with the subdivision it the existing building does have windows on the side that will fall on the lot line. And there is an easement that is also proposed to make sure that the new building well to make sure that there is access to maintain the existing building. And there's also an intent that the proposed new building, whatever that may be, will be 3'1 in away from any existing windows of the uh yeah of the existing building. So there's no conflict in case anyone was interested with that. So planning would ask that um the attorney and the applicant agree to the conditions listed in the uh staff memo dated April 21st, 2024th. All four except the third condition. It's not necessary. Those conditions are fine. Great. Uh, planning staff recommends approval. Okay. Thank you. Chair like to make a motion to approve KP 2023-000093 is presented to the board. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second for approval. Acting Vice Chair Gungaden. I. Commissioner Torres. Uh, Commissioner Torres. I. Commissioner Cruz. Hi. Commissioner Lipsky I lock. Commissioner Patel and Chairman L. I motion carries. All in favor? All right. Thank you. Thank you. Let's move on to item 12 is case P2025-000034 is a minor site plan for 319 Grant Avenue. Good evening. Ladies and gentlemen of the board. Um hopefully can you guys hear me? Okay. Yes. Okay. Um this is another pretty straightforward application. So, I'll I'll be as brief as possible because I know you guys have a heavy agenda. Um, Jennifer Kerk from PriceMe Showman and Darmano on behalf of the applicant T-Mobile Northeast LLC. Uh, T-Mobile is licensed by the FCC to provide wireless telecommunication services. The applicant is proposing to place 12 antennas and ancillary ancillary equipment on the roof of an existing residential multifamily building located at 319 Grand Avenue, also known as block 21802, lot 9.01. This is actually a replacement site. They are decommissioning a wireless installation located at 346 Claremont Avenue. So that's going to pick up the um you know swap out for for what's being decommissioned. So the city code provides that the placement of antennas on existing structures is permitted uh in all city redevelopment areas. This property is located in what is known as your westside Avenue redevelopment area. We also um in terms of the height, we're proposing a height of the building is at 69 ft right now. The height of the proposed antennas is 81 ft. Um because such height is necessary for T-Mobile's provision of service. Um this also is permitted per your code. Um the proposal also meets the design criteria set forth in of the city code for the but for the screening of antennas for which your planner per her April 16th report recommended that we do not do screening but instead we do um painting of the antennas to be battleship gray. Uh lastly, the proposal also meets the requirements set forth in the westside redevelopment area because the facilities will be placed on top of an existing structure. So we are not exacerbating any setbacks. So we are fully compliant and seeking minor site plan this evening. I do have with me my witnesses, engineer RF and planner. I leave it up to the board's discretion if they want to hear from any of them. Okay. Thank you, council. Um, the only question I would have, uh, I just want to make sure the painting on the antennas is a matte finish, not a gloss. Not Okay, you got it. Okay. But battleship gray. Yes, we love battleship gray here. You got it. So, the total the total height will be 81 ft. Mhm. So, it's 21 ft above the building. Yeah, correct. Sorry. I was writing down his uh comment. Okay. Does anybody need engineering testimony? The um just I want to a quick question. The uh the one with the stab buck head 21 ft above that the um Okay. So um imagine um everything is going to be fastened down through the roof or through I'd have to swear in my engineer in order to answer that question. the structural part. Yep. Happy to do so. Yeah. Eddie, if you want engineering testimony, we'll No, I'm good. I'm good. I'm looking at I'm looking at it better now. It'll be structurally sound. I can guarantee I'm looking at it better now. I'm just trying to see how um how free standard it is. Okay, I'm good. Council, do you have the original uh notices? I saw them on the um I do not but I can certainly provide them post meeting. Chairman, I'm in receipt of the affidav proof of publication on the portal. It does appear to be in order. This was carried to tonight. So, we're going to mark it as A1. And council, if you could just send those planning so we have them on file. Okay. So, if we're not going to get engineering testimony, I think we're all okay going forward. Yeah, I'm good. I see I I found what I was trying to say. Okay. Perfect. Uh, all right. Is anybody here from public that wants to comment on this application? Anyone from public? Cher See, there is no one from the public. I would like to close the public portion. Second. All right. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. General, anything you want to add? Um, Steph agreed to the professionals testimony and staff recommend approval. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Chair like to make a motion to approve KP 2025-000034 is presented to the board for approval with staff recommendation. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second for approval. Acting Vice Chair Gangan I. Commissioner Cruz I. Commissioner Lipsky. I. Commissioner Patel. I. Commissioner Torres I. And Chairman Lston. I. Motion carries in favor. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good even. All right. Let's call P2024-02000. Is a preliminary and final major site plan for 146 Summit Avenue. Yes. Good evening. Uh Mr. Chairman, Commissioners Charles Harrington of Connell Foley on behalf of the applicant. Uh, this is a notice case. So, uh, I do have the original notices to give to council. Thank you, Council. It's bright. Receive the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application 146 Summit Avenue here in the city. had the opportunity to review it. Again, this was noticed for a prior meeting and we've carried the notice through through tonight's meeting. It does appear to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for purposes of the record. Thank you, council. Okay. Thank you. So, the application before you tonight uh is for preliminary and final uh major site plan. It does have some uh deviations being requested as part of it. Um the property as you'll see during the presentation it's and and what's before you it's the uh between Summit Avenue and Clifton Place and and Fairmont Avenue which slopes down from Summit Avenue as you go down to the hill more of that industrial area and Cornell Avenue is at the bottom. So this is located within Summit in the Fairmont redevelopment plan which is not a it's not a large redevelopment plan. Um but uh if you're over in that area, you probably see the uh there was an old hospital uh formerly across the street that was uh demolished and and redeveloped. So this is kind of a mirror uh project that's across the street that slopes um down again from Summit to Clifton Place. Mr. Harington, I hate to interrupt you. What happened? This is 146 Summit A. That's correct. Did we skip 829 Bergenaf? Oh, that that was carried. I'm sorry. I must have missed that. Yeah. No, that that's in old business. Yeah, you have a different agenda, Santa. Yeah, if you look at the carry on. Mine says May 27th, but it's all right. Yeah, that's I have it on adjournments. See, Mr. paper right there. Number six, it it was adjourned on Thursday of last week. So, you likely printed one prior to that? It was It was adjourned prior to the sunshine. Yeah, I I actually have both. I have the one with 829 from last week that I printed and the one from the back of the room which has it listed as uh uh old business that was carried to June 10th. Good. All right. 146. Okay. So this this project before it's a sixstory and a sevenstory building uh because of the slope of the property and you'll see we are we are asking for uh some bulk uh relief on the variances uh uh specifically with regard to the number of stories and the height because of the slope. You'll see that during during the uh presentation it's also um utilizing the affordable housing overlay uh provision of the ordinance. So we will have 10% of the units will be affordable units. Uh we do have uh some parking uh within uh the project notwithstanding that the affordable housing overlay eliminates that requirement. Um but we have 13 spaces. Um we're also providing for 64 bike spaces for the 64 units. So it's a onetoone uh on the the overall uh project. Uh I do have um well I have four witnesses here but I I plan on on just presenting uh three. Our civil engineer uh Miss Galvin and then Jeffrey Lewis will take us through the architecture. Charles height will address the uh requested uh deviations and our our traffic engineer Mr. Paraguay is is here in the event there are any questions. Okay. Thank you. The truth? I do. Daphne Galvin. D A P H N E G A L V I N. Miss Galvin, good evening. Your license is current tonight. Yes. Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. Okay. Miss Galvin, if you could take us away. Sure. So, just to get everyone orientated, um, up on the screen right now, we have sheet five of 13 of our site plans that were submitted to the board. Um, those were originally dated October 7, 2024, revised through February 24th of 2025. For orientation purposes, North is generally up on the screen. So, over on the left side, we have Summit. Along the bottom, you can see Fairmont labeled right across the bottom. And then along the right side we have Clifton Place. Um the property is known as block 15302 lots 1 and 47 um street address 146 Summit Avenue. It's an irregularly shaped lot containing approximately 210 of an acre and it's located within zone two of the Summit and Fairmont redevelopment plan area. It's also subject to the affordable housing overlay. Uh, Summit Avenue is a two-way street with parking on just the east side, which is the subject side. Um, Fairmont is also two-way two-way street running east and west with parking on both sides. And Clifton is a one-way roadway running northerly with parking on both sides. The surrounding area is a mix of uses, uh, primarily residential. Under the current conditions, the site is vacant and there's a parking area on the eastern end of the site. Um there's also a access provided from an existing driveway along Fairmont about in the center of Fairmont Avenue. Uh the site is mostly impervious. It drains or is pitched from Summit down to Clifton as mentioned by Mr. Harrington. There's actually a significant elevation drop uh from the two intersections. It's about 15 feet from Summit down to Clifton. Um in the proposed condition um the existing improvements like the parking area and the driveway will be eliminated um and construction of a new multi-story uh building will be uh constructed uh with a total of 64 residential units and uh with a garage access at this location along Clifton right here. Um the building proposes a parking for 13 vehicles. Uh the parking requirement is waved under the affordable housing uh overlay. Um we're also proposing a 10- foot wide driveway curb cut at this location right here on Clifton and that widens to uh 14.9 ft for the entrance to the garage and that'll be discussed in more detail by the architect. Um along Fairmont, there was some early comments issued by the um traffic department of the city. uh they wanted us to modify the curb return along Summit. Um and in modifying that curb return, it allowed us to provide a loading area along Fairmont right in this area right here. So, as part of that um modification along Fairmont, there's also some striping modifications proposed uh as as Fairmont heads to the west towards the intersection with Summit. Um the the building or the project is completely covered by the building except for a very small lawn area. Uh so it's primarily impervious. Um with respect to storm water management, um it's the project is classified as a major development under the city's storm water ordinance. And to address those standards, as well as the JCMUA rules and regulations, we're proposing a 3100 square foot green roof and an underground detention system under the garage of the building. Um, and then the discharge for that system, which is right here, is out to the existing combined sewer in Clifton Place. Other utilities such as water, sewer, gas, telecom, all new utility services will be provided to the building. Uh we've shown preliminary locations for those services and those will be coordinated with the utility companies including the MUA when we get into the final design. Um going to go to one other sheet here. So this is sheet number six of 13 of the plans that were submitted. Uh same dates, October 7th of 2024, revised through February 24th of 2025. Um, with respect to landscaping, we're proposing a total of seven street trees along Fairmont and Clifton. Uh, we're unable to provide any trees along Summit because of the limited frontage um along Fairmont where we have the five trees proposed. We're going to put those trees in large concrete planters due to conflicts with underground utilities. We've done that on other projects. Um and then on Clifton, the two proposed trees will be planted in the typical tree pits uh based on the Jersey City Forestry standards. Under those standards, we require uh or the project requires one tree for every 25 ft of frontage, which would trigger the need for 13 trees. We're proposing seven trees. So the other six trees um will a monetary contribution will be made in lie of of constructing or installing the other six trees. Um with respect to lighting um we are proposing lighting upgrades along Fairmont. We're proposing a new Cobra fixture on an existing utility pole in this location here. And we're also proposing building mounted uh lighting along the Fairmont frontage. Um the lighting along Summit and along Clifton is adequate without any um upgrades. We have received uh several review letters and comments from the Division of Planning. We have the April 17, 2025 letter and from the Division of Transportation Planning. We have an April 2nd, 2025 letter and we will work with uh traffic and planning to address those comments. Um, we also had some comments on the on Tyler from the Division of Forestry and we'll work to resolve those comments. And lastly, we had some email comments from the JCMUA and we'll address those comments also. Uh, that's all I have. If there's any questions, I'd be happy to address them. Thank you, Miss Galvin. Um, to be honest, it's not often that I hear a new word here. What is a cobra head fixture? A cobra is um a long arm with the light on the end of the arm. So most of the fixtures that you see in the city, typical fixture, not the decorative fixtures like the Sure. the posttop fixtures, but a more traditional roadway fixture. Okay, I understand. Yeah, I just never heard it called that. Yeah, it's a Cobra. Okay, interesting. Thank you. Uh that's it for me though. That's my only question. Anybody else? the um the trees that are going to be planted on um Fairmont because of the utilities they'll be in a planted boxes. Yes. Um are they they're trees that don't grow very large I assumed or Yeah, they're they're specifically selected because of the way they they grow. Um and the idea is that we can't allow the roots to go underground because of the utilities there. Because of the utilities. I know. I' I've never seen that. Yeah, we did it on Summit years ago a little further to the north. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else for Miss Galvin? All right. Thank you. We appreciate it. Okay. Then our next witness is Mr. Lewis, our architect. Hi. Good evening again, Mr. Lewis. And if you could just confirm for the record that you have been sworn in and are still on the oath tonight. I am still under oath. Yes. Okay. Thank you, sir. Okay. So, I'm going to do something a little strange and start with the building elevations. Uh just because I think it helps to clarify all these levels that we have going on here. Uh so, this is the Fairmont Avenue elevation. And I want to start by saying what we're calling the first floor. Uh and the first floor is actually the first floor that has the entire floor above grade and nothing underground. That starts here at Summit Avenue. It's actually uh 3 and 1/2 ft above ground here and extends all the way across. Uh there's the next floor below that uh is what we're calling the basement. Um that floor, excuse me, I'm on the wrong thing. Okay, so that includes, if you look, we have the main entry to the building right here. That's at the basement level. To the left of that is mostly uh building amenity space. Then to the right of that we have apartments that are also above grade. And then below that we have what we're calling our seller that only extends on the right half of the building. And that's mostly for the parking area and it's accessed from uh Clifton Place. Um also I think you could see how the stories here are working where it does read as six stories uh at the Summit Avenue elevation as well as six stories over here at the Clifton Place elevation. However, our grade is uh our elevations and our our heights are measured from the middle of the building at the average grade. Um that gives us a building that's 71 ft tall and it is of course seven stories in total. Uh which does require a height variance. Um with that, while I'm here, I do want to talk about some of the building finishes that we have going on. Uh so we do have a dark gray uh smooth stuckle finish at the base uh in the sellar area here and then also down here. Everything that's underground basically. Uh the main finish for the building is a dolomite gray smooth brick. We're doing uh two different brick patterns. Uh most of it is a standard uh brick pattern. However, we're also doing a recessed brick pattern. It's just each course. One's in, one's out, one's in, one's out. Uh there's one of those uh right in the middle here. And then also one at each end right here and here these vertical sections. Um we also have a black metal panel sign which is located here above uh the basement area at the top of the building on the Summit Avenue side. We can you can see we have this twotory section uh which is differentiated. Do we have the finish there is a uh their charcoal gray vertical metal uh panel siding. Uh we also have a charcoal gray aluminum coping on the whole building. It's a little more substantial here where we have the vertical siding and then it's uh less substantial here over the brick. Uh this section here is a setback bulkhead and we're just doing a light colored um corrugated metal panels for that section. I also wanted to note all of the the windows are black aluminum uh frames and we also have matching PEX below them. So there'll be black PEX to match the window frames, PE rails, excuse me. Um and then lastly here I also I want to go back to the um the building entry here because there's a couple things I just want to note. Uh one is the building numbers. They are fairly large. We are asking for a variance for that. we think uh it's appropriate for the building type and size. Uh and then we're also asking for a kind of strange variance uh where we're not allowed to have windows that are less than 42 in above grade um to the sill of the window. And this one window right here is a little less than 42 in above grade for the sill. And again, that's because we have we're working with this sloped grade. Uh to help mitigate that, we actually set the floor back a few feet and we have a planter in front of that window with some planting to give a little bit of a buffer. Okay. Uh with that, I'm going to move to the side elevations. And I think what we see on these sides, uh this is the sum, this is the Clifton Avenue side, excuse me, Clifton Place side on the right. This is the Summit Avenue elevation. Uh we can see on both of