I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. Thank you. Could we have a sunshine announcement, please, Cam? >> Yes, chairman. Good evening everyone. Today is Tuesday, August 12th in the year 2025 and this is a Jersey City Planning Board meeting with the scheduled 5:30 p.m. start time. And in accordance with the open public meetings act, notice of this meeting has been given to the editor of the Bergen record, Ellito, and posted with the city clerk on Friday, August 8th 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. >> All right. Thank you. Could we have a roll call, please? >> Yes. Commissioner Wick, >> here. >> Commissioner Torres, >> here. >> Commissioner Stamato, >> here. Commissioner Lipsky >> here. >> Commissioner Patel >> here. >> And Chairman Langston >> here. >> All right. We have a quorum. We have six commissioners present. >> Okay. Thank you. Could we swear in the staff, please? Mike, >> do you guys want to get to the truth? The whole truth. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Do we have correspondence? >> Yes, chairman. Um under new business continued item 25 we have been um we've received notification that they request to carry with preservation of notice to September 23rd. Um so that is case P2025-00009 for a preliminary and final major site plan with C variances. Applicant is Yellowstone Development LLC. The address is 54 Jones Street and they've requested a carry with preservation of notice to September 23rd of this year. >> Okay. So, if anybody from the public is here for that application, you will not get new notice. This is your notice that it's being carried to September 23rd. >> Okay. Anything else, Cam? >> Oh, yes, Chairman. Uh we also uh have James McCann who uh would like to make a request. >> Good evening, council. Uh good evening commissioners, chairman, um James McCann appearing on cases on the agenda uh number 22 and number 23. That would be P2024 229 and P2024182. I represent the applicant in both cases. Um these are now contested cases. Um, the Port Liberte Homeowners Association has retained council and opposition experts in the form of an engineer and a planner. Um, my office received reports, opposition reports from both of those uh, experts late yesterday. Um, what the applicant is requesting is we would like to take the time to review those reports, see if we can address some of the comments in those reports prior to having a hearing. So maybe we can narrow down as many issues about the case as possible and satisfy some of the concerns of the uh Port Liberte Homeowners Association. So I'm requesting that the matter be continued until September 9th and I also have reached out for Mr. Martin Cabalar um who has confirmed that he's also available on September 9th um if we if you carry the case to that date. So that we would be all set. All right. Thank you, Council Kim. Can we make the ninth happen? >> Yes. >> Yes, Chairman. >> Okay. Um, just one other thing. I would respectfully request to be first on the agenda that night. >> Cam, you tell me. >> Yes. Actually, look at that. Today's your lucky night. All right. Um, I actually there's one other thing. I'm sorry. I forgot. Sure. >> Um, so item 26 under uh new business continued that is case P2024-0247, a preliminary and final major site plan. >> Cam, before we jump to that, can we finish with Mr. McCann? >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. I just want to announce anybody that's here for those applications, once again, this is your notice. You will not receive new notice. Okay. Thank you. So Cam, do we have an agenda set for September 9th or we have not set that agenda yet? >> Not yet. No. >> Okay. >> Tonight would be when we start. >> So obviously if we're going to allow this matter to proceed first on that agenda and there are opposing counsel and experts. We just have to be conscientious of how much time that's going to wind up taking. >> Agreed. >> Okay. Thank you, council. All right. So, Cam, item 26. >> Uh, yes. And, uh, uh, okay. New business continued. Item 26, case P2024-0247, preliminary and final major site plan, applicant, Apple Tree Suites LLC. The address is 76 Cottage Street. The applicant has requested a carry with preservation of notice to September 9th of this year. >> Okay. Thank you, Cam. So, again, for everybody in the, uh, public, come on up council. >> Sorry. Um, uh, Stephen Joseph, um, case number 14, 10 Brinkenhoff Street. So, I was informed, uh, just before walking in here that the surveyor had a medical emergency. Won't be able to attend tonight. So, we'd like to request to carry that. >> Okay. Okay. So, let me just finish up with item 26. If anybody's here for 76 Cottage Street, that will be heard on September 9th. You will not receive new notice for that. And council, I'm sorry, what item um number 14 on the agenda. This is 10 uh Brinkerhoff Street. >> Okay. So, case number P2025-000028, minor subdivision for 10 Brinkerhoff. Uh, do you Cam, do we have a date? >> September 9th. >> September 9th. >> September 9th. Sure. >> Okay, sounds good. Thank you. >> All right. And that's with preservation of notice. And again, anybody that's here for 10 Brinkerhoff Street, you will be that'll be heard on September 9th. You will not receive new notice for that. >> Okay. Anything else, Gam? >> Uh, the sunshine announcement is marked into evidence as B1. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> All right. So, let's move on to item seven, old business. Under a case P205-0136 is site plan extension for 178 Monaceel Avenue. That's me. Uh Stephen Joseph for the applicant. Um this is a a one-year extension to a previously approved site plan. If approved, this will expire on September 19th, 2026. This is the first one-year extension. >> So, you're in before the date. >> Yes. Believe it or not. >> Okay. Getting places. >> And what's uh what's the reasoning, council? >> Um the property actually sold to a new owner and they're getting everything in order to build it. >> Okay. Thank you. Any uh questions? Anybody? >> Okay. Is there anybody from the public that wants to comment? Anyone from the public? See no one from the >> meeting. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. >> Ben, anything you want to add? >> Staff recommends approval. Um that all conditions of approval remain in full effect and that staff recommends approval. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll entertain a motion then. I'd like to make a motion for case P2P 2025-0136 as it was presented to the board tonight. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion is made and seconded for approval. >> Uh Commissioner Torres. >> Um I >> Commissioner Wick. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Stamatada. >> Hi. Commissioner Lipsky. >> I. >> Commissioner Patel. >> I. >> Chairman Langston. >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Council. Let's move on to item B. Is case P2025-0142 is a site plan extension for 212 to 230 Culver Avenue. Good evening, council. Yan. >> Good evening, chairman. Good evening, C commissioners. Gerard Pizzill from Gova Burns. On behalf of the applicant, LK Culver LLC. Uh we are before you this evening requesting a second one-year extension of the preliminary and final major site plan the board granted under case P21120. Uh the property is located midrise midrise zone B of Culver Route 440 redevelopment plan. Uh basis for the uh extension request. My clients purchased the property midway through after the initial approval was granted. So they never had the full time to really get all their ducks in a row. Uh on top of that, there was issues related to the underlying transaction with the seller at the time that further impacted the ability to diligently move forward. Uh they are in conversations with their professionals now with other parties uh with the hope of either moving forward with the development or transferring the property. Uh so I am asking or I am asking on behalf of the client for the additional one-year uh it be the second one-year extension um on those b uh for those basis on those reasons. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh any questions? Anyone? >> All right. Is there anybody from the public that wants to comment on this application? Anyone from public? >> See no one from public. I like to close the public part of the meeting. >> Second. >> All right. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Camp any problems? Planning staff would only ask that you incorporate all of the conditions from the original resolution into the extension resolution. >> Agreed and understood that they would carry through. >> Okay. No problem. Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Planning staff recommends approval. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. I'll entertain a motion. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve case P 2025- 0142 as it was presented to the board today. >> Second. >> All right. Motion made and seconded for approval. >> On a motion to approve. Commissioner Wick. >> I. >> Commissioner Torres. >> I. >> Commissioner Stamato. >> I. >> Commissioner Lipsky. >> I. >> Commissioner Patel. >> Hi. >> And Chairman Langston. >> I. Motion carries. is all in favor with conditions. >> Okay. >> Thank you everyone. >> Thank you councel. Let's move on to item C is case P205-0117 is the site plan extension for 270 Newark Avenue commissioners. Uh I would appreciate if you could actually call the next case as well too. I'm going to provide uh the notices for both of them. It makes sense if we hear both of them together because everything's all tied together from a timing standpoint. >> Sure. Okay. Let's call the next item as well. Case B2025-000031 is a site plan amendment for 270 Newark Avenue. >> And these are notices that I posted online, but I will provide them to council. >> Sure. Thank you. And while we're while we're reviewing the notice, anybody that's just walked in, we have a few items that have carried tonight that will not be heard tonight. Uh item 14 on the agenda, 10 Brinkerhoff Street will be heard on September 9th. Item 22 and 23 for 200 Chapel Avenue will be heard on September 9th. Item 2554 Jones Street will carry to September 23rd. And item 2676 Cottage Street will be heard on September 9th. Chairman, receive the affidavit of public proof of mailing with respect to both case P2025-0 117 and case P2025-000031. We're going to mark them as A1 and A2 respectively. >> Thank you, council. >> Thank you, council. Uh, by way of background, uh, the property 270 Newark Avenue, uh, is located at the corner of 270, excuse me, Newark Avenue and Mammoth Street. Uh, back in 2002, excuse me, 2022, this board approved an application for a five-story building um, and uh, four units commercial at the ground floor. Uh, the only variance we saw at the time was rear yard and that was largely due to the undersized nature of the lot. This is in the NC zone. That zoning hasn't changed since the approval that you granted back in 2022. In 2023, my client uh came back before the board um and they requested an approval for a twostory uh building on the same site along with a conditional use application for a cannabis use on the site. Uh I was not involved with that application. Um, but it was my client's intent at that time to move forward with a cannabis location at that site. My client came back to me and asked for an extension of the fivetory approval that this board had granted back in 2022. And unfortunately, I had a misunderstanding with my client and I represented to the board that they weren't seeking to move forward with the cannabis application at that time. Um, that was a mistake on my end, a misunderstanding with my client. They were actually planning to move forward with the cannabis cannabis location. same property but within the five-story building. Um, in speaking with council for the board and speaking with planning, uh, they thought it might make sense for me to come back before this board and try and marry the two ideas together and ask for an amendment to that five-story approval. Just sort of confirming that the conditional use you granted on the property, which does run with the property, is acceptable at the same location, but within the fivetory building. So, there's two things I'm asking of the board this evening. One, I'm asking to extend the approval for the five-story building, and I'm also asking the board, per your council's advice, to try and marry these two ideas together and approve them under one single amendment to the five-story building. So, the first request is for an extension. Uh obviously the reason for the extension is is that we filed this application for the amendment uh some time ago and we've just been waiting to get our uh application deemed complete and get back in front of the board in that time. The one-year extension you granted a year ago has run out. So that's the first request of the board. And the second request is again to just sort of confirm that the approval that you granted for both the conditional use on the site and the five-story building are acceptable and we can sort of marry the two ideas together. Um I do have a memo and the board should have a memo dated July 8th uh prepared by Eric Beasley that confirms that there's been no pin in the map. We're still within the acceptable amount of feet from other uh uses that would prevent it from being here. And the only other pres presentation materials we have is just to show new ground floor, new location of the cannabis entrance. >> Okay. Thank you, council. Mr. Lewis, good evening. >> Hi. >> Yes, I do. >> Jeffrey Lewis, J EF R E Y L E W I S. And Mr. Lewis, your license is current. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. >> Great. Okay. So, I do just want to go over uh the changes that we've made here. They are very minor. Uh a couple of them are site related, a couple of them are related to the new use. Uh here we're looking at our seller plans. On the left is what was approved. On the right is what we're proposing. Uh so first of all, we had some underground conditions at the top here where we weren't able to ex we're not going to be able to excavate the entire site. Uh so we're going to have a small area here that will not be excavated. Uh this reduced the size of the cellar down to 975 ft. Also, we had to relocate this staircase which was in that area and we moved that over to the right side of the cellar here. Uh, and then the last change here is our utilities were originally coming off Mammoth Street and coming here and those have been relocated to the first floor. >> Uh, Mr. Lewis, if you could just Yeah, Lee, uh, go back to that seller plan. >> So, the commercial storage is on the left, correct? >> That's correct. >> I'm sorry, on the uh, proposed. Yeah. >> Um, and the space on the right is for tenants of the building. Correct. >> That's correct. And there are no doorways between the two. >> Okay. And you don't need a second means of egress down there for either one? >> No. Under 1500 square feet. We're okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. >> You're welcome. Okay. Now, moving on. Again, approved is on the left and what we're proposing is on the right. This is the ground floor plan. Uh we did make two changes that are somewhat on the exterior of the building. They're both to the um the second entry to this retail space. Originally that was located up here off of Newark Avenue in this little al cove. Um that space uh that door has been removed and we're using that space for where our meters would be located, our gas and electric meters. Um our service is now going to come off of Newark Avenue. Uh and we did need that second door though. So that door has been relocated to the second al cove off of Mama Street which already has the entry to the building lobby and the second staircase. So this is the uh secondary entry or secondary exit. It's really the emergency exit to the space from the space. Um, looking at how the space itself would be fit out, uh, the main entrance is these double doors at the corner of the property. Um, you enter into the control check area um where you're checked by the um, security. Once you come through, there's just one main sales floor with some display tables and a sales counter at the end. Then behind the sales counter, we have an ADA bath. We have that staircase which goes down to the storage. And then we have um another storage area which is uh for dry storage as well as the uh vault room. Um and that's all that's changing in this application. Everything else remains the same. The elevations don't really change except for those interior doors that you can't really see from the front of the building. >> Okay, >> Mr. Louis, how is that staircase protected? Is there a door on there? >> No, it's actually completely open. >> And that leads down to the storage area in the basement, right? >> Correct. >> So, the general public can access that. >> Well, you'd have to go past the sales counter. The sales counter goes across the whole thing. So, you'd have to open the sales counter to go through it. We I mean, a door can certainly be added. That wouldn't be a problem if it's something you think is necessary. Where's the sales counter? >> The sales counter is this going across the entire length of the sal the sales floor here. So this would be the that part that folds up and that's how you would get through to get to these spaces. But we could always add even here we can add a second door and move this door here if you wanted. Or we could put a door right here. So it's possible to put a door if you thought it would be more appropriate. How does the uh Eric, how does the statute read? Do we need a I would assume storage areas need a secure door, right? >> Well, we do have on the ground floor, this whole center area is the that's the secured storage area. Then that does have a door. >> So, I think the downstairs would be more storage like fixtures and things like that. I don't think they're storing. >> Yeah, I'm taking a taking a look at it right now. >> Yeah. Okay. But they could store something, >> right? And we are happy to add the door. >> Yeah. >> This is >> for the use of for cannabis sales. >> Yes. >> And wouldn't it have to have a door then for the purpose of But we don't do that no more, right? We don't get into that when we first started. >> So that's the next question. But >> council, same operator. >> Same operator. Yep. Same operator, same owner. Um, and what I was going to I've already uploaded it, but I have a letter from the cannabis board saying same operator, same property. They don't need to review it again. We did provide as part of our upload new security plan, new odor mitigation based on these changes here. Um, so we did, you know, reach out to them and they felt that the next review was you guys. Okay. >> So, council, my only concern is the original planning board approval of the future commercial space was not for cannabis. >> That's correct. >> There was a cannabis approval that if memory serves me correctly was for a larger space. Or am I wrong about that? Um, I don't know if it was for a larger space. I mean, this this is a pretty tight building. I mean, a piece of property. >> Um, we were only going up to a a second floor and I think there was an office on the second floor. >> Yeah. >> Um, so this shrunk the size of it. And again, that's why we changed and updated the security plan, updated the odor control plan. This is a smaller area I would assume just for the actual floor area, but that second floor on the the previous one was an office space. It wasn't meant to be a retail component. >> But because you already have secured the conditional use variance and started the process with respect to the site, the intention is to continue with that conditional use. That >> is correct. Yes. >> Which therefore brings it back into play with and in connection with the site plan application. Uh, >> I think >> if you want to break them, >> if you want me to. They're not. >> Regardless, why don't we secure the basement? >> I I have no I don't think that's something our client is going to have an issue with. We'll add that extra door. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Excellent. >> Anybody else? Any questions? >> I I have two quick questions. One, Mr. Lewis, just to >> You're saying that the utilities are going to come from the Avenue side now or >> you said not from Mama Street no more? >> That's right. that was required. Yeah. >> And so for council, um just so I could be clear, uh when you started the presentation, >> we extended a one-year extension for a fivestory building >> with a commercial use in the ground floor. Correct. >> Then they came back and we did a twostory building or it was always a five-story building. >> So So there was there was really two requests from the board with that two-story building. Obviously the the site plan approval for the actual structure itself. The second request is for the conditional use which is the cannabis use that in my opinion my discussion it runs with the property. So when you approve that conditional use you approved it for the property. >> Mr. Lewis, can you take that off the screen for a second? >> Yes. >> And that was the opinion of the the cannabis board cannabis board's attorney was you approved it for this particular location. We still approve it for that location. >> My but my question is what I'm confused about is that did you come to the board and say we're not going to build a five-story building anymore? Now we approved a two-story building and now we're coming back to the board for the five-story building with the twotory two floor >> which came first council. >> So I'm not I'm not sure. >> A little confusing timeline wise. I I agree. Yes. And and again, I wasn't involved with the twotory approval. There was a five-story approval, four units, ground floor, commercial. >> Year later, they come back with a twostory building and asked for the conditional use on that site. >> I come back last year and I asked this board for an extension of the fivestory approval, not knowing my client was still moving forward with the cannabis on that location. So, the fivetory building can still be built. It's it if if you approve the extension today, it can still be built. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> But I'm confused on council. Maybe you got >> I'm going to clear it up for you right now. >> No, but just just so you can be clear where I'm going with. >> I know where you're going. >> They we approved the twotory building. >> To me, that means that fivetory building doesn't exist no more. >> No, it doesn't. >> Does it? Okay. >> It does not. >> Thank you. >> Right now, they have the alle cart. >> Okay. >> Either going to build a five-story building or I'm going to build a two-story building. >> Okay. with a cannabis use. But here's what I want. I want to build a five-story building with cannabis on the first floor. And what we would do if the board were to act favorably is we would abandon the five with the commercial or the cannabis and a twotory. And the only thing that would be left standing would be a fivetory with cannabis on the ground floor. that and if for whatever reason your client decides that they want to do something else, they're going to start again >> and they're coming back here. Yes, agree with your analysis. >> But right now, they have the option. >> They have the option. >> Although the fivetory building approval is set to expire. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Legally, they could still pull the permit though. They have the protection that they're about to lose if this doesn't get addressed this evening. >> All right. Any other questions? Anyone? All right. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Anything else? >> Nothing else for me. >> Okay. Is there anybody here from public that wants to comment on this application? Please come on up. >> Yes. >> Tonight's going to be the truth. All truth. Yes. And give us your home address, please. >> Danielle D A N I E L L E Damo D and David A D and David A M O 72 Hopkins Avenue. >> Good evening. We have three minutes for you ma'am. >> Thank you. Good evening. I do not support this application to amend the site plan for 270 Newark Avenue to include a class 5 cannabis retail use. While I do not live in Ward E, I have watched the s the same pattern play out across Jersey City. An oversaturation of cannabis dispensaries with little regard for balance or community need. And in yet another location does nothing to improve the quality of life for residents and instead clutters our commercial corridors with a single type of business. This ground floor space in a new mixeduse building could be so much more. a fresh food market, affordable dining, cultural venue, or community focused service that benefits residents of all ages. With prime real estate like this, we should be diversifying on our commercial spaces, not doubling down on an already crowded cannabis market. I urge the board to reject this amendment and require a proposal that reflects the long-term needs and character of the neighborhood. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Appreciate your time. Anybody else here from public? >> Anyone else from public if you'd like to? >> Anyone else from the public wishing to speak? I move to close. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. Public is closed. Eric, anything you want to add? >> Yeah. Um, really quick, just want to touch on the storage aspect. So, the ordinance doesn't necessarily say you have to, you know, enclose storage, but I think it it it is a good practice to move forward with adding a door leading to the storage down in the seller. Um, so we can add that as a condition of approval. Um, and yeah, staff just asked that the applicant agree to the conditions associated with P21-097 in addition to the conditions, the two other conditions in the staff memo. >> Uh, I'm in receipt of the July 8th uh, 2025 memo. We can agree to the conditions therein and also add that additional one about the door. >> Okay. Thank you, councel. >> Uh, otherwise, staff recommends approval. >> All right. Thank you. >> Two other approvals if approved. We do them separately. >> We're going to do them separately. We also need, >> how do you want to word the abandonment part? You want to put that in. So if the motion to approve, it's going to be approve the site plan amendment and the extension and the abandonment of the prior approvals at the site. under case 2304 and no >> 21 >> 2197 >> correct >> but 23040 is the cannabis >> use that's the two >> that's the twotory both preliminary and final site plan and a conditional use and one approval. >> Can we cancel the twotory cannabis use? >> So that's the amendment component. We're amending really the twotory to make it a fivetory. >> I'm asking for the extension on the five and I think we're amending the fivetory one. we can agree and even put it into our resolution that we abandon the twostory site plan approval, >> right? >> And that the uh conditional use is carried over to the fivetory and it's amended to reflect that conditional use >> and dates back to the original date of the approval. >> Right. >> Because I need to extend >> correct >> the conditional use. Yeah. So you don't run into that issue. >> I I think that's fair. Yes. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> You understand that? >> Okay. So what I'm doing is u with the conditions that the staff has recommended with the condition of amended P21-097 and abandoning the two story site plan approval component with the intention of carrying forward the conditional use variance in that approval. Perfect. >> That's what you want to do. >> That's what you're looking to do if that's what your objective is. >> What am I carrying forward though? >> The conditional use variance for the cannabis location. So, your intention is to walk away with a five story fivetory building with a cannabis retailer on the ground floor. Is that your intention? >> Well, >> is that what you want to move? >> Because that's what they're asking for. >> That's what they're asking for. >> So, is that what you're asking to approve? Okay. >> I'm asking you, Commissioner, is that what you want to do? >> Oh, I was just going to as it was presented here tonight. >> That's what you want to do? Okay. So, >> it was presented here tonight and then just with the abandon of the twotory site plan approval. >> I'm just >> trying to clarify it for the record. >> So, we've done that now. So, the that's the motion. >> That's the motion. So, >> but we >> made the motion. >> Well, we have to make the motion for the extension first. >> That's going to be on the >> correct >> first one. C and then on the second one. >> No, >> that is the second one. >> The second one >> with the extension to run the extension of a one year. >> Yes. Because if we don't approve the extension, the second one, >> the second one is no. >> Correct. >> All right, Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve case P2 case P2025-0117 one-year extension as it was presented to the board tonight. >> All right, we have a motion and a second for approval. >> Commissioner Wick, >> I. >> Commissioner Stamato, >> hi. Commissioner Patel, >> I. >> Commissioner Torres, >> I. >> Commissioner Lipsky, >> hi. >> And Chairman Langston, >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> Okay. Thank you. So, I'll entertain a motion for the second item. >> Okay. Uh, Mr. I'd like to make a motion to approve case 2025-000031 as it was presented to the board tonight with the abandonment of a twostory site plan approval. >> Second. >> Okay. So, we have a motion and a second. >> Commissioner Wick. >> I. >> Commissioner Stamato. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Patel. >> Hi. Commissioner Torres, >> I. >> Commissioner Lipsky, >> I. >> And Chairman Langston, >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> Okay. >> Thank you, everyone. >> Thank you, council. >> Thank you. >> Let's move on to new business. Item nine is case P2024-0246 is an interim use approval for 549 Summit Avenue. Good evening, council. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Uh, for the record, Charles Harrington of Connell Foley. on behalf of the applicant. I did provide public notice for this, so I'd um ask that they be reviewed by council and marked into uh the record. >> Thank you, councel. Chairman, see the affidavit know proof of mailing with respect to the application at 549 Summit A here in the city does appear to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for the record. >> Thank you, council. >> Okay. Uh so, uh tonight's presentation, uh application is for the property located at the corner of Pavonia Avenue and Summit Avenue. It's uh uh right across the street from Journal Squared. Uh and there it used to have uh one or two story office buildings that front on Summit Avenue. Uh they have been demolished. Um in the back of those office buildings used to be a parking lot uh for those office buildings. Um I don't know if you know Yui Maguire, I think his offices were were right there. Um so uh what we're proposing now is for an interm parking lot uh for 45 uh spaces. Uh we do we did provide a parking management plan. Um it the parking um uh the parking lot will be a public parking lot. Uh it would have an attendant. Um and we are asking for up to uh three years. Uh the the idea behind this is that there is currently a project uh at 60371 Norc Avenue uh at the northern end of Homestead Place that is a public parking lot. So this would replace that in the interimm the 45 spaces uh when that starts construction which is hoping to start construction within the next six months. Um and then you know at well not before the board um the just for the edification of everyone ultimately this property um is planned to be developed further consistent with the Homestead uh place projects. So that uh there there will be a pedestrian walkway that will take you from Homestead Place uh through through Van Ripen and Summit in the middle there and bring you up to Summit and have like another pedestrian corer. Um but in the meantime, we are proposing uh this interimm use. We we think it'll take u alleviate some of the stress uh in the area, especially with that public parking lot being taken away. Uh the courthouse always needs additional parking as well. Um so we we think it's it's an appropriate use uh in the interimm. Uh and we have been working with with planning staff and with the Jersey City traffic department in the design that we ultimately came to for tonight's uh presentation. And with that said, I have uh Paul Freighus uh here tonight that can just walk you through uh the site plan. >> Okay. Thank you, council. Shut. Tonight I'm looking for the truth. >> I do. >> Paul Freighus. P A U L F R E I T A S. >> Mr. Freighus. Good evening. Your license is current tonight. >> Yes. >> All right. Thank you. You're qualified. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. Um briefly go over the uh layout of the parking lot, its location, and just give you some, you know, some details on the project. As Mr. Harrington has mentioned the lot is on the corner of Pavonia Avenue and Summit Avenue. It's lots uh 10 and 11. There are it's an attended parking lot with approx with 45 proposed uh spots. The uh surface of the lot is non-imperous so it's gravel so water can flow flow through it. uh it's attended. It has an entrance and an exit that are on Pavonia Avenue as shown here. And as you will note, there is a green buffer that kind of softens the street front with uh you know 5 foot high uh vegetation. Uh the width of that vegetation varies between 9 ft and 5 1/2 ft down to 2 feet. Um outside of that there's a gate that prohibits people from entering uh right away and of course the attended uh personnel would be uh taking the car in and parking it. Uh outside of that it's pretty straightforward parking lot. There's a Oh, in addition there's a a fence a five foot fence on the rear of the lot right here. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Freighus. Any questions? anyone >> is um there'll be nobody there um working or staying there while people are parking. They just come in and they could be able to park. >> No, there there will be an attendant there. Uh so >> there. >> So you'll you'll move in, you know, come in and then the attendant will take the car and park it. >> We have something for the attendant to be there while during the day or he's just going to be out in the elements standard. the space plan to >> I believe between the entrance and the and the exit there should be a little it it doesn't show here on >> looks like two trees to me bushes. >> Yeah. No, it it it's not there but that's that's that was discussed as having a little structure there for the attendant >> structure there for somebody if they're going to be there. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, and uh then there be some place for the person to need to uh port a John or something there too or is there ever going to be a uh some for that person that's going to be there for the hours of at least 8 hour shift right? >> Yeah. I I don't believe there's a portage, John. Well, there's not a bathroom proposed, but I guess we we can look into that because an eight hour shift. Yeah, you may. >> I mean, I don't What would the person do if they're standing there for eight hours inside that parking lot? >> Whether >> you're absolutely right. So, we >> especially winter time, rainy day, we have a person sit in the parking lot just standing there. >> Yeah, we I' I'd say we could we can further review that with Mr. Dilva as to where where to appropriately place that. >> And they would need somewhere to leave the money while they go to use that portage. So, >> yeah. Yeah. And that that's why yeah the structure between the the entrance and exit that that was the plan to put it there because you need someplace to put the keys too because when people are going to park they're going to have to leave their keys because the attendant is going to move cars around you know similar to other lots in the city and in in New York City. >> Okay. So then um at a certain time of the evening it's going to be closed. >> That's right. The the proposed hours are 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. >> Okay. So, we'll have somebody there from 6:00 a.m. to 900 pm >> and and we absolutely will find a place. >> Yes, that will be nice. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Freighus. I appreciate it. Council, that's your presentation? >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. Is there anybody here from public that wants to comment? >> Yes. >> Please come on up. >> Thank you. And if you could just >> I have to I have to do it again. I have to swear it again. >> Okay. No problem. Danielle D A N I E L L E Dammo D and David. A D's and David. A M O 72 Hopkins Avenue. >> Okay. We have three minutes for you. >> Okay. Good evening. I oppose the proposal to turn 549 Summit Avenue into a three-year surface parking lot in a transitrich neighborhood like Journal Square. This is the wrong choice and a waste of prime land. A surface lot here will worsen flooding by adding imperous surface that sends more storm water into already overburned sewers. Increase the urban heat island effect, making the neighborhood hotter. Undercut Jersey City's own sustainability and climate resilience goals by encouraging more car dependency instead of reducing it. And let's talk about the interim part. What happens after the three years are up? Are we just looking at another extension, another placeholder plan? Without a clear enforcable end goal, this risks become a long-term blight disguised as a short-term solution. With new bike lanes in this corridor, this site could instead be used for bike infrastructure, secure bike parking that encourages people to ride here, shop, and dine in Journal Square. That's an interim use that builds towards sustainable future, not away from it. Finally, where exactly will the cut driveway be placed? How will safety be guaranteed for people walking, biking, and driving through this area? This is already a busy corridor. One safe, one unsafe curb cut could create more hazards than this lot is worth. We have better options for interim use. green space to cool the area, storm water infrastructure to prevent flooding, or community amenities that serve residents. Approving this delays real progress, hurts our environment, and prioritizes cars over people. I urge you to reject it. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Please come on up, sir. >> Thank you. Before you speak, tonight's going to be the truth. The whole truth, nothing but truth. >> Yes, sir. Can you speak by your name and give us your address please? >> Tak Salah. I am the spiritual leader of Al Mahin Foundation 15 Van Avenue owner of the building and I have the president of the board and the treasurer of the board with me here. >> Okay, we have three minutes for you. >> 3 minutes too little. Give me chance because I have some problem. I wanted to explain to the board about it >> for the interim parking lot. I I will the 15 veren we use it. This is in Mahadeim Foundation. We used that as a mosque. Uh uh Muslim mosque. We use it. This about 10 times at least was stolen from many thieves. They use this place to jump to our place from the backyard. This they wanted to use it as parking lot. Okay. and it will be used later to uh the project uh state uh what you call it the the project of the area 47 or 27 and uh when I'm sorry to interrupt you because the place beside us 2129 van Ryen the same owner of that place he apply for construction permit application as a owner of our place. You give him the board give him approval to build 27 story beside us and the 20 17 verben it was uh uh historical place although that he broke it broke that house demolish half of it and put his building on the edge of our uh uh uh uh uh uh uh backyard. Sir, I'm I'm confused. >> Let me >> Are we Are we talking about the surface the interim surface parking lot on the corner of Summit and Bavonia? >> This is our back. >> Okay. >> This this area our back always the thief come from this area to jump to our our place to stealing our uh uh uh uh house and we use it as a mosque. But in the same time I am try to give notice about the owner owner of the area who will use it as a parking lot for three years. The same owner who has the developer Nadmar Nadmar group has all the area four sto four building the they start in the 2129 right now we are 15 van historical 17 beside us is historical too he demolished half of it half of that place and he put his building on our edge and he requested permit from the board. I don't know how he put his name as a owner of 15 van. >> All right, sir. Hold on. >> Let's just clear some things up. 15 Van Ripen is on the corner of Van Ripen and Summit. >> No. >> What is the >> west? If you put I can put the the the the on the computer I can show you the BL 15 van you know 17 now 2129 under construction now Nadmar group >> yes >> Nadmar group has the corner of Summit with Vanrien too and has Bavonia with the Summit too and have homestead with Bavonia too. This is for building for Nadmar group. I don't know how that is is working. Somebody he tried to Mr. Nadmar came to me and he send me a David to sign it but the board of the mosque refused to sign it. Then in the same time apply apply for construction permit. But we're talking about the corner of Pavonia and Summit. That's where this application >> I I understand very well. First of all, this corner is owner the same developer. I I understand. But this people the the thief they use this this corner to jump on our place from the backyard. I understand what you're saying. I understand what you're saying, but we're only talking about the parking lot that's proposed on the corner. So, whatever issues you have with what's going on generally in the area, >> not generally in the same developer, in the same four building. >> But that's not before the board tonight. I know is not before but I I hope the board to give me a chance or any day I can come to explain my paper because I make a complain here then they send it to inspector inspector said to me I'm sorry to say that he said this expression who has the money he will win if we don't have the money it means we cannot win he do whatever because he is billionaire and He did whatever and he put his building 27 floor in the edge of our place demolish while I have the the decision. This place is historical 17. He own the same 17. He own it is historical but he demolished half of it. When he demolished half of it he bought his building 27 on my age 15 van Ryen. How can when I call the inspector and I make the complaint here, what is the end? They said to me, send me to the inspector. Inspector uh said to me this uh uh zoning issue. Zoning issue said we give the approval we cannot do anything. Let him go to the court. Then in the same time the inspector said to me frankly and he's very honest man. I will not say his name. He said to me who has the money he will win. I went to three attorney attorney after attorney and attorney they cannot face the developer what I can do for for that reason I bought the situation before of you to give me a chance in another day to come to explain how this it could work because he has a money we put he he will put us down because we are a Muslim we cannot face him is that okay >> I didn't understand in that last part that has nothing to do with any of this >> because we we we don't have enough money and we are a small community. What we can do? >> Please please >> but I don't have jurisdiction to deal with this. I'm not the court. But at least to know what happened. >> Okay. I >> And you give approval in something and on the ground they do another thing. I don't know any of this to be true, but it doesn't come back to me. It goes into the court if what you're saying is true, which I am sure Mr. Harrington is going to say he probably doesn't know as he stands here tonight, but I am sure they have a different position that goes into the court. That doesn't come here is all I'm saying. Please at least give me a chance one day appointment to come to explain what happened. If I don't I I I went to three attorney not one one he uh h forward me to other other forward me to other attorney and I I don't know how it could work if I went to three attorney and nobody can get the case. I don't know why but they said is already under construction and it is gone. Fat try please to give me appointmentment to help me to explain what happened maybe you will change your mind about that approval. So sir, once we give an approval, and believe me, I understand I I understand what you're going through here. We can't take back an approval. Th this board only hears applications. We approve or deny them. Once that happens, it's the building part building department's responsibility to issue the permits. that permit you have in your hand. I'm horrified that it has the wrong address on it, has the wrong name on it. It's not this board that issues those permits. What I can guarantee you is we'll have a zoning officer go out tomorrow. It's again, it's not our board's jurisdiction to do this, but I'll make sure that a zoning officer goes out there tomorrow and checks into it. >> Thank you so much. Thank you so much. >> All right. I appreciate your time. Thank you for coming in and telling us about this. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> Good evening. Anybody else from public, please come on up. Yeah, come on up. >> Hi. >> Just want to give the truth. >> Yes. >> Pam Andes 191 Van Horn. And I just want to add to um the gentleman, the Muslim community is very important and is very big and is important. The Asian community is very important. The Egyptian community, the Middle Eastern community, and what's hard as I'm Asian-American, what's hard for my community to get everybody here is because English is not my community's first language. So, it it's really hard to express. So, I appreciate you. I'm also council aid to Councilman Rich Bojiano. I have um my card here and I will meet with you and and see if we could handhold you through this process and perhaps work with Namar and see if we could do, you know, see what's happening. Okay? Because our hearts break for you. Um, so I'm up here to say that and I'm up here to also say as council aid um to the WC councilman, I have the wonderful pleasure of having a headache this big about parking. The parking issue is real. Um, the Asianowned businesses on New York Avenue are horrified, which I would like to plug in. Please go to the Filipino and Indian businesses there on Newark Avenue. 701 Newark Avenue is closing. They're losing 45 spots. And so that was um you know proposed that they would find um 45 spots elsewhere. It's a bit far from the New York Avenue and Summit area that was struggling, but you know they'll take anything at this point. So, I do want to say publicly that those phone calls are real. You don't see those people that come out because they don't like to speak publicly because they have accents. I think the accents are beautiful and I just want to say that the park need for parking is real. So, hopefully we could balance everything. But, but the construction that is coming along and the development is coming along, it's going too fast. It's um you know, it is a real problem. But that's all I want to say. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Anybody else from public, please come on up. Anyone else? >> Seeing no one else from the public wishing to speak, I move to close. >> Okay. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Uh Matt, anything you want to add? Any concerns? >> Certainly, Chairman. Um maybe we can take a moment to discuss um Mr. Torres's concerns about the, you know, um, the proper facilities to accommodate the attendant because this is a proposed >> staff parking spot. As you saw, it's a there's stacked park, not stacked parking, but there's, um, >> double tandem parking. Um, it requires an attendant services. Um, I I staff I mean, I think staff agrees that perhaps that was overlooked as part of the review. Um, and I think it's certainly appropriate that um, as a resolution condition that a um, just a facility for accommodating the attendant be added as part of signature plans. Um, as far as restroom facilities go, um, I I just want to throw the possibility out there. U, Mr. Harrington. Um, the applicant owns the apartment building located at 9 Homestead Place, right? >> Uh, it's actually the applicant is the current owner of the property, but the owner of Nine Homestead Place is the contract purchaser of of the property. So, there's a relationship there. >> Okay. So, if um often, you know, a proper indoor restroom is often more dignified than a portage. Um and perhaps um just in lie of a portage John of some sort of arrangement could be worked out where the attendant could have access to the um to the staff bathroom at Nine Homestead Place. We >> we can absolutely make that accommodation. >> Um sir, >> it's it's probably about 50 yards. >> Okay. It's close. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> 30 second walk. >> No, cuz if somebody Yeah. is going to a building down the block and somebody comes to park their car. What do we, you know, and then we're parking cars at a place with a lot of office buildings. People are trying to get to work. I mean, is conflict there >> and we may have to look at it. Maybe we have two attendants at at certain points. >> Yeah. Um >> I'm just saying if it's far away, that's kind of difficult. >> That's about 50 yards. >> You can figure with staff. Um staff will certainly review a proposed op a um revised parking management plan as part of this um this signature plan sets. Um so just um staff submitted a memo dated August 8th, 2025. Um I'd just like to take a second to I guess remind the board of um the discretion available to it with an interimm use approval. Um and so in the journal square60 redevelopment plan um interm uses can be established for a period of between 1 years and 3 years in duration. Um the applicant has asked for three years here. That being said the board has the jurisdiction to choose the um time period that they think is appropriate before that use should come under review. Again, um the board has discretion there and um staff doesn't really have an opinion per se as opposed to what an appropriate time period is, but it might be something worth discussing amongst the board what might be appropriate. Um in that memo I wrote um there are six proposed conditions and in addition staff is also proposing um addressing structure for the attendant as well as restroom facilities to be accommodated in some way. Um, so that would be a total of seven conditions. Um, is the applicant willing to adhere to those conditions for approval? >> We would. I just would know for the record that it references COS. We're we're not you don't necessarily get a CO for a parking lot. >> Um, certainly I guess the the the closing of the construction permit. Um, >> to clarify, >> that's I understand the spirit of it. >> Um, excellent. All right. Great. Um with that being said, staff recommends approval with conditions um for a period of 1 to three years. That is at the board's discretion. >> Okay. So, council, you mentioned breaking ground in 6 months at 701 Newark. >> Yes, that that's their their hope. They are um getting very very close uh uh in with everything coming together, they're they're hoping to break ground within three to six months. >> Okay. So we're probably from temporary cos two and a half years out right now. >> Probably. Yeah. Two and a half to three years. >> So I I have no problem with the three years. Anybody else? >> I mean that's going to alleviate some of that. >> Is the two years starting from now or starting six months from now? >> The three years would start from the date of the resolution. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Right. >> Okay. Anybody else? Any concerns? >> Okay. >> And I I don't want to add on. I I can address any of the issues that were raised during the public if you'd like, but um some of you know some of them were obviously not related to this project. >> Sure, >> Chair. I think it would just be in Mr. Harrington's client's best interest that you talk to the community about what's going on and to the to the council aid about the other projects. It's not before the board, but obviously there seems to be some concern. >> Absolutely. >> And I'll I'll relay that back to my client about their their concerns as well. >> Okay. Thank you, councel. All right. I'll entertain a motion then. >> All right, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a motion to approve case 2024- 0246 as it was presented to the board tonight. Okay, we have a motion and a second. >> Commissioner Wick, >> I. >> Commissioner Stamato, >> yes. >> Commissioner Lipsky, >> I. >> Commissioner Patel, >> I. >> Commissioner Torres, >> I. >> And Chairman Langston, >> uh, I with the added conditions. >> Motion carries. All in favor for approval with conditions. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Mike, do you want to get a break in now? >> This might be a good time. Okay. Okay, we're going to take a 10-minute break, everybody. We'll be back uh at 6:57. >> Order, please, everybody. >> And let's call item number 10 is case P2023-0047 is a preliminary and final major site plan for 49 to 51 Morton Place. Good evening council. >> Good evening. Uh for the record, Charles Harrington of Connell Foley. On behalf of the applicant, I do have uh public notices that were provided and I want to give them the council so they can be reviewed and marked into the record. Jer receive the affidavit of notice, proof of mailing. With respect to the application for preliminary and final major site plan 38 40 42 and 46 Morton place 43 50 uh 45 4749 and 51 Morton Place 202 204 206 208 210 Orian A here in the city it does appear to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for the record. >> Thank you councel. >> Okay thank you. So, um, the application, uh, before you tonight is a result of a kind of a long road that started about a year and a half ago before this board. Um, if some of the members may recall, uh, we, uh, made an application to expand the Green Villa redevelopment plan across Kennedy Boulevard. Uh, and that then included a portion of Morton Place and it ran down along Moran Avenue. um and included this property specifically. So, this property, as you'll see during the presentation, it's it's located directly south of the light rail uh line on on Westside Avenue. Uh then you have the parking area for the board of education buses directly to the west. Uh so, right now you have uh old industrial buildings there that are being used for uh a number of uses. Um but this project here is is uh a residential uh development. Um it is uh proposing 264 units. It'll have 28 affordable units. Uh so it's 10% plus two. Uh the reason you got plus two is because during uh the process of reviewing this with the city uh planning staff and the city council, a portion of Morton Place was vacated. uh and part of the vacation required that any residential development on this property add two additional uh affordable units. So that's where we get to the 28. Uh it does also have parking. You'll see it's 127 parking spaces within uh the garage and 135 parking spaces. uh we do not uh we don't we are not requesting uh any deviations from the redevelopment plan uh as it is kind of a form-based development that you'll see and I note um just as an aside initially uh it was proposed as a 15story uh development and we've reduced it to six stories uh because it just you know for a number of reasons but I believe you'll see it it really fits in uh with the with the uh area. So, uh, with that said, um, I have two witnesses tonight, my, uh, engineer and my architect. I also have my my, uh, traffic engineer here in the event, uh, the board has any questions. Uh, but I will then move right into it with my civil engineer, Brian Libiskin. >> Okay. Thank you, council. testimony tonight, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Sure. Brian Libuskin. L I E B E S K I N D. >> Mr. Liekin, good evening. Your license is current. >> Good evening. Uh, it is >> okay. Thank you. You're qualified. >> So, uh, I will start by bringing up a exhibit showing the existing site. Um, as Mr. Harrington just explained, this is a collection of 12 individual sites. um as well as a the vacated portion of Morton Place. In total, it's at 1.3 acres. But before we before we begin, >> if we could mark this slide deck as A2 and if you got it, well, I think you just identified it for the records. 12 tall sheets. >> 26. >> 26. Oh, sorry. >> Any date, any title? Morton Plaza plan board submission >> 26 sheets A2. >> The existing site uh as just noted uh is a collection of uh eight individual buildings. um two stories each um as well as surface parking and and driveways. The proposed project uh represents the the entire um project site uh and we'll flip to a a color rendering of of the site plan. Uh project is fully compliant with the the bulk requirements of the Greenville redevelopment plan. The site improvements uh include reconstruction of the the two frontages. Um includes along Orient A, uh new sidewalks, uh new new curbs, uh new street trees, uh lighting, um as well as u complying with the condition of the revelment plan um to uh provide pedestrian walkway um offsite on on Orient. Um the building uh is six residential floors um over seller parking. The uh proposed building takes advantage of the change in topography. There's about a 15t grade change from the uh more in place uh entry um down to the um orient side where we have a two-way driveway um as well as a a loading curb cut along that side. There's a residential lobby um off of both streets. Um the architect can walk through um the you know the circulation um of the building uh in more detail. Um we've worked with uh all the the agencies uh at the city um to you know you know ultimately end up with the the plan before you tonight. Um this includes um improvements to the the Morton Place uh dead end. Um we've eliminated the um illegal uh parking um at the end of the street. um created a 10- foot wide um striped area for um for loading and vehicle turnaround um and expanded the um the sidewalk width um along that that main uh entry uh and provided um additional street trees um and and lighting. The project complies with all of the uh requirements under the city's stormwater control ordinance. um provides a underground detention basin and uh reduces the the peak flows for the 210year storm events. I can go into more detail um for any of the um engineering components um but I'll keep it brief so um there are no further questions. That concludes my testimony. >> Brian, if you could just uh with the exhibit you have up here if you could point out where the light rail is and Kennedy Boulevard. Sure. just so everybody has has an idea. >> Uh, sure. So, the the tracks um are are due north of of the site um running along the the whole length of uh that side of the property. Um JFK Boulevard is is a street um where my cursor is just uh just just off the the sheet on the right hand side. Um uh more in place um is is the the street uh at the top right of the plan. Um, and then Orient AB running uh east west at the bottom of the page. >> And is it fair to say that the light rail station, the west side light Westside Avenue light rail station is is probably within two to 300 yards to the west of the property. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Any questions? >> Anything else? >> Any questions? Anyone? >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lee. >> Okay. Okay, we'll move on with Mr. Kelly. >> Hello everyone. >> Good evening, sir. >> Truth of truth. >> I do. >> Kieran Kelly. C I A R A N K E L L Y. >> Mr. Kelly, good evening. It's been a while. Um, your license is current tonight. >> It is. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. >> All right. Thank you. And thank you, Brian. Uh so just to pick up from this slide that he had started at uh and just again to orientate everybody obviously highlighted in red is the uh very irregular parcel. It's just over 57,000 square ft. The longest frontage being against the light rail to the north and of course we have the frontage 125 ft on Orient Avenue on the south of the image and then you'll see Morton Place coming off uh JFK on the left hand side. So again, the property is within the Green Villa redevelopment plan, which actually permits 16 stories on the property, but of course, the um the proposal that we're presenting tonight is significantly uh more modest than that. Uh this would be a very simple graphic massing of the proposed structure, which is essentially a six-story structure, six residential floors over the seller parking podium. Um that podium of course again as Brian described takes advantage of the slope between a high point on Morton Place and a low point on uh Orient. So that the uh podium I guess uh has street frontage on Orient but is essentially below grade on Morton. Uh and so here on this image I've just I've selectively chosen some slides from our submission set just to walk you through the plans. This is the uh first or the lower first floor plan which is that podium level. Along the bottom of the page, you'll see where the building fronts onto the street. Um to the left, you have a transformer room and then you have your main residential lobby. Next to that, to the right uh along the street is the off streetet loading bay which is uh bigger than what is required by the plan. It's about 47 ft by about 17 ft wide. And that of course provides for schedule movein, move out, trash removal, uh all that within the building. So there's no operations or loading on the street. And then we have a two-way drive valve which access the off- streetet indoor parking area. That off- streetet indoor parking area accommodates 127 parking spaces. There is no parking requirement in this case, but we're providing 127 spaces. And of those 127 spaces, 75% of them are standard spaces, 25% are compact. The standard being 9 by8, compact 8x8. Um and then we have five ADA spaces and we have 15% EV charging uh in our parking. Now there was two comments which were made by the the division of transportation memo which said that the two space on the upper top right 34 and 33 they were concerned about maneuverability. So we prepared this as an exhibit this is A3 which should this be approved I'll include in the resolution compliance. Those spaces have been reconfigured to ensure that they have the adequate um backup and maneuverability and also we are providing 135 bike parking spaces in the building and we just had to uh delineate how each of them where they were located and that we had the required access to them. So we've done that here. Um above this and it might just take a second to load. Uh we come to what is essentially the first residential floor. The floor which is adjacent to the street on Morton. Uh so this is this creates a a different uh building footprint smaller than that of the podium uh where we are uh creating a two uh a double loaded corridor element uh aligned to the uh light rail tracks and then off of that on the southern side essentially we have two wings one of which comes down uh to uh front onto Orient way and the other one uh comes down to front onto Morton and those three elements uh kind of create a three-sided courtyard on the south of the building where at this level we have outdoor amenity an outdoor amenity terrace and also we've got some private outdoor uh space for the units which which face onto that uh courtyard the area in the white over to the right of the plan I just want to talk about briefly that's where we have a secondary lobby for the building it's a pedestrian lobby on Morton Place so people can enter and exit at that location they've got access to elevators and then also adjacent to that is the 4700T amenity space for the building and that amenity space again feeds out to that outdoor uh courtyard. So when we once we come above that floor, we're essentially into what is a typical residential floor. Um and I won't go, you know, through too much detail of all the various units, but just to give you the breakdown. So we have 264 residential units. Uh of those units, 70 are studios, uh ranging from two or 525 ft to 575 ft². 89 are one bed, one bath units ranging from 610 square feet to 800 square feet. Uh 36 are one bed, one bath