those elevations that we're wrapping the finishes from uh Fairmount Avenue around both sides. Uh the only thing that's really different here is since we go a little lower, we do have that black garage door here and we have uh these raised planters on each side of that garage door. Uh all the way to the left here, we have the rear elevation. Uh we do have a a slightly different building finish here and we're using uh the color is light mist and this is fiber cement siding. We are using the same black frame uh windows and doors. Lastly for the elevations we have the south elevation. This is the long elevation but the back of it. Um we can see on the Summit Avenue side we are wrapping around that brick as well as those vertical metal panels. Uh and that's going back about 15 20 feet. Um, other than that, uh, the finishes here and here, which are built right on the property line, that's a smooth stucco finish, painted a dark gray color. Everything that's not on the, um, on the property line is being finished with, uh, that light mist fiber cement siding that's here and all over here. Okay. So, now I'm going to jump back into the floor plans and walk through these. Here, we're looking at the seller and the basement plan. I want to start with the seller at the bottom here. So, this is Clifton Avenue on the right. Uh, walking down that that frontage, we have uh an egress doorway out out. Then, we have the two planters and that uh 14T1 uh driveway that leads into the um garage area. The garage is a 13 car garage as was mentioned previously. Um there are also two motor bike uh motorcycle spaces over here on the right and a room with 64 um bicycle parking spaces. There's a trash compactor room here which is fed from a trash shoot above. Uh and then there's also um our meters and utilities as well as a sprinkler room. This is a fully sprinklered building. and then two elevators up and the one stair up. Uh all of this to the left is unexavated here. Moving up to the basement level, I want to start right at that building entry in the middle of the building. Uh to the left, we have those amenity spaces. Uh there's a storage space, a 615T gym, and a 538T co-working space. Also up here there is a 583 ft residential lounge. This has access to the the back patio and lawn area that will be for building tenants. Um we also have the trash room and shoot here. And then there are six apartments on this floor. Uh two of them are studios colored in blue and then four of them are onebedrooms colored in light gray. And then the only thing I do want to uh draw your attention to is that that window that I mentioned that we need the variance for is right here in this bedroom. And you can see that it does have this planting area in front of uh that whole apartment. Okay, here at the bottom we're looking at the what we're calling the first floor. This is the first floor completely above grade. And then above this is the second, third, fourth, and fifth floor. So we have 11 apartments on the first floor. Three of them are studios. Six are onebedrooms. There's one two-bedroom here, which is green. And then one threebedroom here, which is a dark gray color. Um, and I do want to stick with the threebedroom here at the corner to note that we did also set back the first floor a couple feet here uh to provide uh another planting area. And this is just because that corner is really tight. It's pretty close. It's a smaller smaller walkway. So, we wanted to give another buffer for this apartment instead of having those windows right at the uh sidewalk there. Uh looking up to the second to fifth floors, the apartment the layout is exactly the same with the exception of that apartment we were just talking about where it is extended all the way out now and becomes a two-bedroom apartment. And now we're moving on to the sixth floor and the roof. So here we're looking at the sixth floor plan which is actually half building. So the left side of this is building and then the right side of this is our roof deck. So we have three apartments in the building on this floor. One two-bedroom and two one-bedroom apartments. Uh on the right we have our roof deck space. It's a uh 1,827T roof deck which is surrounded by 1,60 ft of green roof trays. We also have uh two mechanical areas that have our condensers for our common areas. And then looking at the upper roof, this is the roof that's above uh these apartments here. And that roof is not accessible and it's only used for these green roof trays where we have uh 280 ft of them in total. Um and just to summarize because I didn't in the beginning, uh the apartment is 60 there's 64 apartments here. uh one threebedroom, uh 10 twobedrooms, 36 onebedrooms, and 17 studios. Um that's it for me. I'm sure there are some questions. I'm happy to answer them unless Chuck, do you have something you want me to answer directly? No. Um I'm good. Okay. Anyone? Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Um the size of that sign on the ground floor, how big is that? Um it's on the Do you remember how many square feet it says on the How many? 35. 35 square feet. Thank you, Charles. Just just a quick question, M. Lewis. Yes. Um the brick color I on this I'm seeing that dark color. It's not that dark. It's a light color. Let me I'll zoom in a little so you can see it better. It's this color. It's this here. It's more of a lighter gray with a little bit of a blend of dark gray. So, it's not a It's not the beige color. You see it here if you turn around. Yeah. Okay. That's what I was much lighter. Yeah. Cuz on one compar right just turn around and look right there. Much lighter than Yeah, I got that. Much lighter. Yeah, I got that. Okay. Thank you. All right. Anybody else? Any questions? All right. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Thank you. Okay, then our final witness will be Mr. Height to address the deviations. All right. And Mr. same as Mr. Lewis. You understand that you're still under oath. You've been sworn in and qualified tonight. I do. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. I'll just jump right into it. Uh we are in the summit in Fairmont redevelopment plan. Um this is a smaller plan in the city. Uh the other development to the south of this subject property has already undergone underwent redevelopment. Um so for this proposed project, uh really what we're dealing with is some unique aspects of the site. It's a cap lot. There's three frontages and one interior sideyard. And then we also have a substantial grade change as we heard from the project engineer. It's about 15 ft from uh sideyard to or between the two property frontages. Um with respect to the deviations uh what we're looking at in this exhibit and I think why the uh Mr. Lewis just jumped right into um we've designed the overall building to be contextual to the to the three frontages. Uh this is the longest elevation along Fairmont. Uh and you can see how counting from the average grade we are counting seven stories and we are measuring 71 ft. But from a contextual standpoint uh the building still will read as a six-story building on the two ends. Uh and that's was the the design intent. Um so overall six stories is permitted. Seven stories is being counted from average grade and then 65 feet permitted. 71 ft is calculated. Um, two other things I should mention. Uh, the seventh story is only a partial story, if you will. Still counts as a story. Uh, but it's only 2,608 ft in size, and that's about 30% of the full floor below. So, it is a modest seventh story, and it really just accomplishes that sixstory feel uh along that one frontage. Um, with respect to the window sill location, really this was just a intuitive design uh aspect of the building. We are locating a residential unit. There is a bedroom in that location. We've set it back as Mr. Lewis said. We also are providing some for some screening outdoor uh and likely there will be interior screening um for the the future resident there. Um the intent for that is to provide for privacy uh for the residential being close close proximity of the sidewalk. Uh so we've tried to mitigate that with the design uh of where it's located and and the screening. Um with respect to the driveway width, uh we do have a curb cut that's 10 ft, but it it widens to approximately 15 ft. So I think it's 14t 11 in. Um the rationale there, 10 feet permitted for the curb cut and the driveway. The rationale there was to try and give a little bit more maneuverability for people uh making this turning movement into the driveway. given the slope uh as well as the fact that it's a two-way curb two-way drive aisle interior. This isn't a two-way driveway. One vehicle will exit, one will be able to pull in. There's sufficient queuing in the building. Um but it will help for that maneuverability given given the the um slope of the the driveway. Um, with respect to the signage, uh, 35 ft in, uh, this redevelopment plan, 35 square ft in this redevelopment plan is, uh, a substantial increase from what's permitted. Uh, 8 square feet is a very common residential scale of signage. Uh, what's being proposed here probably doesn't stand out to the eye in view, but as calculated, it's 35 square ft. Uh, so just two statistics for you to help put it into scale. Um, this facade 14,135 square feet. It's the longest facade. Uh, the proposed signage is only 0.2%. The city in other areas generally has a barometer of 5% in terms of a a scalable percentage of permitted signage. Here we're at 0.2. To me, it's really an aesthetic. It does help with building identification. You will not mistake this as 146 Fairmont. Um, but it's located near the main entrance and uh it's scaled appropriately um with the overall design. Um lastly, I just wanted to to mention the street trees. I don't know if we're formally requesting relief, but um we are complying with the requirements of the payment in lie for the street trees that not are not being shown. Is that a a variance or Yeah, I'm not sure if it's technically a variance, but it's basically the way the forestry standards reads. If you can't provide the trees, you have to make the donation. So, that's the option we're taking. And just to clarify, the um the forester has approved this current layout. He reviewed it. Okay. But it's not a deviation, right, Matt? Uh no, this would be a design waiver within the forestry standards um which is allowed and is at the discretion of the forester. Sure. Okay. And and it's 100% supported from a practical alternative standpoint. We heard from the project engineer about the complications of utilities, curb cuts and things like that both at grade and below grade. Um with respect to special reasons, I think that we are in a redevelopment plan. I do believe we're advancing the goals and objectives of the redevelopment plan. Um with respect to special reasons from the land use law, I do believe we're uh advancing um the guidance of appropriate redevelopment of the property. Um really we're speaking to the intent of the overall vision of this project and the redevelopment plan. Um so I do think we're implementing that. Um we are also uh advancing an appropriate population density. Um we are exceeding the permitted maximum density in the redevelopment plan, but we're folding in the affordable housing overlay district. So that's realizing the affordable housing units. It removes that density cap. Uh and I do believe that this is an appropriate pop appropriate location. Um it's a cap lot. It's a substantially sized cap lot. Um so it's it's an appropriate location for that density. Um with respect to the redevelopment plan, I don't believe there's impairment. Objective A to encourage the assemblage of lots within the area in order to create suitable sites for primary residential development. Uh objective B provide for a variety of housing types affordable to the family um with a range of incomes. We're meeting both those objectives A and B. Uh there are others that I I I I can offer to the board, but I think that that's straightforward. Um I do believe we are addressing any sort of substantial impacts um on the general welfare. Um we've mitigated the height. Um really contextually speaking, if if there was a a property line down the middle, this project would comply given that it's a cap lot. Um, we need relief for the building height, but the massing of it really is in inconsistent with the intent of a six-story um permitted building height. Uh, we also are introducing um what Mr. Lewis referenced earlier, our vertical and horizontal building elements. So, I think that speaks to the aesthetics of the overall property um and that there's no impacts from the overall massing. Uh, I do think with respect to the parking, this came up in a recent conversation and I think coordination with transportation planning that we we do have a pedestrian warning system. Um, given that we have a curb cut near the intersection, um, there's concerns about that. So, we included that in the project. Uh, I think that's my direct testimony. I don't have anything else to offer at this moment. Any questions from the board? Uh, I have none. Anybody else? No, I'm good. All right. Thank you, Mr. Thank you, council. As I stated earlier, our traffic engineer is here tonight in the event the board has any questions, but other than that, that would complete our presentation. Okay. Thank you. Um, anybody want traffic testimony? We could always come back to it if you know if we need to. No. Okay. All right. So, at this time, let's open it up for public comment. Is anybody here from the public that wants to comment on this application? Anyone from public? Chair, see there's no one from the public. I would like to close the public portion. Second. All right. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Matt, do you uh have anything for us? Um staff substantiates to the accuracy of Mr. Height's uh testimony regarding um meeting the positive and negative criteria for the variances. Um just to I guess pose a little thought experiment to contextualize the proposed bulk of the building. Um the applicant could have developed the site as two separate buildings and each side would have been compliant on its own. Um but uh obviously you have economies when it comes to things like egress when you bu build a single building plus you often get better unit layouts and the like. Um and so staff felt it was appropriate um to support um this deviation here um even though it's an affordable housing overlay project which um were often cautious and reticent about supporting bulk variances for um and um so staff published a report dated April 17th, 2025. in that report. Um there are seven proposed resolution conditions. Is the applicant willing to agree to those conditions? Yes, they'd all be acceptable. Um with that being said, staff recommends approval with conditions. Okay. Thank you. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve case B24-02000 as presented to the board together with staff recommendations and conditions. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second for approval. Acting Vice Chair Gangadan. I. Commissioner Cruz. Hi, Commissioner Lipsky. Yeah, I think it's a nicely designed building. I think it'll be a nice uh book end to the summit JC across the street. I vote I. Commissioner Patel. Hi, Commissioner Torres. I and Chairman Langston. Yeah, I think the variances uh Mr. Height made the case for it and uh I agree with his testimony. So, uh I'm going to vote I on this. Motion carries 6. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mike, do you want to take five now? Okay. Yeah. Let's take a five minute break, everybody. We'll be back in a couple. Case number P2025-000052, uh, preliminary and final major site plan with C variances for 109 to 111 Beacon Avenue. Council, you want to carry that matter? Yes. Good evening, chairman. For the record, Benjamin Wine of Prime Touvel and Misselli. On behalf of the applicant, um we would given the time uh like to take the opportunity to request to adjourn this matter to the June 10th meeting um with preservation of notice if possible. Cam, that would not. No, we would have to go to July 15th and that would be your best option. I mean, listen, we'll we'll do what we have to do, but um is there even an option for June 24th even just to put it on and uh to the extent that it has to be further carried, we'll we'll deal with it. But just to avoid further delay if possible, the June 24th is already full. It would have to be July 15th. Yeah. I I hesitate to put something on that we know that we're going to carry in case somebody from the public comes and then they sit here all night and we don't get to it. Understood. So, I'd rather have a definite date. Cam's been on. You'd have a chance at July 15th. You wouldn't. Okay. Okay. Then it is what it is. Okay. So, we'll call it July 15. All right. Thank you, council. And just confirming that's with preservation. Yes, with preservation of notice. Okay. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, council. Have a good night. And we do have we we've had scheduling issues with security up front. Um we have to be out of the building tonight by 10:30. So 10:00 is our drop dead date for any testimony, any applications, and then we have to get resolutions read into the record and handle any board business past that. So even if we're in the middle of a sentence 10 o'clock tonight, we have to cut off. Apologize council. Okay. Where is yours though? Um so let's call item 14 is case P2025- 0016 is a plan amendment preliminary and final major subdivision preliminary and final major site plan with C variances for 190 chapel F. Um, uh, good evening everybody. Surprised. My name is Jim McCann from the law firm of Connell Foley in Jersey City. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Port Liberte Apartments LLC, the owner and developer of this project. Um, this project is at 190 Chapel Avenue, block 27503, approved as lots 13, 14, 16, and 17. However, subsequently, it's been consolidated. It's now known as 16.1 pursuant to a subdivision. Um, this is a notice case council. Um, chairman, I received the affidavit and notice proof of mailing with respect to the application at 190 Chapel Avenue. I've had the opportunity to review it. It does appear to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for purposes of the record. And council, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is an administrative amendment with respect to the solar panels that were proposed at the project. Is yes, I was I was getting there. That's all that this application is. Um, this application is in the Caven Point redevelopment area. This project was approved in May of 2022. It's a 401 unit fivetory building with sevenstory parking garage and 602 parking spaces. The sole purpose of tonight's application is this. Um the in 2022 the application was approved with solar panels on the roof. They are not required by the redevelopment plan. They're not required by the JCLDO. It was a voluntary thing that the owner of the building wanted to do. they wanted to have solar panels on the on the roof of the project. So the site plans show the renderings show solar panels. Um what happened subsequently is the applicant applied to PSENG to connect the solar panels to the electric grid in that neighborhood and they received a denial letter from PSENG. Basically the grid in that area cannot handle the solar panels that were proposed by the applicant. So, they can't install the solar panels on the roof of the building. So, the only reason I'm here tonight is just to conform my site plan approval to um to what's actually been constructed, which is this building is up and there's a roof without solar panels. So, the only reason I'm here is to ask you to amend the site plan approval to eliminate the solar panels from the roof of the building because that's what's shown on the approved plans from 2022. and the approved resolution from 2022. That's it. And what you see on the screen is a rendering of the building without solar panels. The approved rendering that you're look that from 2022 