plus 10 units ranging from 850 to 910 square ft. 57 are two bed, two bath units ranging from 850 ft² to 1100 ft². And finally the last 12 are three bed, two bath units ranging from,00 to,275 square ft. And of those 264 units, again, we have 28 affordable units. And just to give you and put it on the record, the breakdown, 17 of them, the majority of them are two bed, two bat units. Uh we have six three bed units, three one bed units, and two studios. Then uh to quickly describe the roof of the building, uh we have a flat roof, uh continuous uh roof above the sixth floor. It's 40,000 foot in area. 15% of that is given over to extensive green roof. We then have a provision in the middle of the plan for an extensive solar array. Now that is to be determined to be designed but we wanted to provide for it at this point. Uh we wanted to just allow the space for it. Uh and then we have a I I believe it's a 2700T outdoor uh amenity deck on the roof. We are not proposing any interior lounge amenity space on the roof. Uh also to the south of that deck uh which is directly adjacent to the main elevator lobby, you'll see there's two pickle ball uh courts proposed um uh which are which are uh we've provided fencing to 12 ft around those pickle ball courts and the remainder of the roof is given over to screened both visually and acoustically screened mechanicals rooftop mechanicals. Um so then to briefly describe the uh facades and the aesthetic of the building. It's not a tall building but it is a has a large floor plate and so there is a you know there's a large perimeter in the building. So there's a lot of facade. Uh and so what we're proposing I believe is a an elegant but contemporary um building in a you know in a in a very familiar pallet of materials. Of course, the main material being the off-white uh modular brick. Um, and then that's accented with uh bronze ACM panels at the corners and at the at the floor lines. And then the vertical panels that you see kind of randomly located are a combination of smooth and fluted uh cement board panels in a gold and uh um a champagne color. So, this is the view if you're standing on JFK and you're looking down uh Morton towards that entrance. Uh this is a closeup of the uh entry of the building at that location and this shows um the recently agreed to striping in that area to eliminate parking and also two new street trees at that entrance. This is a kind of a standing back uh if you were across the street on Orient looking at the overall uh project. Um and if you look in the center you'll see in the recessed area that would be the three-sided courtyard element uh of which we have a close-up image here. Uh again that's the amenitized uh courtyard at the top of the podium and then uh the residential buildings around it. And then finally that last slide this is the view from the north uh looking at looking or overlooking rather the light rail. Um happy to take any questions. That concludes my presentation. >> All right. Thank you Mr. Kelly. Um I don't see any PTAC units, thank God, on the building. Uh I didn't see any. No. Um, I didn't see any of the condenser units. They're on the roof. >> Yeah, they're on the roof. So, um, if I can just get my cursor here. So, the I guess the the boxes that you're seeing here, which are angled, that's the solar array orientated towards, you know, this the sun angle. Uh, all these little rectangles, they are VRF. Um, they're essentially condensers. There's one per unit. >> Okay. Uh, are they screened? Are they below the power pit? So the black line that you see here surrounding all of this stuff, the solar array and the roof mounted condensers are screens. Uh I believe that they are 4 ft high. They're a foot higher than the units themselves. >> Okay. Excellent. Uh the While you're on that slide, the pickle ball courts. >> Yeah. >> Is there lighting up there for him? >> Not currently proposed. Uh it's a good question. >> Have you ever stood outside of a pickle ball court? >> Yes, I have. I know that it's noisy. >> It's annoying. >> Yeah. Well, you know, there's there's two things. One, it's on the roof. The other thing within the construction of the building, we're obviously providing additional soundproofing below it for the residents, but there are no residential or residents overlooking or adjacent to. So, from a sound perspective, I don't think that the sound is going to travel down into the courtyard. Um, but if it's, you know, it's a concern, uh, but or our clients don't share the concern, they see that that is going to be a very very desirable amenity in the building. I I don't disagree that it's desirable. Um I I would want to limit the hours of operation. >> I I don't think there should be lighting. I think it should be shut by what's a reasonable hour. >> Sundown. >> Sundown. >> Yeah. >> You know, I I I'm sure that our client would have no issue with that. >> Yeah. No, I think that's reasonable. >> Yeah, that that would be acceptable. >> Okay. Um that's it for me. Anybody else? Any questions? Are there restrooms on the roof? >> No. No. If if you were to provide restrooms, it would be considered an additional floor. We're not proposing any indoor uh amenity space up there. Um so a person would everybody that would be up there would be a resident in the building so that they can go down to use the restroom in their unit or they could go down to the first floor and use the restrooms there. >> I actually do have I don't mean to harp on the pickle ball. Um is there fencing around it? Yes, there is. >> Okay. How high is that fencing? >> Uh, it's 12 feet. >> Okay. >> Yeah, it's an open net. >> Okay. Anybody else? Any questions? >> Yeah, I have a quick question. Um, well, I'm going to piggy back off of the chairman's question with the pickle ball. The It's not that the sound travels down. Sometimes the sound travels across. So, whatever's happening to someone that lives across the road, we might be more affected, too. Um, going back to the slide where you show the light rail and um the trees, there's a lot of trees there, but that's on the light rail side. >> Oh, sorry. Here. >> Yes. Okay. >> Yeah. And those trees those trees of course aren't exactly >> but there is a lot of vegetation in down in that light rail. >> Yeah. But that has nothing to do with yield. >> No property. >> All right. So, what I'm noticing and it's just caught my eye is I don't see too many trees on this property. You have like what only four >> uh proposed? >> Yeah, I don't. >> Yeah, there's there's four street trees proposed and they're along the street frontage is Morton and Orient. Then all of our exterior amenitized lands or courtyard areas will be landscaped. So there will be like trees and and planters >> planters and stuff like that. >> Yeah. Yeah. Now we that's not designed yet. um that would be designed as a condition of approval by a landscape architect, but there will of course be >> so we're not going to get to see that now. >> Well, so let me just let me show you the slide with the where is the it just caught my eye because it's a big property and other properties usually have a lot more. So, so um what I can tell you just looking at this slide, so this is like for example looking at the interior core chart, there is certain planting that we know will exist and that is shown on the plant. One of them is a considerable amount of buffer planting provided provided along I'm sorry I'm just flicking between slides. Um there are there are >> I see here. >> Yeah. So, so, so that line of evergreen arborvite planting that you see there, there are six foot tall arborvitees in planters along the edge of our property are so as to provide screening and buffering for the res the existing residential properties along Orient. We know that they're there and we're show we've shown them on our plans behind around the perimeter of the amenitized courtyard. There is planting there because we're providing buffers for the residential units fronting onto the courtyard. So, we know that we're not proposing any planting on the roof, >> right? >> Um, and so other than that, and other than the four street trees that we show on our site plan, there's no planting proposed. >> And that's because there's not much more space for anything else on that >> the way the way the design is. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. I just want to be sure. >> Um, council, this actually might be for you. the the solar panels on the roof, do they I I don't know the correct terminology I'm looking for here. Plug into PSEG's grid. Is it something that has to be approved by PSEG? >> I I don't know that answer. I don't know if Kieran knows. >> I don't know because uh we didn't get to that point. We didn't point of start. It was just a desire on our client's part that they would love to be able to provide this at a future date, but we didn't get the time to go down the road, so I don't know. >> Okay. All right. Understood. Um, anybody else? Any questions? >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. >> My pleasure. Thank you all. That completes our presentation. Uh, our traffic engineer is here as well, but I'm not going to present him unless there are questions for him. >> Um, maybe we'll keep him in backup. Anybody on traffic right now? Okay. Thank you, council. >> Thank you. >> All right. Is anybody here from public that wants to comment on this application? Come on up. Cool. >> Sure. >> Yes. your address, please. >> Abraham Hidea and uh I'm one of the owners of the remaining properties on the south side of Morton Place. >> Uh AB R A H A M H E D A Y A. >> Mr. Hide, good evening. We have three minutes for you, sir. >> Uh sure. Uh so, uh I want to start by uh saying that I support the construction of this project. Uh it looks beautiful and will add to the city. I'm not looking to hold anything up, but I do have a few minor concerns. Uh, a few months ago, the developer came before the city council with a request to vacate a portion of Morton Place, being that they owned the lots surrounding the end of the street. The council approved the request with the understanding that they would endeavor to deliver a 480 unit project, of which 48 units would be affordable. Instead, they're delivering 254 units, of which only around 28 will be affordable. I don't mean to imply that they misled the city as market conditions in fact have changed. But the fact stands that a public good was traded away with the understanding that a larger project would be built. As I mentioned before, this I think this project will be great for the city and the neighborhood. But unfortunately, the developer seems to have forgotten about their neighbors. Previously, they plan to request 15-minute parking spaces at the end of the street, creating parking that would be useful only for their large project. in effect vacating even more of the street and another two public parking spaces for their own use. Now, their plan is to remove more street parking, using what remains of Mort in place for K turns directly in front of my property and bringing light, noise, and peering eyes right up to my windows and precluding me from ever installing a driveway at 41 Morton Place to call it a pedestrian lobby is a little misleading. Looking at their new proposed site plan, it's easy to imagine what will happen with traffic here. Double parking, cars blocking each other after turning blindly off of Kennedy. Deliveries and drop offs at all hours, potentially from large trucks backing up, K turns in front of my buildings, shining light through my windows, drivers using and blocking my driveway, the only open one left on the street to turn around. or even worse, drivers trying to navigate the limited remaining space by not turning around at all, backing up into the sidewalk or even the crosswalk in Kennedy Boulevard, an obvious safety hazard. The developer is in effect turning Morton Place into their own driveway, which in theory I agree with. Their project should have a proper visual presence and direct access to Kennedy Boulevard. They are the real project on the block, but the site consists of over 57,000 square ft. Surely they can spare a few feet to install a proper driveway with a turnaround. I also have some lesser concerns relating to the design of the building. They plan to construct a pickle ball court directly adjacent to me. Has any analysis been done on how noise might travel down to the properties below or future mid-rise buildings that may be built? Maybe it's possible to relocate it further from the property line. Some maybe somewhere where the solar array is or some other part of the roof. Uh, in addition, I'm not sure if this is within the purview of this board or just the building code, but the developer is proposing to construct very large windows directly over my backyards. Would it be possible to angle or shrink them so that they're not opening directly over me? The kidding Morgan Morton Place had nothing to do with this project's feasibility. It just adds a some rentable square footage, which I totally agree with. I'm totally fine with developers making money and families getting more families getting a place to live is a good thing. But they should make at least some effort to plan for traffic, maintain public safety, and be a more considerate neighbor. And I hope that they can see how having a proper driveway, a proper entrance, and not just a door at the end of what's left of the street will add value to the project as well. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, sir. Council, do you want to address anything here? >> Uh, sure. I mean um as as with regard to the vacation of Morton Place that that took place about two years ago before the city council and at that time it um a larger project was was envisioned but it was always two affordable units. So and at the time the discussion was I believe the underlying zoning at the time was R3. Uh so we looked at what could you build under the R3 zoning? Uh, and you're going to if you change this zoning, we're going to require the 10%, but we also want a few extra. So, how many how many more additional units were you getting as a result of the Morton Place vacation area? Uh, and that that that's where the council uh and planning, we came to the two units. So, the two units always stayed the same. And actually, by having a smaller project, it's still two units. So the ratio is actually increased uh of of the overall units uh and you still have your 10%. So you know you still have your public benefit. Um and uh with regard to the parking uh we actually have worked with staff and with the Jersey engineering department at the end of the street. We we had some parking provided uh and Jersey City traffic department uh did not want that. uh they they thought it would create an issue with turnarounds. Uh we didn't want to have people coming down the street and having to do K turns and in front of Mr. Hideo's uh property. So, we eliminated that and we have we we striped it so that if people come down there and need need to turn around, they'll do that. And we also, I think, widen the the the right away or um down down there for that purpose. There was also an issue uh discussed if you had uh parking down there with emergency services uh and they come down the block and you've got four cars, you know, sitting sitting there blocking the fire, the truck. So, we have we have addressed these issues. They're not something that that we ignored. Um but the changes and what you have before you as a result of of working uh with the city and their staff. >> I don't know. All right. Thank you, council. Anyone else from public? Anyone else from public? >> Seeing no more for the public. I close the public portion part of the meeting. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Where are we here? Uh Matt, you're handling this? >> Uh yes, I am. >> Okay. >> Um Mr. Mr. Harrington. Um yes. >> Did you see the memo from the city forester >> with his comments? >> Yes, we agree. >> Um yeah. Is um the applicant amable to changing the species to be taller species to provide more screening and greenery? >> Yes. >> Okay, great. Um yeah, I think as um as Mr. Mr. Harrington mentioned um the um conditions in Morton Place went through a few changes um as part of the development of this application. Um initially and I believe it was at the request of community members there was an intention to provide some public parking on Morton Place. um that quickly provided um transportation made it clear that there was a conflict there between the provision of parking and the ability for vehicles to actually properly properly turn around on what is admittedly a quite small segment of street. Now um in addition um the um vacation Morton Place required the relocation of a fire hydrant which um further reduced the amount for potential parking on Morton Place. So that's why parking was removed from Morton Place. Um transportation staff signed off on the proposed redesign of Morton Place. Um and um obviously um with any type you have a legal stopping stand or parking, it's always at the end of day a question of enforcement. This is a public city street. Um I mean that being said, um it's staff's opinion that the applicant in the context of this very constrained space um did the best they can to mitigate lots of potential conflicts. Um so city planning um as conditions of rule ask that the applicant apply by the following conditions that all testimony of the applicant the expert witnesses in accordance with the application shall be binding. That the applicant shall address and/or comply with all comments and recommendations of municipal review agents and submit revised plans as necessary. Um that all materials and color selections shall be shown on final plans. Um, no change to the facade or site design, including materials, as well as any changes that may be required by construction code, shall be permitted without consultation and approval by planning staff. Um, that the applicant shall provide an affidavit from the architect record represent that the construction project is consistent with final approved plans uh, prior to issuance of a CO. Um, that the street trees and landscaping shall be installed in accordance with our forestry standards. um prior to receiving the CO the property um that the sidewalk on Orient Avenue that the applicant will be installing uh from John F. Kennedy Boulevard to um Westside Avenue in order to connect both this property and other adjacent properties better with the light rail station. um receive signoff from the uh transportation staff and as an inclusionary zoning project that the applicant comply with all relevant provisions of chapters 187 and 188 of the municipal code including the execution of an affordable housing agreement. Um with that being said um staff recommends approval with conditions. So Matt, was there any discussion any further discussion of any kind of turnaround on Morton? >> Um yeah, so um I think as Mr. Harrington mentioned, the vacation of Morton Place um occurred before the site plan was um in front of planning staff. Um, and I think the potential staff would certainly like to see more turnaround space. Um, that being said, I do not believe we're in a position to be able to require it beyond um beyond what we can do with the public right of way. >> Okay. So, so here's my issue. >> Mhm. is the only possible way to exit more and is a K turn at the end of the street. >> Yes. >> Does that put pedestrian safety at risk, do you think? >> Um, well, we if I could, we did address that issue. We had that discussion with Jersey City traffic and Matt uh so that we have the area at the end of Morton Place where you can make the K turn um for that that specific reason. So that has been addressed uh at the end. That's where we had the parking spaces at first. >> Sure. >> And uh the the conclusion was let's remove these parking spaces so that you can come down the street make the K make a K turn if you're going to turn around there just in front of the building. >> Yeah. >> So uh otherwise it it it would have created an issue and and a conflict with the neighbors. So this way it takes you further down the street. >> Okay. Okay. And we I think we moved we moved some things around so that we we we bumped out the the sidewalk area too so that you'd have uh as much width as possible. >> Yes. And I believe by removing the parking um it takes this hypothetical space that would be for a K turn um beyond the limits of Mr. Hermaya's property. >> That's correct. >> Um it's it's a constrained space. It's not perfect. It's not ideal. Um but um with the vacation of Morton Blaze happened two years ago um and we were um presented with a project that complied with the terms of that vacation. This is an as of right development. So, it's yes, it's an as of right development, but we do have I I just I don't think it's a good idea to have a lobby on Morton. I I think we're creating a hazard. It's I I just I don't agree with creating a situation where K turns are the only way to get in and out of a public street. Um, >> so that's a valid site plan issue, right? So >> whether or not there's deviations being requested, the site plan authority gives the board to look at an issue like that and say, "Okay." And chair, it sounds like the concern is obviously that what's been described as a pedestrian lobby is going to attract vehicular traffic down into Morton, whether it's Ubers or whoever, but they're going to be going down into Morton to access the building. But uh in response to that, I'd say that it is, you know, a site plan issue, but it's a site