showed the solar panels. That's the only difference. Okay, understood. Council, um Cam, I haven't reviewed the testimony from that application. Were the solar panels a consideration in any kind of variance? No, we I reviewed it myself. I thought the same and no, they were not. Okay. And actually, there were no variances or deviations. That was an as of right project that fully complied with the redevelopment plan. Just for the record. Okay. Thank you, council. Um, that was my only question. Anybody else? No. So, just just to be clear, council that they were never installed. Never installed. Never installed. Okay. PSEG denied before they installed PSSE and deni denied the connection. Okay. Okay. Thank you council. Uh is there anybody from the public that wants to comment on this application? Anyone from public? Chair see that there is no one from the public. I would like to close the public portion. Second it. Okay. Public is uh motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Cam, do you have anything you want to add? Um, staff just asked that you agree to the conditions in the staff memo dated April 15th of this year. Applicant agrees. Applicant agrees to the conditions. And planning staff recommends approval. All right. Thank you. I'd like to make a motion to approve KP 2025-000016 as presented to the board for approval. Second. All right. Motion is made and seconded for approval. Acting Vice Chair Gangaden. I. Commissioner Torres. I. Commissioner Cruz. Hi. Commissioner Lipsky. I think this falls under the category it's better to have tried and been denied and uh good try and I vote I. Commissioner Patel I and Chairman Langston I. All right. Motion carries. All in favor with conditions. All right. Thank you. So thank you councel. So let's uh call item 15 case P2024-0184 is a conditional use at 11 Bastwick A. Good evening again everyone. U Michael Higgins of Castanoquickly Tramy for the applicant. Uh council I have the original notices. Thank you council. Chairman received the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application before the board this evening. This matter was previously scheduled and carried to tonight with preservation of that notice. We're going to mark it as A1 for purposes of the record. All right. Thank you. So this is 11 Boswick. It's block 23501 lot 37. Uh this is in the R1 zone. It's an existing two family house. Uh pursuant to some of the uh relatively new zoning provisions in the LDO, uh the applicant is converting the garage space into an additional uh dwelling unit. Um to accomplish that, they need conditional use approval. Uh without further ado, I'll have the architect sworn in and we can go through the conditions in his testimony. And I am still under oath. Thank you. And uh you were still qualified then still qualified. All right. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you. Okay. So, this is an existing uh two family home with a ground floor garage and we're converting that garage into a 945 square ft 3-bedroom, two bath apartment. Uh looking at the site plan down here. Uh first of all, obviously we're removing that curb cut. Uh there's an existing tree. We're going to expand the tree pit into a Jersey City conforming uh tree pit. We are removing the entire driveway and we're replacing that with a planting area. That planting area is going to be enclosed with a 20-in high landscape block wall. Uh we are keeping a 3-foot walkway uh from the from the uh excuse me, in the driveway area to provide access to the trash which is located underneath the front stairs. Uh along the left side of the building, there's an existing uh door into the first floor into the ground floor which we're going to slightly relocate and that will be the main entry to this new apartment. Um we are proposing new fences along the side and the back. Um that's going to be a sixoot board on board wood fence. Also in the backyard, as you can see on the existing, there's a lot there's mostly paving. We are removing all of that paving and uh providing a grass backyard. Uh so currently we are way over on lot coverage. Uh by removing the paving in the back and removing the driveway in the front, we are now actually way under on lock coverage. So we're in full compliance with lot coverage here. Okay. So here the bottom is the existing plan and the top is what we're proposing. So at the bottom you can see almost the entire ground floor is garage. Uh there's also a half bath, a storage area, and a mechanical room. We are eliminating the half bath and the storage area. The mechanical room is going to be uh reduced in size, and we're adding a new entry door from the backyard to get directly to that room. You can see that up here. Um so, looking to the relocated apartment entrance, which is located here. Uh you enter into the living area. There's an one on suite bathroom in the front of the apartment and in the back we have two bedrooms, one bath and laundry area. Um, looking around the outside of the building, uh, the the existing garage door is going to be going to be replaced with three windows which are going to match the windows above. Um, on the side, as I mentioned, we're slightly relocating the side door. Uh we're also adding two new windows uh which we took care to make sure are facing directly into um empty wall space on the building across from us. You can see where their windows are and where our windows are and they're all staggered from each other. So that plus the sixoot board onboard fence. There's going to be some screening between these two houses. Uh, and then also in the backyard, we are relocating one of the AC condensers and adding a third and we're providing new 42-inch high screening around both. Okay, here we're looking at the front and rear elevation. At the top is what's existing. And I think you can see there are very minor changes here. On the front elevation, uh, we are replacing the garage door with windows. As I mentioned, uh, the windows are a little smaller than that existing garage door. So the finish around the windows is going to be a smooth stucco finish which will be painted to match the brick around it. Uh we also you can see the new landscape block wall in the front. Uh looking to the rear elevation here we have that new door into the mechanical room. We have the new air conditioners with the screening showing a detail of the woods slat screening detail on the left here. Um and also there's a double hung window which we're changing to a casement window but leaving the window the same size. And then lastly here we're showing that uh side elevation uh where you can see that we've slightly moved the back this door. It's moving maybe a couple feet to the left and then we added these two new windows. And that would conclude my presentation. I'm happy to answer questions if you have any. All right. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. I have none actually. Uh anybody else? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Sure. Just the uh I see the entrance door coming into the living room. The one that goes into the mechanical room that also goes into the back of the yard, right? Back which you said there's a door that goes from Yeah. So, we have a walkway along the side here where and we have the one door into the residential unit and then in the backyard in the backyard we have an entrance to the mechanical room. That's the only way to get to the mechanical room. the mechanical room and show the backyard. From the backyard, correct? Yeah. And that's for all three apartments, that mechanical room. All right. Anybody else? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Thank you, council. That's your presentation? Yes, that is our presentation. Okay. Uh, is there anybody here from public that wants to comment on this application? Anyone from public? Sure. See no one from public. I would like to close the public portion. All right. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Eric, anything? Yeah, I'll try to be brief. Um staff has determined that this is an as of right um proposal. Um as we as we saw that uh the they're very minor facade changes. So the character of the buildings pretty much remaining the same. Uh lot coverage is decreasing significantly. Um tree pits being expanded. Um so it's kind of eliminating those nonconformities of the site. Um and um most importantly probably is they're increasing the number of units within the principal structure. So it's addressing the housing needs uh in the city. Uh staff recommends approval provided that uh the applicant agree to the conditions in the staff memo. Yep. The conditions are fine. Okay. Staff recommends approval. Okay. Thank you. Chair. I'd like to make a motion to approve case 2024-0184 as presented to the board with staff recommendation and approval. All right. Motion is made and seconded. Acting. Sorry. Acting vice chair Gangadan. Hi. Uh, Commissioner Torres. I. Commissioner Cruz. Hi. Commissioner Lipsky. The comparison between before and after is stunning. So, good job and thank you. Do I vote I? Commissioner Patel. Hi. And Chairman Langston. Yeah, this one's an easy eye for me. Um, you know, we're adding a unit. We're adding a street parking spot now. So, uh, it's an easy eye. Motion carries. All in favor? Okay. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Thank you, council. Okay. So, let's move on to item 16. And I think council, you want to call item 17 as well at the same time, correct? I do, Mr. Chairman. So, let's call item 16, case P2024-029, is a review and discussion of master plan amendment within Caven point redevelopment plan. As well as item 17, case P204-0182 is a preliminary and final major site plan and interim use for 200 Chapel Avenue. So, good evening again everybody. James McCann from the law firm of Connell Foley appearing on case uh P2224 182 and case P2024 0229. Um and yes um we wanted to call these two cases together because what we would like to do is first present the site plan application to the board because if you understand the site plan application you will then understand the reason why we are um applying to make to have a conforming amendment adopted to the cavenpoint master plan. So, it would be more efficient to present the site plan approval first and the master plan amendment second. Also, if you were to deny the site plan approval for some reason, then there would be no reason to amend the master plan. I don't mind if the board votes on both of them at the very end. So, you have the full discretion to decide however you want on both matters. Okay. Thank you, councel. Mr. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to receive the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the preliminary and final major site plan. I've had the opportunity to review it. It does appear to be an order. We're going to mark it as A1 for purposes of the record and that's with respect to case P2024182. We're also going to mark for purpose of the record as A1 on case P20 24-229 the affidavit of publication proof mailing with respect to the proposed amendment to the master plan. So that'll be A1 on case P2024 0229. Uh just so everybody is clear. I see members of the public are here. I suspect they are here for this application or these applications. Uh we've gone through this before board with respect to this particular redevelopment plan, the Caven point redevelopment plan. Uh, this plan's been around since the early 80s. It's probably changed its name over time, but in this particular redevelopment plan, there is the Caven Point master plan, which quite frankly, while referenced in the redevelopment plan itself, is for lack of a better term, a large map that uh lays out different portions of the Cavenport redevelopment plan. and it was a conceptual plan when Caven point came to be. So, uh, I think it's appropriate that we hear the site plan and then deal with this what Mr. McCann has referred to as an amendment to the master plan. Uh, I in my mind view it as an update to that document for tracking purposes. So, uh, with that council, just a brief introduction. Um, uh, commissioners, uh, the property that we're going to discuss tonight is block 27503, lot 15 on the Jersey City Tax Maps. It's also known as 200 Chapel A. It's approximately 9 and a half acres between the Port Liberte uh, existing community and the Liberty National Golf Course. It is the Caven redivo re cavenpoint redevelopment plan that we're discussing discussing and the proposed project is 168 stack town home style condominiums in 19 separate buildings. Each building will be four stories high. Each unit will have two parking spaces, one in a garage and one on a driveway. Um and there will be 80 guest parking spaces. Um, PY Homes is a nationally known developer. They are the contract purchaser of this property. The property is still owned by New Liberty Residential Urban Renewal. And the the relief requested tonight is on the site plan application, a preliminary and final site plan. We do not have any deviations. We do not have any variances to put on the record. The project is fully conforming with the Caven Point redevelopment plan. And as council said, the second part of the Oh, there's also an interim use appro uh application, the applicant is requesting permission to put a temporary sales trailer on the site with temporary signage that would be both directional um to to direct potential buyers to the site or interested parties to where the site where the sales trailer would be located. Um and then the amendment to the master plan is a conforming amendment to the master plan in my mind and I think councils also it is um keeping track of what site plan approvals have been granted for this master plan area. Um, we're not asking for any we're not asking to exceed the um coverage requirement and we're not asking to exceed the density requirement and those are the only two requirements that apply in the master plan. We are within both of those uh thresholds as you will see. I'm going to now give you my first witness, Miss um Miss Lauren Bolardo of Langan Engineering. She's the project engineer and she's going to walk you through the site plan application for the project. Thank you, council. Yes. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Sure. My name is Lauren Bolardo. B as in boy. E L A R D as in dog O. Miss Bardo, good evening. Your license is current tonight. It is current. Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. Thank you. Um, okay. So, I'll just start by going through the existing conditions for the project. Um, and I'll orient the the planning board to this site uh through this exhibit that is up on the screen entitled existing conditions. It's dated May 20th, 2025 and north is oriented to the left side of the page. Um, and the aerial image within the background is from June of 2024. So, within the last year. Lauren, just one question. You made this exhibit up for presentation to the board. Correct. Correct. Yes, this is not one of our filed plans. That is correct. This plan was not previously filed, but it's just an aerial image of the existing conditions of the And you have two more exhibits. The next two exhibits are uh the filed plans. That is correct. Okay. So, council A2 for identification for all three. So, A2 is going to be the three exhibit set. Yes, sir. Very good. A2. Okay. Um, so the project site is located at 200 Chapel Avenue in the Port Liberte section of Jersey City. The site is block 27503, lot 15. Um, and the site is approximately 9 and a half acres in area. To the west is Chapel Avenue. To the north is Liberty National Golf Course. To the south is the adjacent Port Liberte residential development. And to the east is Liberty National Golf Course. And beyond that, the Hudson River. Um and although the site is vacant and was recently being used as construction staging area for the neighboring apartment building redevelopment that was just completed the Oliver um the parcel was envisioned to be a residential development as part of the Caven point redevelopment plan. Um the site is relatively flat with the existing grades ranging from elevation 8 to elevation 12 throughout the site. Um, and then within the site frontage, there's an existing sanitary pump station that's uh relatively close to Chapel Avenue. Um, there's also a temporary dog run that's located on this site on the eastern portion of the site, so page north on on this exhibit that is currently being utilized by the neighboring Port Liberte development. Um the site is part of an overall Port Liberte master plan uh which was most recently amended in May of 2022 and it currently envisions a development for 512 dwelling units for this parcel. Um so I'll now go into some of the proposed improvements for the project. Uh so the project name for this site is Liberty Watch. Um, and I would like to share with you this exhibit entitled plan rendering. And this is dated September 13, 2024. And similar to the last exhibit, north is also oriented to the left side of the page. Uh, the proposed project is a residential development that's fully conforming with the Caven Point redevelopment plan. It includes 168 stacked town home units in a self-contained community. Um, and although this was envisioned to have a much larger much larger residential buildings as part of the Port Liberty master plan, uh, this applicant wanted to develop a less dense town home community, uh, providing more aesthetically pleasing development um, and also adhering to the NJP flood hazard um, requirements and storm water rules. There will be 19 buildings proposed on site. Each building will be varying in length um as the number of units within each building differs. So there's between four and 16 units per building. Access to the site will be via one full access stop controlled driveway along Chapel Avenue and there will be a sign with the name of the community which complies with the ordinance requirements. All of the town homes are proposed to have garages facing the interior of the site with the fronts of the structures facing the roadway network and adjacent lots. And this was intended to limit the view of the vehicular areas of the site from the neighboring lots. So specifically limiting those vehicular areas from the neighboring residential community as well as Liberty National Golf Course. Um, for parking on site, we have two parking spaces proposed per unit. One is within an internal garage for each unit and one is within the driveway space for each unit. So that totals 336 spaces unit specific. Um, and then in addition to that, we also have proposed 80 guest parking spaces within the development. There will not be any on street parking or there's no parking anticipated at all on Chapel Avenue. All the guests will park within this enclosed community. So there will be a total of 416 spaces with the 336 plus the 80 guest parking spaces. And of the 80 guest parking spaces, there will be 12 EV spaces that will comply with the state EV requirements as well as four ADA parking spaces as well to comply with ADA requirements. All of the internal driveways were originally designed to accommodate two-way traffic and emergency vehicles throughout the site. Um, we did receive some review comments from the Jersey City traffic and transportation divisions. Um, and we met with them and we agreed during our meeting with them to reconfigure um, uh, several of the drive aisles, specifically the ones around buildings 12 and 15, which are I don't know if my you can see my cursor. They're kind of in the the wider portion of the site where you see there's six buildings, six buildings kind of making a rectangle. We would modify those driveways to be one way in the counterclockwise direction to address their comments. Um there will be one emergency access driveway via a grass paver driveway. Um and that's through Aurora Place. So, the driveway itself is on our site, but it would connect to Aurora Place within the neighboring Port Liberty development. Um, and this is for emergency vehicle use only. Um, and the emergency access vehicles can go either way. So, both communities would benefit from that emergency access. The access will be gated with a NOX box. Um, so only for emergency access use. Um there are 5 foot wide sidewalk sidewalks proposed throughout the site for pedestrian use. Um as well as sidewalks within the frontage of the site along Chapel Avenue to provide pedestrian access to the Hudson River uh walkway as well as the New York Waterway Ferry Terminal. We also have several amenity spaces that are proposed throughout the site. Um these include a large flower garden within the site frontage. um as well as some seating areas and a dog park. And there are also some quiet seating areas that are sprinkled throughout the site as well as large gathering spaces for the resident's use. And in addition to that, we also have a tot proposed which is essentially a small playground for those future residents that have young families. The perimeter of the site is proposed to have a 4 foot high uh decorative black aluminum fence to separate the Liberty Watch property from the neighboring lots. There's no gates envisioned except for at the emergency driveway. Um and in some areas the fencing will be located on top of a proposed retaining wall. The retaining wall is on average 2 and 1/2 ft in height. Uh the new community will be responsible for maintaining its own amenities including landscape lighting, sidewalks, etc. Um with regard to trash, there is an existing trash collection area located within the site frontage um that serves the existing adjacent residences. Um, and the existing location of the trash collection will be maintained, but it will be reoriented um to make the space more functional and access will be off of the new community driveway rather than off of Chapel Avenue. We're also providing fencing and screening around the area to provide a cleaner aesthetic within the area. Um so there won't be any changes in terms of operations to this trash um collection area with regard to the the frequency of pickup or any operations that are occurring today. Um we're just reorienting this area and and making it more aesthetically pleasing. Um the new development will not be utilizing the existing trash collection area. um they will, you know, have trash kept at the garages and at the units um that'll be picked up on trash day. Just to make it clear to the board, the um the reason this is being done is because there's an easement agreement between the existing owner of the property that PY that the applicant is purchasing the property from and the homeowners association that when this site is developed, the applicant, whoever the developer is, is required to remodel and build out a permanent trash facility for the neighboring development. So that's what you're seeing. That's what uh Lauren is explaining to you. So, this will not be used by the new community. This trash, this trash area will be used by the existing community. They're using it right now, but it's temporary and it's in pretty bad shape. So, this is a improvement um for the benefit of the neighboring property owner, and they will be the only ones that use it once it is built. Um, thank you, Jim. Uh, okay. So, I'll just talk a little bit about um the the project site with regard to the flood hazard area. So, the site is located in a title flood hazard area of the Hudson River. Um, it has a flood hazard elevation of 12. Um, and the majority of the site does fall within that flood hazard area. So, as a requirement by NJD, the proposed design includes raising site elevations um for the project to bring the building and parking areas above that required flood hazard elevation. Um and this is for conformance with the NJDP flood hazard rules and regulations. So, the project will raise grades across the site by about 3 feet on average. Um, and we took that into account when we were designing the site grading and the storm water so that the runoff would be collected on site. Um, and then treated using 11 green infrastructure manufacturer treatment devices prior to it being discharged to the conveyance system that is connected to the wet ponds that are located on the Liberty National Golf Course. Um, and there is an easement in place that allows that conveyance of storm water from the Port Liberte developments to those wet ponds within Liberty National Golf Course. And the wet ponds do directly connect to the Hudson River. Um, so there's no storm water that's being direct or directed or sent to the adjacent residential community. Um and the stormwater design has been reviewed by NJ and we recently received our flood hazard permit from NJP indicating approval of the stormwater design as well as the site design. Um so I noted that there's an existing sanitary pump station on site that serves the Port Libert plan area. This existing pump station will will remain um but it's now you included in that fenced in area with the the trash enclosure area as well. So that will remain. Um for lighting, we're providing a mix of area light fixtures and ballard light fixtures. All new lighting will be LED and match the fixture style that's being used throughout the Port Liberte area um and meet the requirements within the ordinance. The pole mounted fixtures are 14 ft in height. Um, and the ballard mounted fixtures are being proposed around the property line of the site to limit throw of light over the property line. Um, and all polemounted fixtures that are near the property line are not facing the property line. They're facing away from the property line. So, they're also not throwing light in that direction. Um, with regard to landscaping, we are proposing an attractive landscape plan that includes 197 new trees, including 51 shade trees, 23 ornamental trees, 123 evergreen trees, 172 shrubs, as well as perennials and grasses throughout the site. Um, and in addition to all of the permanent improvements I just discussed, um, in order for the applicant to sell all of the units, there will be a temporary sales office on site. Um, so please see exhibit entitled sales office plan that was last revised February 5th, 2025 and north is oriented to the left side of the page. Um, so this plan shows a onestory sales office with a square footage of approximately 1444 square feet. There will be temporary utility service for the office as well as landscaping and proposed parking out front. And there will be temporary marketing signage for the development as well and directional signage including banners and and um as shown on this plan. Mr. Mr. Chairman, the um the interim use section of the redevelopment plan provides that interim uses may be granted for a period of up to three years by this board with the possibility of extension. But for right now, um, the applicant is requesting that the, uh, interim use approval be for three years, which includes the signage, that it commence when the applicant pulls its first building permit, and that it expire at the earlier of uh, the sale of the last unit for the project, 168 units, the sale of the last unit or the three-year period. Okay. Understood, council. Thank you. Um, we've received approval from Hudson Essex Pacic Soil Conservation District as well as a flood hazard individual permit from NJD. Um, and we've also received a conditional letter of map revision from FEMA to reflect the improvements for the site. Um, I'd be happy to answer any questions at this time, unless Jim, did I miss anything? No, I think you got everything. Thank you. Be happy to answer any questions. Just one last thing there. Um Lauren did show you in the existing conditions that there is a dog run on this property. Um and it's being used by the neighboring community, the existing Port Liberte community. This applicant is not providing a dog run to replace that one. It is the applicant's understanding that the current owner of the property has contacted the existing community, the HOA, the homeowners association there, and offered compensation for the fact that that dog run is being removed. It's a temporary dog run. It's not approved pursuant to any site plan that's previously been granted to the community. It it was put there as a temporary facility for the benefit of the residents, but there's no easement that requires it to be there. So, it's being removed from the property as part of this application and the current owner is going to work something out. It's our understanding try to work something out with the existing homeowners association. Okay. To compensate for that dog run. So, council, when you say the current owner, I suspect that is also the seller of the property. Yes, sir. And the applicant is the contract purchaser. Yes. Can we just zoom out and can you just share with us? You keep referring to the neighboring residential development. Is it all blocks and lots that are on the screen? Yes. Lauren, do you want to uh just can you zoom in on that and we can? Sure. So, the dark green is obviously the project and the neighboring community is the existing Port Liberte community. Um, and it is in fact the block and lots that you show that are kind of shaded a little bit in black and I guess black and white. So that's black and white. 16 21 and 22. Yes, sir. Yes. And I can I think we we can discuss that further also as part of the master plan. Sure. Okay. But yes, those those are the that is the neighboring community council and board members. The other side is obviously it's just the golf course, the other the other side of the project. Yeah. And we we added these labels just to for context for, you know, to provide the site location and and the surrounding area, not necessarily to characterize that, you know, we're calling these all of the blocks and lots that encompass the the neighboring community, but in this case, they do. and council. Is the applicant's proposed project going to stand completely on its own and have its own you had stated it's going to be condominiums? It's going to have its own homeowners or condominium association independent of the neighboring community. Yes, this project will be completely independent of the existing neighboring community except for the emergency access provision uh portion that um Lauren showed you. That emergency access is pursuant to an easement that exists between the ex existing between the seller of the property as you said and the neighboring community. So the emergency access is pursuant to a written document but other than that everything about this community will be independent. They will maintain their own amenities and they will not be permitted to use the amenities of the existing neighboring community. But that access easement already exists and has been memorialized and put into the yes title. It's a an existing written easement that's been memorialized and recorded in the Hudson County Register's office well before this applicant uh was involved in the property. Okay, understood. Um how is that locked gate handled? You mentioned there was some kind of a Yeah. So, there's it's it'll it will be locked and then there's what's called a NOX box that will be proposed next to the the gate that only emergency personnel can open and access. Okay. So, no member of the public, none of the HOAs have access to that box. That That's correct. Only people who have, you know, a a specific key to that box have access to the box, which is typically the emergency personnel. Okay. Gotcha. Um, that's my only question at this point. Anybody else? Yeah. So, um, at the ingress and egress is seems to be where the sanitation um, dump is, right? Uh, yes. So, so we we'd prefer not enough to call it a fair enough. trash collection area. Your collection uh your debris discarding area. Okay. Um so is that the only eress and ingress into this portion of the uh development? Yes. Yes. Yeah. because I'm looking at a map and it looks like it mean so your constellations and the other one an aurora that I see on there but the other road is it seems like there are two other ways of being able to get to chapel and the only reason I say that is with the Oliver project souththeast of it and the others and if they're coming and so they would bring their debris over to the development for discarding uh I'm I'm not a traffic engineer here. I'm not a Langden employee, but it just seems could be if that's the only ingress and egress to be a little uh challenging and maybe there might be another way based on what I'm looking at on the maps of, you know, seeing that there could be two ways to get to Chapel. Well, so we proposed this to traffic engineering and for the most part um they accepted it. What they did want, I believe, and you can correct me, Lauren, is did they want a sidewalk in front of the uh trash area? Uh yes, they did want a sidewalk um connecting the sidewalk from, you know, south of or east of building one to the sidewalk along Chapel Avenue for pedestrian use. And I think, Commissioner, the the easiest way for the existing community to access that because they'll be the ones using it in light of where the community is located is for them to to bring their trash to that to that site. So, I'm not quite sure. Thought we had it in the best possible place. And that's the existing location of it anyway. So, Is the area big enough, Lauren, for a garbage truck to go in there and pick up without it impeding people entering and access entering and exiting the community? Yes. Yeah. It it's um you know, we we reoriented and and redesigned this area of the site to allow for the trucks to enter this area and maneuver back in, not block. Back in and not block. Yes. Yep. Thanks. Any other questions? Yeah. Real quick one. Um the Inram building that you're going to be um proposing for sales, that's not part of the 19 buildings that are coming up, right? And uh is it going to be um I've seen it before. It's like a like a trailer, but it's going to look more like a building, right? Yeah. For the permanent three years, you know? Yes, that's correct. Something that's temporary, but it still looks like something that's permanent. Correct. Okay. It's also landscaped. It's going to be landscaped and has separate parking. Yep. Okay. Okay. Any other questions? All right. Thank you. Thank you, council. The time is 9:58. I would prefer not even call a new witness just to have a clean break. My next witness is the architect and if we have to call it, then you call it. He might he all that'll happen is he'll get qualified and we'll have to call it. So you could call it now if you want. Yeah. I' I'd rather just make a clean before I bring up another witness. Um Okay, Cam. Do we have a You're not going to tell me 24th, are you? When we can get this in? Probably July 15th. July. I'll tell you it's not going to be July 10th or June 10th or June 24th. So, well, it would it'll be under old business July 15th. Old business July 15th. Did you want to say something, Michael? Okay. Yes, I did. Okay. Could please. Okay. So, we have a cut off. security leaves the building at 10:30. They lock the doors. Now, the problem is we according to the open public meetings act, we cannot have a locked door at a public meeting. So if we're not done wrapped up with we still have more business to do internally that happens at every meeting. So if we're not done with that business at 10:30 we can't operate anymore. Once those doors are locked this board has to stop taking testimony. Check. You sound like you have a good answer. It's believe me I'd stay until 1 in the morning if I could, sir. Um, no, we've done it, but it's, you know, we have that time for a specific reason. There's a apparently a contract issue with security and that time can be mobile, but tonight it's 10:30. So, but it's also on the record that there's 10 of you here and you know, council not wanting to rush. This is a major project. So, um, to have the architect present in a Yeah, I don't want to rush anything, right? Yeah, we don't rush anything. Come back would be great. Maybe 11 11 there. So, let's say 11 people. Okay. So, we're going to carry at this point. We do have to wrap this up. And um, Cam, old business July, what is it? 15th. July 15th, old business. Okay. Consents, we'll be back. Okay. Right behind Mr. Wine for everybody in the room. The next hearing on this application is July 15th. It'll be upfront at the beginning of the meeting. It won't be at 10:00. It's under old business. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So, um All right. Let's move on to memorialization of resolutions. Please. There. There is 11. If we could for tonight, I don't have your conversations, but please have them outside. Let's We still have a couple things to do here. I appreciate it. Resolution for the planning board for the city of Jersey City approving a conditional use applicant grass house company for preliminary and final major site plan with conditional use. Approval 523 Tunnel Avenue block 3203 lot 789. Case number is P204-0149. Second is York Street West LLC for a one-year extension for preliminary and major site plan approval with deviations 58-60 Center Street College and York Street and 214 Bright Street, Jersey City, New Jersey, block 13805, lots 4 567 and 8. Case numbers P2025-000036. Third is applicant Journal Square Plaza Urban Renewal Associates LP for preliminary site plan approval with deviations 2965 Kennedy Boulevard, Jersey City, New Jersey, block 9403. Lot 14, case numbers P204-0127. Fourth is applicant Monteello 200 LLC for amendment final site final major site plan approval 72 Jwet Avenue also known as 200-204 Monteello Avenue Jersey City New Jersey block 16801 lot 45.02 02 also known as block 16801 lots 45 4647 case number is B2025-000075 fifth is approve approving a 2-year extension of the approved preliminary and final major site plan and deviation case number B205-0061 416 Hoboken Avenue LLC 414-432 2 Hoboken Avenue, block 6701, lot 62-12. Approval, a site plan extension of the preliminary and major major site plan approval with deviations. Applicant is Ricardo Ramos for approval of a one-year site plan extension of the previous approved preliminary and final major site plan with deviations and conditions. Properties 477 Ocean Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey. Block 25101, lots 22, case numbers P205- Z0055. Applicant is 165 Norark Avenue, LLC for third extension of preliminary and m and final major site plan approval with deviation 163-165 Norark Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey. Block one 2704 lots lot 15 case number is P2025-000046 8 is case number P2025-000030 applicant is 12 Nan LLC address is 120 Storms Avenue Jersey City New Jersey block 15004 lot 27 decided on March 25th 2025 memorized on May 27th Applicant application for time extension. Ninth is case number P2024-0241. Applicant we bill this LLC address is 332 within Street, Jersey City, New Jersey, block 1 19005 lot 30 decided on Tuesday, April 22nd, 2025. Memorized on May 27, 2025. Applicant application for site plan amendment tent is approving minor site plan case numbers P2025-00006 submitted by Dish Wireless LLC 15 Marian Place block 1410404 lot 8 and the last is Journal Square Tower LLC for preliminary and final major site plan approval with design waiverss and deviations to 966 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, also known as 295A John F. Kennedy Boulevard and 71 and 73 Cottage Street and 69 Cottage Street, Jersey City, New Jersey. Block 7903, lots 1.01, also known as lot 1, two, and three, and four. That case number is P2024-0210. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Could we have a roll call, please? Vice Chair Gangin. Hi, Commissioner Cruz. Hi, Commissioner Lipsky. I Commissioner Patel. Hi, Commissioner Torres. Hi, Chairman Langston. Hi. Motion carries. All in favor to memorialize resolutions. All right. Thank you everybody. So before we adjourn, I just want to wish fellow commissioner David Cruz all the best as this is his last meeting on the planning board and until maybe he gets picked again down the pike. So best wishes, Dave. Thank you, David. Thank you for all the years. I wish you waited until tomorrow to announce it, but thank you. Do we have a motion to adjourn, please?