plan issue that we reviewed with staff and with the Jersey City engineers, the traffic engineers, and they're they're the ones that, you know, we presented this plan to them, and they're the ones who signed off on it. Uh, you know, I would submit they're the experts in the, you know, the traffic, uh, field. So doesn't make the concern any less valid from this board who votes on the application council. Um so one issue that did get discussed um in conversations between staff and the applicants professionals um was the issue of Ubers and deliveries and um staff proposed um ensuring in um the registration with the assessor and the like that this property have an Orient Avenue address. So when you have Uber or Google Maps or the like directing a vehicle to the property that it use the Orient Avenue entrance and the Morton Place entrance be primarily for pedestrians as a secondary entrance. There are two there are two um spots of public access, one on Orient Avenue and one on Morton Place. >> Sure. But I if you're standing on Morton Place, which is a public street, requesting an Uber, >> it's going to send it to your location. It doesn't send it to the building address. Correct. >> I suppose that would be the case. Um, and that is a valid concern. >> Sync it to whatever's closest to you. >> Yeah. It syncs to your device. It doesn't sync to the building address. And So, >> you know, any any food delivery, any package delivery um >> so we um >> is going to go to that, you know, either entrance depending on where you're requesting that. If it's a food delivery and you want it to come to Morton Place, it's going to come to Morton Place. Well, we might say there's no parking on Morton Place, but we know that's going to happen. That's not reality. So with all due respect, I I disagree with the >> assessment of the the you know engineering department on this >> in in speaking with Mr. Kentley question. >> Um I keep hearing deliveries cars car cause cars car cause cars but um did anybody look into emergency apparatus? Any uh how would they get in and out? Ambulance, fire trucks, things like that? Uh we >> it's a problem for cars I would imagine for an emergency situation. How would that work? >> We we had discussions about that. I mean with emergency vehicles they they're go to Orient Avenue or they'd go down Morton and no matter what you do to that street they would be backing up a fire truck. You >> know, but uh we talked a little bit here. We we could if this helps to alleviate the concern just take take away that and and just make it a uh like an exit only like an emergency exit um along Morton Place so that people are directed towards Orient um in walking in on on Morton. Right. So an Uber is not going to drop you off at the end of Morton Place if it's exit only. Yeah. >> Right. They're going to bring you around. >> Agreed. I think that's that's my concern is the lobby on Morton creates the traffic on Morton. >> So we we could we could agree to do that and just make it an exit only on on Morton and that that then nobody's going to ask him to drop you off on Morton because you can't get in. >> Yeah, >> I I'm satisfied with that. So, an emergency exit only door that in an emergency you push out obviously. >> Right. >> That you cannot go in through that. >> That's right. >> But an emergency exit only like >> right emergency exit only with the the push panel the whole >> Right. >> thing. >> So now everybody's going in and out of Orient. >> Yeah. Yeah. I think I think that's a better project. Other than that, I love it. It's a great project. >> Okay. Thank you, council. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, with that said, I guess it's time to entertain a motion. >> Um, certainly. And I guess just to be clear, is um so the board is recommending a condition that the uh access and more in place be designed to be an emergency exit only. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, and council, how do you want to handle that with staff on a redesign? >> Uh, we could put committed as a condition of approval that the the um that that area shall be redesigned and subject to the approval of staff >> and obviously that'll be shown on any signature drawing that you would sign, chairman. >> Correct. Okay. I don't sign them anymore. ship has sailed. >> That that's what we're discussing now. I don't think they should have to come down for a new application just to remove that exit or yeah the exit onto Morin. So I I I trust staff to work on it and um yeah make it available for signature sets and maybe send me that signature set. I know I don't signature sets anymore, but maybe this one we can make an exception. >> Certainly happy to um for you know um >> for informal advice from you, chairman. Yeah. >> So I know the >> well so the board knows right as a condition of the resolution. It's it's got to be complied with and it'll be a specific condition that says that will be a emergency egresson door. So if it's not presented, constructed and done in that manner then cos TCOs, none of that should get get issued. But that'll go into obviously >> Oh yes, of course. I'm just referring I'm just referring to um >> um the chair the chairman's preference to see that set. I I >> obviously you know we have in our land development ordinance we have a process and officially there is no process for you but informally I'm happy to include you in the conversations there. >> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. All right. I'll entertain a motion then. Gentlemen, I'd like to make a motion to approve case P2023-000047 as presented to the board tonight and the condition that staff will work on the entrance and the exit of the building >> with the condition that the entrance on Morton be a fire egress only and that will be shown on the revision uh and submitted to staff. >> I second that. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second for approval with conditions. >> Commissioner Wick >> I. >> Commissioner Stamato >> I. >> Commissioner Patel >> I. >> Commissioner Torres. >> Hi. >> And Chairman Langston. >> I. >> Motion carries. Um all in favor with conditions. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you council. Thank you. >> Let's move on to item 11 is a review and discussion of certified artist Jason U, uh, Kayla Chambers, and Heather Wulmarmac. Formal action may be taken. So, we've done this before many times. Uh, we have three artists up for certification for workforce h I'm sorry, for artist housing, uh, or studio space. We've had a chance to review, I assume, um, their certifications online. Cam, can you uh confirm that they all meet the criteria as certified artists? >> Yes, chairman. Uh, they've been recommended to planning staff by the ACB, the artist certification board, and they meet criteria 1 2 3 4 and five. Um, and just for the board's own interest, those are the artists commitment to the fine arts, one the need for large law space, two, three is their education, four, the current body of work, five is their exhibition, uh, record uh, galleries shown. Um, so they meet all five of those criteria and planning staff recommends approval. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Anyone? >> No. >> All right. Is there anybody here from public that wants to comment? Anyone from public? See you no one for public eye to close the public motion part of the meeting. >> All right. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. We have Cameron's uh recommendation. So I'll entertain a motion. >> J motion to approve the artist um discussion the certification of artistices that was presented to the board tonight. >> Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. All right. Motion and seconded for approval. Can we have a roll call, please? Cam. >> Commissioner Wick. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Torres. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Stamato. Hi. >> Commissioner Patel. >> Hi. >> And Chairman Langston. >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> All right. Thank you. So, let's move on to item 12 is case P2025-0155. Uh, is an LDO amendment. Matt, you're presenting. >> Uh, yes, certainly. Um, so this is a very short and simple amendment. Um, you know, staff routinely reviews the land development ordinance for essentially housekeeping small inconsistencies in text that might um be worth tightening up to be clearer and better match um the visions the vision of the master plan. Um staff noticed that there was a discrepancy between the allowed uses in the NC1 district and the NC2 district. Um so um both are neighborhood commercial quarter districts. Um NC2 allows for slightly taller buildings and that is because NC2 is primary primarily mapped in areas um that the mass that do not currently have a commercial corridor um character but are envisioned for change. often former highway commercial lots and so where you're having um you don't have an existing context where you're necessarily fitting into um slightly taller buildings are often more appropriate while on the NC1 commercial corridors which is your classic commercial corridor streets like Avenue, Martin Luther King Boulevard, Monaceel Avenue, etc. you have an existing context you're fitting into and generally that's usually in the realm of four to five story buildings. Um but it was noted that there are three uses allowed in the NC2 district that are not allowed in the NC1 district despite the fact that um both districts are meant to affectuate um a similar character, a similar mix of business and those three uses are hotels, civic uses and business incubators. Um, so this amendment adds those three uses to the list of allowed uses in the NC1 as well as specifying um a um parking requirement for hotels that mirrors that in the NC2 and other districts that allow hotels in the city. In this case, one parking space for every eight rooms. Um and as far as consistency with the master plan goes, um the master plan, um you know, seizes goals and strategies. We want to retain and attract small businesses, enhance economic opportunity along regional corridors, and strengthen um localized access to essential services. And by um harmonizing these uses and making sure the full breadth of uses that the city envisions for commercial corridors are allowed in the NC1 district, it advances those goals of the master plan. Um with that being said, staff recommends approval and a finding of consistency with the master plan. >> All right. Thanks, Matt. So, I do have a couple questions on the hotels. So, we're talking NC1 is five stories and below. >> Yes. Is there a minimum lot size or a maximum lot size in the NC1? >> Um, there is a minimum lot size, not a lot size. I can um if you don't mind having a second while you continue discussion, I can look this up and get you a precise answer. >> So, my concern is we're calling out one parking space for every eight hotel rooms. How many hotel rooms a can we fit on one of those lots? Um I is this is this citywide? Every NC1 zone citywide or is this a corridor that we're looking at specifically? >> Um so um the NC1 district treats Kennedy Boulevard and other commercial districts slightly differently here. And so, um, first of all, all lots under 5,000 square feet in size. Um, curb cuts are not permitted. Off- streetet parking is not permitted. And so, if you're talking about a situation, um, we're talking about on a small lot where maybe um, on upper floors of that building, you have a boutique hotel or a pensioners hotel or something, they would not need to provide parking. um in line with any other business use on a lot that small. Um >> but that's not called out in the plan. >> This is current zoning that I am describing. >> Okay. But then we're changing the new zoning that we're talking about. We're changing that to one parking spaces space per eight rooms. >> Um no, I'm saying four. So currently the NC1 use four lots 5,000 ft and above. >> Okay. >> Um has a non-residential use requirement of one space per 1,000 square ft. Of course the um often square footage does not align with the intensity of a hotel use. And so in other districts in the city for hotels we have a ratio of parking to hotel rooms. And so this hotel parking requirement would only um apply to hotels in the NC1 district on parcels greater than 5,000 square ft just like any other parking requirement in the NC1 district. >> And this is >> okay. So that's spelled out right before that the added hotel text. >> Yes. And that is current language in the land development ordinance. >> But but isn't that competing language? So you say under minimum parking requirements item four. Number two calls out I'm sorry. A2 calls out the non-residential use gross floor area of non-residential uses is greater than 5,000 square feet. one space per 1,000 ft. Then A3, we're saying hotels shall shall is the big word. Provide one parking space for every eight rooms and there is no off- streetet parking or loading. Hotels are encouraged to provide an on street loading zone. So the parking to me is still mandatory for the hotel. So if >> it's worded here >> um and maybe the indentation on this particular document doesn't make it clear. So one, two, and three are sub items under item A, which declares that these requirements only apply to lots 5,000 ft or greater, >> right? But all three. So, this clause around hotels and parking would only apply on lots that are 5,000 square feet or greater. Um, if staff would like belt and suspenders language making that clear, that can certainly be added as a floor amendment. But as written, this parking requirement, just like it is written in other districts in the city, would only apply on these larger lots. and small lots would not have a parking requirement no matter what, no matter the use. >> Okay. The intents there, I just I don't think it's worded clearly. Um, can I propose mirroring the languages from the item for item two for hotel uses when the gross floor area of the hotel use is greater than 5,000 square feet? >> Yes. >> Okay. Yeah, I think that's better. >> All right, >> that's clear. >> So, that that is the language that the board is proposing as a floor amendment for this. >> I mean, I am I don't want to speak for the board. Does everybody agree here? >> I agree. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Because I I think we're just, you know, if we don't change that, I think it's up to interpretation. We're going to be not flooded with varants quests because I don't think it's that many uses that we're going to encounter. But I I don't want to create, you know, a deviation request. >> Certainly. Okay. Out of an abundance of caution, we can make that explicit. >> Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Uh, anybody else? Any questions? Any concerns? Okay. Thank you. Um, is there anybody from the public that wants to comment? Anyone from the public? >> See, no one from the public. I'd like to close public part of the meeting. Second. >> All right. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Matt, we have your recommendation. So, I'll entertain a motion. >> Okay. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve case P 2025-0155 as it was presented to the board tonight. >> Um, Miss Mr. Torres, just clarifying, do you want to include the proposed floor amendment language that Chairman Langston proposed? >> Yes. as it was presented tonight with the um four amendment language that was presented by chairman last tonight. >> Okay. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion and a second. And Matt, just for clarity, this goes to city council for approval. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um thank you. >> Um Commissioner Wick, >> I. >> Commissioner Stamato, >> I. >> Commissioner Patel, >> I. >> Commissioner Curz, >> I. >> And Chairman Langston, >> I. Um motion carries. All in favor um for the amendment with floor amendment as to a finding inconsistency with the master plan. >> Okay. Thank you. So let's move on to item 13. Is case P2024-0218 is a minor site plan for 294 Grand Street. >> Good evening again, council. >> Good evening again. Uh for the record, uh Charles Harrington of Connell Foley. On behalf of the applicant, I do have the public notices that were provided that I'll give the council to review. J receive the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application at 294 Grand Street here in the city. It does appear to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for purposes of the record. >> All right. Thank you, council. >> Okay. So, uh, this project, uh, before you, I don't want to jinx myself, but I think it's pretty straightforward. Um, it's a a, uh, a through lot, uh, in the Bright Street redevelopment plan. Uh, we are not seeking any variances or deviations. Uh, four stories, uh, four units. Uh, the existing condition has dilapidated buildings that we are going to demolish, which is consistent with the intent of the Bright Street redevelopment plan. Uh we have been working with staff extensively on on the project and what's before you as a result of that. Uh and I have one witness tonight is our architect Russell Botner. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes, I do. >> Yes. My name is Russell Vodner, BOD N. I reside at 52 Longhill Road in Long Valley, New Jersey. And um I've been a licensed architect since uh 19 I know eight was it 1995 and uh I've appeared before this board several times. >> All right. Good evening, Mr. Bodner. Um and I appreciate your history, but the license is current tonight. >> Yes. Oh, yes. Sorry. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. >> Um as we can see here before us, it's uh 294 Grand Street is the actual address on the project. Uh it is a through lot. Um showing the rendering. I'm showing actually the entrance, the main entrance we're actually using on Bright Street. So this is not a part of the package. So this will be marked as A2. And I actually have a rendering of the other one and I'll show that later as A3. So um as you can see here, this is the Bright Street. >> Who is this rendering? Yes. Is that the second render? >> Yeah, this I can show you the second rendering. Yeah, I can show this one is the Grand Street side and uh the Grand Street side as well. And that's a A3. >> So A1 is >> it's a plans. It's always a plans, isn't it? >> A12. A1. Okay. Yes. >> A2 is going to be two renderings. >> Okay. If you want to call A. Yeah. Two renderings. >> The first rendering is >> the Bright Street side, which is this one. >> Second sheet. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Um, as you can see here, this is an Bright Street redevelopment plan. We're actually located on a triangle uh block in Jersey City. I'll go I'll show you the block in a moment. It's going to be a 4unit project. It actually has the lot square footage on the lot is 1900 uh 1919 square ft. The building itself, as you can see here, is a four-story building. It's 42 ft above base flood elevation. We are in the flood zone. We are about 4 ft off the ground. So, we're 46t 3 in is what our over height of the building is. Um, we can jump right into the plans if you want to. Uh, let's take a quick look at that. Slow computer. Okay. As you can see here, this is the cover sheet. This is the location of the um of where we're located. Uh we're off of Barrows, uh Grand Street, and Bright Street. The uh colored section of this lot is our our location. We're a through lot, which is unusual in Jersey City, but as you can see, we have two main sides to our building, the the Grand Street side and the Bright Street side. As we can jump down to the uh floor plans here, we're entering off of uh Bright Street. That's our main entrance. We also have a a se secondary entrance off of Grand Street for like a secondary means of egress as well as an entrance if somebody wants to use that to come into their their units as well. On the first floor, we have a uh one we have a twobedroom with a study. Uh it's 1375 square ft and it's a it's a flat style unit which is a single floor unit. On the second floor, we have a three-bedroom unit that also is a flat unit, just a one-story unit, and it's uh three bedrooms, and that one is 1,700 square ft². And then on the upper two floors, is third and fourth floor. We split those up into duplexes. Each duplex is a threebedroom. Each duplex has 1,500 square f feet. One, actually, one has 1500 feet and one has 1,800 square ft. And the uh the duplexes actually get the roof decks which each has their own private roof deck and each private roof deck is 350 square feet and they have their own entrances to the roof deck to their back to their apartment in the middle of the building. So even the uh the uh actual bulkheads are not be able to seen from the uh the rightway. And we're also set back from the each street with green roofing trays in front of our roof deck on both sides of Grand Street and as well as um Bright Street. So, uh we only we have uh 640 square ft of green roofing we're providing and 700 ft total in the entire um building itself for um for the roof decks between the two. If we go back to the first level again, we do have a small trash room that's located in a little cell level that's underneath the main entrance area and that that is our trash area and our trash will be brought out and actually picked up on the Bright Street side of the building. So, I think it's a pretty clear simple building. Again, the building is uh if we go back to the the renderings, they're very simple. The building is just a standard uh four-story building. Uh the windows themselves are black aluminum glass. The building themselves have red brick with some aluminum panels that are in between the brick and the floor below. On um on the Grand Street side, we have a little canopy that was requested by by staff and we have cornises to make it look, you know, since we are close to historic district, it was uh we did the cornises on both uh the grand street side as well as the bright the bright street side as well. that. And on the Bright Street side, which was our original rendering we popped up, there's actually a stoop that goes up. Considering we are through a flood zone, so we have to do raise a stoop up into our um into our location. Our stoop is actually on our property. We do have some landscaping beds in the front of our property and we have street trees. Although it's on the rendering, it's a little bit not correct. There's only one street tree shown on this and there's one street street shown on the other side. This one, the rendering itself has to be revised before I hand it to you guys with just one street, one one tree. Other than that, we're uh pretty this is pretty much the uh the gist of our uh application. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Bodner. Any questions? Anyone? >> All right. Thank you, sir. >> That that completes our presentation. >> All right. Thank you. Uh is there anybody here from public that wants to comment on this application? Anyone from public? See no off for public. I like to close the public part of the meeting. >> Second it. >> All right. Motion motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. >> Eric, you have anything you want to add? >> Yeah, Chuck mentioned um this does this development does um meet an objective in the redevelopment plan by getting rid of the dilapidated structures. Um it also eliminates a non-conforming condition on site because this uh site currently has two principal structures. So, um, staff is in full support of the project. Staff just requests that the applicant agree to the conditions enumerated in the staff memo and that's acceptable. >> Staff recommends approval. >> Okay. Thank you. I'll entertain a motion. >> Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve case P 2024- 0218 as it was presented to the board tonight. Okay, I have a motion and a second. >> Commissioner Wick >> I >> standard. >> Commissioner Samato >> I. >> Commissioner Patel >> I. >> Commissioner Torres >> I. >> Chair Langston >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you everybody. Let's move on to item 15 is case P2024-0231 is a minor subdivision for 978 Summit Avenue. Council, do you want to call uh you want me to call the next one also? >> Yes, that would be great, Chairman. >> All right. So, let's also call case P2024-0233 is a minor site plan with variances once again for 978 Summit Avenue. >> Yes. Good evening chairman, commissioners. For the record, Benjamin Wine of Prime Tubal and Miselli on behalf of the applicant 978-980 Summit Holdings LLC. The application before you this evening is for a minor subdivision along with a minor site plan as well as 1C variance uh for the uh property located at 978-980 Summit Avenue. And for the record, that's block 2802, lot one, and we are within the RC1 zoning district. Ultimately, what we're proposing here this evening is a little bit uh unusual in a good way. So, currently this is one lot that if developed according to the RC1 zoning standards would be a larger four-story building as we are a corner lot and uh and it would include a rear lot point setback. Um which is a little bit quirky, but uh but that's how it would look as of right. What my clients are actually looking to do is to actually break up the frontage along Summit a little bit and uh develop two separate buildings. So the corner building would rem would be four stories which is permitted but actually the in there would be an interior building of only three stories again instead of a full fourstory development. And the predominant reason, as you'll see through our plans here this evening in our presentation, is that keeping this as a 55 roughly 55 foot wide lot and one large building would likely appear a little bit out of place in the context of the streetscape. So, we felt that actually building a smaller mass um and dividing it into two buildings is actually more appropriate for this corridor, which is in a fairly recent zone in your RC1. We do have one variance this evening and it it kind of goes along with the quirk that I just mentioned. So instead of providing that rear lot point of a larger and taller building, we are seeking to have a full basically a straight wall running all the way back between these two buildings, which means our rear yard step back on the upper floor instead of being 25 ft uh deep uh 24 feet, I apologize, is only 13.17 feet. So, we do have roughly an 11 ft setback uh variance for the upper floors, but again, you'll you'll see this explained in context as we present this evening. I also want to indicate that we did have an opportunity to work very closely with Mr. Beasley and uh this project began its life quite a while ago actually and there were several comments and and back and forth and I think that they were all positive and helpful and we were able to get to a point where we received Mr. Beasley's report and uh of course we would comply with all of his recommended conditions and I think that it's a a very good project at this point. Lastly, I want to indicate for the record that we did reach out uh this this property is located in somewhat of a unique area where there's actually three community associations that somewhat overlap in the area and just uh that would be the Heights Coalition, the Persingfield Neighborhood Association, and the Friends of Persingfield Neighborhood Association. So, we did reach out to all three of them a couple months back. We did hear back from uh Mr. Capadilla of the Heights Coalition uh acknowledging receipt and indicating that he if he had any comments he would provide them. Um we did suggest that if anyone was interested in meeting with us, we'd be open to that. Um nobody took us up on our offer unfortunately, but uh that's how it goes sometimes. I do have two witnesses I intend to call this evening. a project architect of Art Patel who will walk you through the buildings, the uh elevations, the renderings that have been prepared and then we have Charles height to speak to that one variance that I mentioned in my opening. So unless the board has any questions of me, I'm happy to proceed with Mr. Patel. >> All right. Thank you. >> We just need notice from >> I was a little taken back myself. Chairman, receive the affidavit of publication proof of mailing with respect to the application before the board 978 to 980 Summit Avenue here in the city. It does appear to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for the record. Council, for purposes of the record, I do note that the notice is both for the subdivision and minor site plan. >> That is correct. >> Okay. So, council, we're calling it A1 for each application. >> Yes. And I don't think this is >> Yeah, it's one notice. >> Listing both. >> Listing both applications. >> Okay. Thank you. Yes, I do. >> Avart Patel. A A V A R T P A T E L. >> Mr. Patel, good evening. Your license is current tonight. >> Yes, it is. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. >> Thank you. So, I don't think this is on. I'll speak loudly. Um, so if you could please >> um council, I we do have to get you on the uh >> I did try >> the record >> and you can take >> just in case somebody has to review testimony later on. We can't hear on the record. There's no microphone. >> All right, no problem. I'll awkwardly hold this and we'll go from there. >> It looks good. It's Thank you. So uh so if you could please uh identify the plans you're going to present and walk the board through the existing conditions and what we're proposing here this evening. >> Uh sure. Uh so the set is dated uh um June 11th uh 2025. Uh uh and that's the the set we are presenting. Um that's much better. Thanks. >> Okay. Sorry. You >> just flip the switch, right? Or is it a different >> Oh, it's a different mic. >> Okay. All right. >> Um, so the current site is located at the intersection of uh Summit Avenue and and Lincoln Street. And the site is about uh 4,500 square ft. Uh currently there's a two-story uh frame dwelling um on the site which and and uh has uh 100% uh lock coverage with a with the asphalt uh payment all around the house. Um and we are proposing to demo this uh structure, remove all the uh impervious uh uh coverage and then subdivide the lots in in two. Um the interior lot which would be uh 978 uh would be um 25 ft wide and then the corner lot would be uh about 31 ft 8 in wide. Um and then overall depth of the both of the lot would be uh 80 ft which is uh existing. Um so the we explored a couple of options and and came up with this uh uh this uh proposal to subdivide the lot and and develop the corner lot as a four-story four family structure and then keep the interior lot as a as a three-story um uh three family uh type of arrangement. Uh uh after looking at the the overall streetscape, uh there was a uh another project uh on the uh on along the the Summit Avenue which is uh um 97 982 >> uh 982. Um and uh that was approved and and we basically kind of followed in the in the the same pattern and overall you know the architecture and and and uh the the facade you know the the the breaks in the facade to kind of create that rhythm uh along Summit Avenue uh except the corner lot you know um it is permitted to be four stories so we are proposing four stories over there but overall you know once I go through the renderings you will see what uh uh what the intent is especially with the these two lots. Um I'm going to quickly jump to um an overall uh 3D picture which kind of shows the uh that development which was approved uh um earlier and and you know we're trying to uh to match the the rear facads and and you know overall try to create a rhythm. So, you know, uh the the the back of that structure as well as the neighboring uh uh structure along Lincoln Avenue gets uh uh light and air. Um I'll cover the the >> Mr. Patel. One second. I we do need to mark >> I didn't want to cut Mr. Patel off. What I suggest we do, I believe there are four renderings that we intend to show. So, if you're comfortable with it, I see that Mr. Lampy stepped away, but I suggest we uh we consider all four renderings as exhibit A2. Um we'll call it four sheets. and I'll be sure obviously to forward that along to Mr. Beasley. >> Okay. And what's the date they were created? >> Don't know if there's a date on them. >> Um, no, there is no date, but we can we can date it with >> undated >> with the today's date. >> Okay, thank you. A2. >> All right, Avar, go right ahead. >> Oh, all right. Um, going to quickly walk through the uh the site plan and then jump into the floor plans. Um overall we are proposing um the the sidewalk improvements um with couple of street trees. Uh we could not propose or or we cannot add trees along the corner building because of the existing utility poles and uh some of the existing uh street sign and apparatus. Um the corner building has um uh twocar garage under the building and access to that would be from the Lincoln Street uh and that is located uh enough distance uh from the from the intersection um going to quickly and as you can see on the first floor I mean or uh the the back of the both buildings you know we're proposing 13'2 setback uh we are required to have uh 12 ft on first floor and 24 ft on the upper floors. Uh but we are proposing a consistent setback of 13'2 uh for for both the buildings. Um so for the smaller lot which is 25 ft wide, this becomes the uh the rear yard uh and and for the corner lot it's a rear yard point. Um and uh you know there's an exhibit uh which Mr. Hidewood cover under his testimony uh which can talk more about the the rear yard point. Um I'm going to quickly jump to the floor plans. Um I'm first I'm going to go over the the 25 ft lot uh wide lot uh the building which is a three-story uh three family structure. Um the main entrance is located on the Summit Avenue with uh uh required 3T2 setback on the on the left side. Um the entrance uh unit number one has an entrance uh along the Summit Avenue and then the second door will lead to the the upper units. Um uh the unit number one which is uh about two uh I mean three-bedroom, two bath uh and uh approximately uh 1130 ft uh living uh and kitchen located toward the front. um a sprinkler room and then the three bedrooms with a two bath located towards the back of the building. Um this unit gets the access to the backyard. Um now going to the second floor. Uh again it's a similar layout. Uh the unit is also three-bedroom, two bath about uh 1140 ft. Um and uh pretty much stack with the with the unit below. Um and then the the third floor would be unit number three and uh um that will have access to the roof deck. Um about 1385 square ft. Um and uh that is also a three-bedroom, two bath unit. Um and then the four-story building is is uh joined at the on the right side which I'm going to jump to. Actually, I'm going to go over the roof plan for this building first. Uh as you can see we are proposing uh a setback on the front side as required set back 10 ft 10 in uh and that would be the the tray system the green roof and then um uh the roof deck is about uh uh 560 ft and then the green areas uh basically wrap around the uh the occupied deck uh creating required separation in the front and the and the back. Um the HVAC units for for all three uh would be located at the roof uh and they would be screened. Now uh we're looking at the floor plan for um fourstory structure, the corner lot. Um we have the the entry lobby uh along the Summit Avenue and then uh unit number one which is a smaller unit uh at this floor which is about um about 71 ft² onebedroom one bath and uh that would be uh an adaptable unit. Um the two-car garage is located towards the back uh with uh the garbage area and the sprinkler room uh servicing this building. Um going to the second floor um which would be unit number two. Uh it's a three uh three-bedroom uh two bath unit. Um the living and kitchen areas located u towards the front Summit Avenue and Lincoln Street uh intersection. And then the bedrooms are uh situ situated towards the back. Um I'm going to quickly jump to the a third and fourth floor plan. Uh so the two units located on third and fourth floor are are uh in a duplex uh arrangement. Uh as you can see the staircase comes up and and opens into each unit. Uh uh and then um both unit has the the living and kitchen areas located at this level. Um and that the bedrooms are located on the on the third floor. Um they will have inter uh interior staircases leading to the upper floor. Um going to the fourth uh fourth floor as you can see um uh again three-bedroom 2 and a half bath uh for both duplexes. Um and uh uh they are about 1,700 square ft uh each 1714 and 1715. Um and uh they will they both of them will have access to the the rooftop deck. Um as you can see uh the bulkhead is kind of located in the middle of the building or middle of the roof uh with a in a ample setback from the from the front and the back uh uh which would uh easily screen or it's not going to be visible from the streets or or the um from the back. Um going to quickly jump to the rendering we have. Um as you can see the grayed out portion on the left side that's the uh the approved uh um development next door. Um and uh uh the two buildings on the right side uh are part of this uh application. The three-story building is a is a 25t lot uh threetory family and then the corner lot. As you can see, we are uh you know creating a similar language uh the design language as well as the the material you know we we're carrying forward uh through this corner and around the corner for the four-story building. Um basically we wanted to create a rhythm as I as I mentioned earlier you know along the summit avenue. So that's why uh we decided to kind of uh continue with the with the same theme and and develop this corner uh corner lot uh with a with a similar approach. Um the facade the building facade would have um uh beige or lighter color brick with a black windows. Uh the cornice up top would be a metal cornice. Um and then uh al around the entry area we are proposing uh a castone thin castone type material uh which is uh more durable and and all this is along the sidewalk. So uh the materials will will wear better um in terms of a lot of pedestrian uh traffic along the along the facades. Um going to now talk about the um the fourstory building. Uh as you can see we are uh you know carrying the same language and same uh materials through um the cast panels around the entry doors and then as you go up uh where the box bay is you know we'll have a brick portal uh around and then infill would be the uh again the thin cast type material. Um and then um similar lighter color brick with the with the ins and outs and and uh you know black color windows. uh on the fourth floor. Uh we wanted to just kind of break that create a a break in the in the facade and the plane and and that would be a vertical siding uh type material which would be the the fourth floor and it will wrap around along the uh Lincoln uh street as well. Um sorry this is uh another rendering you know looking at the corner. Um and as you can see the uh the similar materials are are are continuing along the um uh the Lincoln Street. Um again this is a 2D elevation but this doesn't do justice compared to the the rendering. So um just going to quickly um as as indicated you know uh these are the materials we are proposing you know light color brick um you know pre-cast um stone veneer you know vertical fiber cement type uh sighting and then um uh fiber cement panel as well as the um the the window plane for um black or brown type of u anodized Um, this is a 2D elevation along um, Lincoln Street. Uh, this is the side elevation for uh, you know, for the three three foot two setback side for uh, for the threetory structure. Um guess uh that concludes my testimony. >> Yes. So just a couple of questions to follow up. So you mentioned we are reducing the impervious coverage uh into conformance with the ordinance. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. So we're bringing it uh it's approximately 100% now. It's being brought under I believe 90%. Is that right? >> That is correct. >> Okay. And even though we're bringing it into conformance, I know you went over the site plan, but we are proposing storm water management infrastructure on this property as well. >> Yes, that is correct. >> Okay. And that would be for both properties. >> For both lots. Yes. >> Okay. I also want to uh to ask you, we're eliminating some parking. I know we're proposing two garage parking spaces, but we are eliminating as well. I think it's about four open air parking spaces. Is that right? >> That is correct. And as you can see in the the current site plan, you know, there's a uh the entire site is paved with asphalt and and there are parking spots along the uh the side of the building along Lincoln um Lincoln Street and yeah, as you mentioned, there are four spots and we are going to two. >> Okay. And the curb cut that's there would be modified to conform with the ordinance. Is that also right? >> Yes, that is correct. >> Okay. And then lastly, I just want to take you back to that first rendering you showed from the rear yard. Um, as it relates to that rear yard setback deviation, uh, the building that's approved and I believe under construction next door, um, that's a deeper lot than our lot. Is that correct? >> Uh, that is correct. Um, they have a a single story, uh, the first floor it kind of jos out and, uh, that's a single story and then the upper floors are are set back and, uh, basically as part of this development, we try to align with it. So, um you know, it provides it doesn't disturb the uh or or it's not too close to the the amenity or the deck areas uh at the back um the backyard as well as provide ample uh uh light and air for the adjacent structure. >> Okay. All right. Perfect. Thank you, Avart. That's all I had for you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Patali. Just just have three quick questions. Um your plans show bike racks. Are they in the garage? Are they in both units? One unit. Uh so we are proposing that for the fourstory structure and that's uh located in the garage. We have a a side door here like a manor. Uh and then the the bike racks are located here. It's uh after the parking spots. >> Okay. So that's only in the building on Lincoln Street. >> That is correct. >> Okay, understood. Um how tall are those garage doors? They look pretty short. Just a second. Um, this is about 9 ft. That's uh the floor to floor is uh Oh, sorry. Uh 8 ft. >> 8 ft. >> Yeah. >> Okay. The door. Oh, there it is. 8 foot 16 by 8. Okay. Um All right. My last question on the on the unit away from Lincoln Street. I do see a uh your sprinkler room entrance is on the outside of the building. That room is heated sufficiently. >> Uh yes. Uh there will be required heating and uh we we're required to have access directly from outside. So that's how we're proposing. Okay. But your other unit has the access through the garage right? >> Uh correct. Because uh there's a man door available. So you're not going through a unit to access that. >> Gotcha. Okay, that's it for me. Anybody else? Any questions? >> Pat, is your mic on >> the rooftop? >> Pat, is your microphone on? >> No, sorry. >> It's okay. >> Question I have in reference to your rooftop. Is that glass that you have up there or some kind of unbreakable glass >> um along the front? Yes, we are proposing uh a tempered glass railing. It's a full glass. Uh it's uh you know goes all the way to the floor. >> What's the space below it? Is there a space below it? >> Um no, it's a you know I can just go to the rendering. Uh it's a it's it's more acting more like a parapit. uh we just wanted to create a little more transparency and and you know not make the building appear taller than it needs to be. So that's the reason. >> So there's no gap between the glass and the floor, >> right? >> It goes all the way to the curb. There is no glass. >> Yeah. To ask Mr. Torres's question, uh no garbage could be kicked off there. >> That is correct. >> And uh right behind the glass is the uh the green uh the green roof. >> Yeah. That area is not accessible to begin with. That's green roof. Okay. >> And that's unbreakable that glass, right? Is it plexiglass? I mean, is it thick? You know, >> uh, this this type of railing system is it requires to be a tempered glass. Um, yeah. So, it would be safety glass. >> All right. I like it. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Anybody else? Any questions? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Patel. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, my next and final witness is our professional planner, Charles Height. Good evening. >> The whole truth. >> I do. >> Yes. Charles Height. Last name is spelled H E Y DT. Mr. Height. Good evening. I don't think we've ever seen you make your first appearance this late. So, uh, your license is current tonight. >> It It is, and I recognize it. You were trying to get by a variance-free night with me. I realized that >> it didn't expire at 6:59 p.m. your license. >> Not not not uh still in good standing. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. >> All right. Um so yeah, I'll uh I'll jump to it with just uh diving into the the one dev one variance we need in in both applications. Um a little bit of nuance here and and we did want to provide the board the benefit of a little bit of balancing analysis uh if you will. So I'll provide an exhibit that we'll we'll mark into exhibit. Um, we are in the RC1 district. The proposed multif family uses are permitted. Uh, what we're really requesting is relief from the rear yard setback requirements on both of the proposed subdivided lots. So, uh, the rear yard setbacks are calculated at the ground floor and upper floors. On the ground floor, it's 15% of the lot depth and on the upper floors, it's 30% of the lot depth. So, there's a little bit of a step back as you get to the second floor. Um we are creating so the current property is uh a corner lot. It's approximately 56 feet uh by 80. Um the longer frontage is along uh Lincoln. Um the 56 ft width is along Summit. Um we are taking this corner lot and creating what would be an interior lot and a corner lot. Um so the property with the address of 980 Summit um will be the interior lot. Uh when you calculate the rear yard requirement that has a lot depth of 80 ft. At the ground floor it's required to be 12 ft. On the upper floor it's required to be 24T. The application provides a 13 foot setback. So we comply on the ground floor but we are not compliant on the upper floors. Um, a couple factors for that, uh, is really to balance the setbacks on the adjacent application of this the adjacent property on this application as well as the approved project on the adjacent side, which would be the the north side. Um, and really to uh try and create what would be what what I would be call suitable light and air to the adjacent properties. Um, if we were to uh set back the upper floors, we actually would be creating a little bit of a recess on the subject property that's before you tonight because the adjacent structure and the proposed structure actually extend beyond that um beyond that building depth. So, um setting back the additional um 11 ft to be compliant would actually create a wall for any um future residences where this is their rear yard. Um there's also an interesting set of uh block patterns that uh creates the subject property's rear yard adjacent to the east which is the sideyard. Um this is uh the first property that uh abuts the subject property on Lincoln Street. Uh so again uh we're trying to balance the rear yard condition on the application with a sideyard condition on the adjacent property. Um when you move into the corner lot that's being created. Uh we actually have a more interesting set of circumstances. We're applying the rear corner point requirements for corner lots. Um, and that essentially creates what would be on the ground floor a 5 a 5 1/2 ft by 9 ft uh a 5 1/2 ft x 12t requirement on the ground floor and a 9 ftx 24 ft requirement on the upper stories. Um, in terms of area, it's 55 square ft versus and 216 square ft um uh on on the upper floors. uh in terms of uh some of the an analysis we did and I'll bring up the exhibit now. um at the ground level um sorry the square footage um with respect to the proposed setbacks and again we're comparing this to that 216 square ft that I mentioned um what's being proposed on this corner lot the 13t setback by the width of the property 31 ft is actually 403 square feet so we're actually providing from a 2D standpoint substantially more um lot area at the at the ground level. Uh again, we're in excess of the ground floor requirement. Um when we did the uh visual impact assessment, uh again, we rendered the subject properties um in uh in the 3D model that we use. Uh this is to scale. Um we do we need to mark this. >> This is not the exhibit. This was submitted. >> Correct. This was submitted um with the application. And this is the visual impact. It's a checklist requirement. Um but when we modeled this um there there's a benefit because this property um actually sits at the southwest corner. Much of the morning shadows are cast into the intersection. You can kind of see that with with the June shadow impact um where in the area in green is greater than the existing conditions. um when you move into the evening hours um the impact is to the interior lot. So um the question became so this is a 5:00 p.m. in in March. The question became is this an appropriate or more substantial impact on this adjacent property uh right here to the west on Lincoln Street. So in in effort to try and answer that what we did was uh try and understand if we did make an application as of right under the uh the RC standards the overall building mass what we understand it to be would have been greater. So this is the exhibit that I think we should mark >> yes we'll call this A3 and is it fair to call this a planning exhibit? >> A massing I think that's how we labeled it. >> Okay. And this was prepared by your office? >> By my office under my supervision. Um, we did prepare it and finalize it today. Um, >> so today's date, >> correct? >> Okay. >> All right. Go right ahead. >> Uh, so again, we're we're we're borrowing here from the visual impact assessment. You can see the existing conditions. Um, we didn't factor in the adjacent properties to the north that were approved. Uh, but I think one of the renderings did show that. So you can kind of piece that in there. Um the proposed subject uh proposed application shows the four and threetory adjacent to one another. So this is for both applications. Uh and you can kind of see that separation um of of the proposed story. When you actually look at this property as a whole, if you went back to before the subdivision and it existed as a 80x 56story building, you would be applying a rear corner point to the overall property. Um, you would also be introducing that at the interior of the block and the adjacent yards would become sideyards. So we would be treating sideyards along the adjacent properties. And in terms of volume, um you can kind of visually see this as a substantial reduction compared to what could have been applied to had we not subdivided property, introduced a four and threetory structure. So, I think this was telling and and we kind of debated what would be the best approach, but visually um again this is to scale and it's applying both adjacent sideyards with this interior point requirement. Um just another part of detail for the the board, I have three photos from a site visit. Um it was conducted today. We did one about seven months ago, so not much has changed. Um but these are >> A4 and it's how many how many photos? >> Three photos. >> Three photos. Okay. >> And I I'll send these to the um board planner and for the file. Uh this is a subject property taken from the intersection of Summit and Lincoln. Um and I think what's what's important for the board to get a sense of is that this adjacent property uh along Lincoln Avenue, you can kind of see it with the brick facade in the rear. Uh as you as you get closer um you can kind of see the side facade of this structure with the the windows. These aren't lot line windows, but they would require um additional setback beyond the the zero sideyard setback that's permitted. Um but again, this is the point of us providing the additional 13 ft of setback along this property line. And that's that's the greatest benefit I see as I see it. Um so just to get back to some of the testimony um I do believe this furthers advance uh purposes of the municipal land use law uh purpose C to provide for appropriate light air and open space. Um I believe this is a better planning alternative where kind of rebalancing the required rear yard uh in an appropriate way. Um we are also introducing a new set of new structures for both properties um that are consistent with the neighborhood. So I do believe it's establishment of a desirable visual environment. That's purpose I. Um and those would really be the main main purposes I would call out in terms of the positive criteria. With respect to the negative criteria, um I think I could take this down. Just get back to my notes real quick. Um we are in the RC1, which is one of the city's newer districts. Um, I don't believe we're creating a substantial impairment to the zone plan. Um, we are furthering the purpose, which is to recognize the existence and importance of historic mixeduse neighborhood business districts throughout the city. Uh, the purpose of this zoning is to promote the historical pattern along these corridors and continue to permit a mix of uses consistent with neighborhood centers. Um, while we are a multif family residential use and not a mixeduse, um, I do think we're consistent with the type of buildings that you do find along Summit Avenue. Um, and it's it you do find a lot of lot line uh, zero lot line um, townhouse style structures, three to four stories. So, I do think we're consistent with the purpose. Um, I also think that we're advancing the master plan. Um, so we're not impairing the the zone plan, which um, just quoting from the 2021 master plan. Continued efforts to enhance residential neighborhoods. Um, we're providing for additional residential units with this pro project to ensure the city's available housing is balanced and meets the needs of all current and future residents. Again, um this is infill residential development that I think is is meeting the middle missing income that we find in a lot of cities and also to strengthen neighborhood oriented commercial areas. By adding residential residential units, you're increasing the critical mass along Summit Avenue, which is a mixeduse corridor. Um, in terms of any substantial detriment to the general welfare, uh, the biggest component here in my eyes is providing sufficient light and air. I think I've addressed that in the positive with positive criteria. Um, we are improving the streetscape. Um, the application does involve a green roof system which will improve the storm water management on the property. Um, and I do believe it it it'll add to the aesthetics along Summit Avenue and and Lincoln. So that's my direct testimony here for any questions. >> Yeah, Charles, just two final follow-ups. Uh, and thank you. I think you you spoke very well. Um, just to confirm that through subdivision and the creative design that have already spoke about, um, and being that this is less massing than the as of right alternative. Do you believe that this fits a better context with what's along the streetscape? >> Yeah, I I do. I think it's a really good balance of architectural designs, the interior layouts, especially working with the overall property. it is oversized for the RC1 district. So, we've done an appropriate alternative with the the subdivision and application. >> Okay. And then just with respect to the variance itself, um do you believe and I think you put the numbers on the record as well, but do you believe that this actually provides more open space uh than what an as of right development might look like? >> I I do from it's almost double at the at the grade level. Uh but from a massing standpoint, um the exhibit shows the the sheer decrease in volume of the proposed. >> Thank you. I have nothing further for Charles. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. I have no questions. Anybody else? >> No. >> All right. Thank you, council. That's your presentation. >> I'd respectfully request the right to sum up and respond to any comments, but otherwise that concludes my direct >> Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody here from public that wants to comment on this application? Anyone from public? >> No one from public. I like to close the public first part of the meeting. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. Public is closed. Um >> Eric, this is yours. I'm sorry. I should have just looked over to see who was sitting there. >> No, it's it's all right. >> Um staff agrees with the uh testimony provided by the applicants professionals. Um, and to kind of touch on the variance being requested, uh, 48 Lincoln Street, the adjacent lot, it's a it's only 55 ft deep. So, any kind of proposed development, um, on the subject lot, um, is going to definitely impact a bit of that 48 Lincoln Street. But, I think something to remember is that it's the side lot line of 48 Lincoln. Um and you know I believe the professionals or the applicant has um attempted to balance you know attempted to balance what's developed on their lot as well as um preserving some of the light and air on 48 Lincoln Street. Um staff just requests that the applicant agree to the conditions in the staff memo. >> Certainly. >> Staff recommends approval. >> Okay. Thank you. Council, do you want to sum up or >> um unless the board has any further questions? Uh, I think the testimony spoke for itself and I'd respectfully request that the board approve the application as presented. >> Okay. Thank you. So, I'll entertain a motion. >> Okay. Um, am I going to read the two cases the same? >> Um, we're going to start with the subdivision item 15. >> Okay. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve case P 2024 dash 0231 subdivision as it was presented to the board today. >> All right, we have a motion and a second for approval on the subdivision. >> Um, Commissioner Wick, >> I. >> Commissioner Stamato, >> I. >> Commissioner Patel, >> I. Commissioner Torres. >> I. >> Chairman Langston. >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve case 2024-0233 >> site plan with varants as it was presented to the board tonight. >> Seconded. >> Okay. Motion made and seconded for the site plan. Commissioner Wick. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Stamato. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Patel. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Torres. >> Hi. >> Chairman Langston. >> Yes. So, I agree uh with Mr. Height's testimony. I think the variances are reasonable and they comply with the intent of the Jersey City master plan. So, my vote is I. >> Motion carries. All in favor? Okay. >> Thank you everybody. Thank you. All right. We're going to take a fivem minute break everybody. We'll be back in uh five. I'm sorry. And please and we're up to item 17. Case P2024-0172 is a preliminary and final major subdivision for 125 Theodore Conrad Drive. Good evening, council. >> Good evening. If you could also call um case 18, they're combined. Okay. So, let's also call case P2025-0132 as a preliminary and final major site plan with C variances for 125 Theodore Conrad Drive. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. This is a notice case, so we did submit notice. It's been posted to the portal. Jer receive the affidavit and notice proof of mailing with respect to the application at 125 Theodore Conrad Drive here in the city. It does appear to be in order. It is for both the subdivision and the site plan applications. We're going to mark it as A1 for purposes of the record. >> Thank you, council. >> Thank you very much. This uh is for the record 125 Theodore Conrad Drive. It's block 24305 lots 1.01 2 3 4 5 6 and 7 properties located in Liberty Harbor Redevelopment Area in the industrial district and it is an application combined for uh preliminary and final major site plan and subdivision approval with some variances. By way of a little bit of background uh this property is the former daily news printing facility. Uh and it had been operated in that capacity since about the mid 1990s. Uh prior to that it was owned by Clorox. Uh it's been vacant since for the since about 2022 2023 when Daily News began outsourcing their printing operations uh the applicant acquired the property in February of 2024. Um in connection with that transaction legacy environmental conditions were remediated and resolved subject to cap preservation deed notice and uh bianual reporting. Um very briefly by way of an existing condition it's about a rectangular site about 21 22 acres in size frontages along Theodore Conrad Edward Hart and Mars Pessen uh it's currently improved with about threetory sprawling masonry building um that goes across the site as well as a one-story security/maintenance buildings along U Theodore Conrad proposal is fairly straightforward. We're going to demolish the printing facility um and construct in its place two singlestory uh industrial buildings for warehousing logistics use. Uh the combined aggregate size of those buildings will be a few thousand square feet less than what's there today. So you go from an aggregate of about 430,000 square feet today with the Daily News building will be around 427,000 ft. So a little bit smaller on a gross basis. It'll be designed for use by either a single user or multiple users. Um and as part of this proposal, there'll be uh consolidation of the multiple finger lots associated with this project and a resubdivision so each building is located on its own distinct tax parcel with appropriate um provisions made for cross access between the two lots as necessary. Um importantly, sites always also going to be raised about four to seven feet to get both the parking and the building out of the flood plane. Um from the standpoint of relief, the proposal is generally consistent with the redevelopment plan and the LDO. We have two minor deviations which we'll talk about later in the presentation um relating to parking fronting along a street which is Theodore Conrad which is actually in existing condition today. Uh and some interior parking lot trees. Um so unless the board has any housekeeping items, we do have three witnesses and others in reserve should the board have any additional questions. We have our um professional engineer, architect and planner and a traffic engineer should there be questions in that regard as well. >> Okay. Thank you councel. We'll call our first witness, >> Antonio Mancella from Langan Engineering. >> I do. A N T O N IO Mancella M- an CE L A >> Mr. Mancella, good evening. Your license is current tonight. >> It is current in good standing. >> Okay, thank you. You're qualified. >> Do you want to introduce it? >> No, feel So you have a few exhibits here. These are these are prepared for this application. How many renderings do you have there? >> Uh three. >> So we can if you want to bundle them as A2 if that's okay for the board. Um they could be renderings of the site prepared by Lang Engineering with Do they have a date on them? >> They do. have dates on them. 7:15 2025 7:15 2025 and don't believe the rendering has a date on it. Okay. >> Oh no, it does. Uh 7:15 2025. So all 7:15 2025. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Three exhibits. >> Okay. proceed. >> Great. Uh, so I want to start with the subject property and surrounding neighborhood. The site is located at 125 Theodore Conrad Drive and is approximately 21.7 acres in total. The site was home of the former Daily News printing press facility. The existing building uh totals about 326,000 square ft in footprint with approximately 430,000 square ft of gross floor area across three floors. Um the site is located within Liberty Harbor redevelopment area. Within this area, it's specifically located in the industrial district overlay. Uh the site fronts multiple public rights of way with Theodore Conrad Drive to the north, Edward Hart Drive to the west, and Morris Pessen Drive to the south. Uh presently the site is accessed by both Edward Hart Drive and Theodore Conrad Drive. Uh with existing docks facing Edward Hart Drive. Uh the site also includes accessory buildings uh parking lots, internal drives, uh fencing and other related site features. So the site is proposed to be fully redeveloped for two modern speculative warehouse buildings. Uh the first uh this in first includes demolishing the existing building and associated smaller buildings uh and pavement areas on the site except for the approximately 1350 square ft building along the Conrad which I will show uh in the next exhibit. But before I I go into the site plan I want to uh talk to the subdivision which is part in part with the uh site plan application. Um so the figure I have here shows the existing lot configuration which is comprised of seven lots in total uh identified as block 24305 lot 101 lot 2 3 4 5 6 and 7. In the proposed condition we're proposing to subdivide the property into two parcels that make uh sense with the proposed redevelopment and coincide with the building locations. Uh the new designations are proposed to be block 24305 lot 102 with an area of 14.87 acres and block 24305 lot 1.03 uh with an area of 6.84 acres. Both lots uh comply with the redevelopment uh plans requirements for minimum lot size. So moving on to the uh proposed site plan. Uh like I said earlier, the site plan includes the construction of two speculative warehouse buildings. The first building known noted as uh building one, which is the larger building on the rendering here, uh has approximately 297,000 square ft footprint with an approximate 8,000 square foot of mezzanine space for a total of 305,000 square feet of gross floor area. Uh the mezzanine is intended is intended to be uh office space with the remaining of uh the remainder of the building to be dedicated to warehousing. Uh the building is proposed uh with the long side oriented in parallel with Edward Hart Drive. Across from Edward Hart Drive facing building 2 is 31 loading docks and two drive-in ramps. Car parking is proposed on the short sides of the building with uh in the frontages of Theodore Conrad Drive and Morris Pesson Drive. 50 parking spaces are proposed along the Theodore Conrad uh frontage on the north side and 90 parking spaces on the south side in the Morris Pesson frontage for a total of 140 parking spaces dedicated to building one. Uh building two uh notice building two on the plan here is the smaller building in the northeast corner of the site. Uh it has an approximate footprint of 117,000 square ft approximately 5,000 ft of mezzanine space for a total of 122,000 gross uh square feet of gross floor area. Like building one, the mezzanine space is intended to be solely for office use with the remainder of the building being intended for warehousing. Uh this building's uh proposed to be oriented with a long access along Theodore Conrad Drive with the docks facing south. There are 18 loading docks and two loadin ramps. Car parking for building two totals at 57 and also fronts the uh theodore Conrad Drive frontage. Regarding the parking lots, uh a variance is requested for parking fronting a street per section 3B3H of the Liberty Harbor redevelopment plan. EV parking spaces are provided for both buildings in accordance with the statewide uh EV ordinance. >> Mr. Manel, if I can just interject for a second, that parking along Theodore Conrad, that's an existing condition. Is that correct? It is an existing condition today. Uh regarding site circulation, there are two driveways proposed to uh at Ardor Hart Drive and two are proposed to Theodore Conrad Drive much like the existing condition. The northern driveway entrance on uh Edward Hart Drive is a one-way drive for passenger vehicles to access the parking areas. The southern driveway entrance on Edward Hart Drive is accessible two ways by both tractor trailers and uh passenger vehicles. The there's, like I said, two entrances on the Theodore Conrad side, both of which are accessible in both directions by passenger vehicles and tractor trailers. I'll note that the driveway entrance on the northeast side of the the site there is uh one way out for passenger vehicles. There was a traffic study performed for the the redevelopment. Um the conclusion of that traffic study uh resulted or or showed that there'd be a net decrease in trips uh for the site for both AM and PM peak hours compared the previous use previous use and will not significantly alter area traffic operations. Um a small security building exists next to this middle of the Conrad frontage. So if you can see my cursor it's right there. Approximately 1350 square ft in footprint and area. Like I said, that's going to remain and will continue to be utilized um as a site security building. This building, while not a principal building, uh is situated 4 feet from the frontage uh where a setback of 15 ft is required. Uh therefore, this is an existing non-conformance with the setback requirements. Uh and we're seeking relief for this existing nonconformity. Regarding signage, there's uh four wall signs proposed on building one. Two of which front Edward Hard Drive and two of which front Theodore Conrad Drive. Uh this complies with the number of signs permitted per frontage which is limited to three for corner lots uh which this will be post subdivision. Uh for building two, two signs are located along the Conrad along that frontage which complies with the Jersey City ordinance requirement for non-corner lots. For both buildings, the sign area sizes comply with the city requirements. Other signage includes uh wayfinding signs that are specifically located around the site as necessary. These signs are approximately 2 and 1/2 ft by 8 ft tall um and are located at each of the four driveway entrances. The wayfinding signs uh as well as the wall signs fully comply with the city requirements. With respect to site lighting, uh the site lighting for the proposed development includes uh building mounted LED fixtures along with uh polemounted LED fixtures. Both light types uh will have a mounting height of 25 ft which um is not higher than the building. The site lighting design fully complies with the city uh city's ordinance including light heights, minimum averages, property light line property line illumination and sidewalk illumination. Regarding the landscaping um as depicted on the rendering here, you can see that uh there was an enhanced landscaping design prepared for the project. Uh the design focuses most of the landscaping around the perimeter of the site along the frontages uh of Edward Hard Drive and Theodore Conrad Drive. In total, there's 142 shade trees, 84 evergreen trees, and 436 shrubs that are proposed. Again, uh mostly around the perimeter of the site. Uh there's approximately five acres of wetland and wetland transition area located on the southeast side of the site that will remain undeveloped and remain as is. Uh the landscape design complies with the city ordinance and the redevelopment plan requirements uh regarding street trees and evergreen screening along uh the parking lots. However, the landscape design does require a waiver for interior uh parking lot tree plantings uh which would require uh one tree per every 10 stalls uh for this project. That would total 22 in the parking lot areas. Um as you can see here that the lot configuration doesn't lend itself to placing those trees in the parking lots. There are uh li there's limited space and we don't have uh islands in the parking lot. Um, but that being said, we do have plenty of train uh plantings in and around or rather around the parking lot areas and we feel or I feel that this uh meets the intent of the ordinance. But again, since we don't specifically meet that requirement, we are requesting a design waiver from that requirement. Otherwise, uh from a land landscaping perspective, uh we are installing more trees than we're removing. Uh so the project as proposed will improve the city in that regard. Uh lastly, regarding storm water management, impervious coverage is generally being maintained. However, there is a slight nominal increase in impervious coverage proposed totaling uh a tenth of an acre, but a net reduction in motor vehicle service area by about 1.7 acres. Uh the small increase in impervious coverage will be managed by two green infrastructure storm water management facilities on the southern parking lot uh which consists of per pvious pavement. Uh this pvious pavement is underllayed by a gravel storage bed and infiltrates storm water runoff into the ground. Uh this provides the required peak reductions in storm water runoff rates in accordance with the state and local storm water ordinance. >> Mr. Manella, can you confirm as it relates to storm water that the post construction runoff will actually be less than what's there an existing condition today? >> It will. This uh stormware design has already been reviewed and approved by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection as part of a flood hazard permit that the site that was issued for the project. We've also received an erosion control permit from the Hudson Essex Pacific Soil Conservation District and a letter of no interest from Hudson County. And that concludes the civil testimony. >> I don't have any further questions for the >> Okay. Thank you. Just a quick question on storm water. Um you said that the storm water the the pvious pavers um were along the south side. Correct. >> Yes. >> Is everything pitched to that? >> Yes. >> South side. >> Um so the pvious pavers that I'll zoom in here. They're not shown in the rendering. Uh but they generally are situated in the parking spaces here where my cursor is and here. And it captures localized storm water from this parking lot. And the the site is without getting too technical has three different wersheds. Two of which uh have one compliance strategy and one the one on the back side of the site uh is through peak reductions. So this captures and retains storm water runoff in that in that vicinity of the site for discharges offsite. >> Okay. But we're raising the site four to seven feet. >> Correct. So how you know I'm not an engineer obviously but to me the runoff going north is increased now because of the site being raised the building's out of the flood plane the property's out of the flood plane but doesn't that drive storm water off the site? >> It does. So there is a a uh a series of storm water conveyance networks throughout the site that capture runoff before it leaves the site. >> Okay. All right. Excellent. Thank you. >> All right. Anybody else? Any questions? >> All right. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. >> Terrific. Thank you very much. We'll call our next witness, our architect, Mr. Bren Brendan Lead Better. >> Oh, just going to put this one on top of it. >> There you go, sir. I do. >> Yes, it's uh Brendan Leer. B R E N D A N. Leer. L E A D B E A T E R. >> Good evening, sir. Your license is current in New Jersey tonight. >> Uh yes, it is. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. >> Mr. Lighter, before we get started, I just want to confirm that you're familiar with the project site and the plans that were prepared by Pratt Design Studio. Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. Yeah, please go ahead with your presentations. >> There we go. Uh I will be brief. Uh civil covered a lot of the scope uh regarding these buildings. Uh essentially building one uh shown on the left which uh is flanked by Theodore uh Conrad Drive um is roughly 296,685 square ft with a 40ft clear height within that building. uh maxing out at roughly uh 48 feet 6 in at the most peak of that that building uh which ends up uh being lower uh than in terms of overall height um than the existing bu building there currently. Um the building on the left, building one has 31 dock doors with two overhead drive-in doors. Um, and then the building over on the smaller building, uh, building 2 over on the right side as shown on the plan is 116,000, uh, 760 square ft with a with a 40ft clear height as well. Um, and that has 18 dock doors and two overhead drive-in doors as well. >> I'll just confirm for the board that this is part of the original submission package, this rendering you're seeing right now. So this is just the overall roof plan of both building one and building two. Um really just to indicate uh the location of the rooftop units. Um basically um you know just keeping the interior environment at a relatively decent uh temperature to prevent fire sprinklers from freezing. Um but we also wanted to highlight the fact that when they are located centrally within these buildings um basically from you know various areas uh Conrad um you wouldn't necessarily see the equipment from that walkway or from the public way just due to the angle in which uh you know passerbys or the public would be viewing those buildings. So, we are insetting those those equipment that equipment further far enough into the building that we wouldn't necessarily need any um any coverage um or any um any sort of visible barrier between that equipment and the public. Just moving on to the elevations. I'll be brief here. Um and I'll zoom in specifically uh to the enlarged view um just to capture uh the overall look and feel of the building and the you know qualities of the materials. Um starting from the left uh moving to the right uh right being the corner of the building as you see the arrows. Um, basically this is going to be composed of a durable concrete pre-cast panel, uh, which will generally be painted throughout of various colors, light tones of gray, uh, white and off-whites. Um, additionally, uh, next to that concrete panel, uh, that vertical element, the dark element will be a metal panel, um, likely a matte black. Uh again off to the right um it'll be another concrete panel uh over in that corner um sort of flanking on either side where you see those vertical uh metal elements um where the cursors essentially that's going to be a horizontal ribbed concrete panel um which will just accent and highlight that area. Uh encasing uh another concrete panel that'll be painted white. um that what shows as kind of that orang-ish material currently um would be more of a wood material uh but would be an extruded metal panel. Um and then below that you'll see additional more concrete panel. Um and then that store front will be essentially composed of um just like a anodized matte black um loan system and then a low E uh environmentally conscious you know double glazed uh storefront glazing system. And these areas are essentially highlighting where these office locations/pot potential mezzanine would be uh for future tenants. These are just a few uh renderings looking towards uh the building. Um this bottom image is looking more towards uh where the office uh environment would be. Um these buildings could be either one as previously stated one tenant or multiple tenants. Um, at this point it's semi-speculative in terms of who is going to be um, utilizing these spaces, but as you can see, we're just sort of highlighting um, those various material changes uh, in this rendering. Similarly, uh, the image above uh, just looking um more facing east looking towards that office entry uh, at that centrally located position. Uh just giving you a general overall feel of that those concrete panels, um the the uh glazing systems that sort of deliver light deeper into that warehouse just to make a a better environment for the employees and just sort of breaking up that facade. And these are actually images captured of um another building that was done by the client. Um just sort of you know just stating and and showing what would would likely look like uh at the time of completion uh during constru or after construction. So that's general feel uh of these of these buildings essentially. Uh as previously discussed by uh the civil team um regarding signage um we are complying uh with the local ordinances is regarding the size. Um on building one, I believe it's 300 square ft. Um we're at the max. Um and then on building uh two, which is a smaller building, uh we're at 200 square ft uh at the max, which does comply. Um just as you can see, just a series of indicators. Um the red uh indicators are just showing the directional and wayfinding signage throughout the site. Um the black markers are indicating the uh wall signs for the future tenants. Um and then the green signage is really for the landlord. Uh this being Goodman, just indicating that there'll be signage on both uh the Edward uh Hart Drive and then along the Theodore Conrad Drive. Uh over on building two, there'll just be one uh t uh landlord signage uh along the Theodore Conrad Drive. Um that concludes my presentation unless there's any any questions. >> I don't have any additional questions. >> Okay. Thank you. Sorry. I don't have any questions. Anybody else? >> No. >> No. >> All right. Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Terrific. Thank you. I'll pull up our last witness, Miss Rachel Field from Lang Engineering. >> I do. >> Uh, my first name is Rachel. R A C H E L. My last name is Field. F I F I E L D. >> Good evening. And uh, your license is current tonight? >> It is. >> Okay. Thank you. You're qualified. Miss Fifel, before you start, I'm just going to want to acknowledge for the record that we did receive a report from planning and I'll just stipulate that uh the applicants willing to comply with the conditions contained in that report. It's dated uh August 11, 2025 from Matt Dilva. >> Okay. >> All right. Um so I know that we are running tight on time and uh also that my colleagues have been pretty thorough, so I'm going to try to keep it brief. Uh but um we're referring both to that existing non-conformity that's being retained. So um that 15 foot setback that's required 4T is existing and to be retained for that existing guard house. Um and then we're requesting relief for uh on two things. Um both parking fronting a street uh when parking is proposed along Morris Pessen Way and Theodore Conrad Drive. And then also parking lot interior plantings where one tree is required per 10 stalls for a total of 22 street excuse me trees. Um but no interior trees are proposed in the parking area. So uh to start with the parking um the parking plan that we have laid out minimizes interaction between car circulation and truck circulation. Um as a corner lot there's limited opportunities for parking away from the street. Um the current design has parking along the street. Uh and design allows for the truck court to face interior to the site. Um as my colleagues were displaying, those truck courts are not, you know, like facing the public, facing the the right of way. Um they're interior to the site to sort of contain that noise and activity. Um and so car parking, which is less impactful, um will be along the exterior of the site instead. So parking is significantly buffered by the existing and proposed street trees and evergreen plantings along Theodore Conrad. Um and also that existing tree buffer along Morris Pessan that's being retained. And when it comes to parking lot interior plantings, um significant plantings along lot exteriors provide softening and shading as designed. And plantings also are proposed along curbs of building one and building two where possible. this linear parking lot design. So those long skinny parking lots that kind of run along the the edges of the building um mean that uh there's um as well as the circulation needs uh on the north side and truck circulation on the south side kind of limit opportunity and locations for interior plantings. um and instead we're meeting the purpose of plantings uh with that external landscaping along the um exterior of those parking areas. Um and I believe we meet three purposes of zoning. A encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in the state in a manner which will promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. Um this variance relief allows for productive reuse of the site with efficient circulation. Um G, sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of uses according to environmental requirements to meet the needs of New Jersey citizens. Um the variance relief we're proposing allows for the productive reuse of this site. Um and it also allows us to avoid wetland impacts as a significant portion of the site is wet. Um and also H encourage the location and design of transportation routes which will promote the free flow of traffic while discouraging congestion or blight. Um, varance relief here allows for both efficient internal circulation but also entry and exit at the site in a way that separates cars and trucks to the extent feasible. Um, we're also successful with the negative criteria. There's no substantial detriment to the public good here. There's a separation of cars and trucks to the extent possible. Uh, the design that we've proposed allows for substantial landscaping. It allows for internal loading docks outside of that pedestrian line of sight. Um, it's a trade-off between those shielded narrow parking lots and a possibility for larger parking areas that would allow for a internal plantings, but would require removal of things like street trees or rearrangement to make loading face the street. Um, so instead, uh, this design allows for efforts to retrain existing shade and sight tree planting along Conrad Drive to improve overall landscaping. Um, and there's no substantial impairment to the redevelopment plan. So we're aligning with goal two, the improvement of the functional and physical layout of the project area for contemplated new development and the removal of impediments and to land disposition. The site area is um to be cleared and variance relief allows for reconfiguration of effective access while placing loading activities internal to the site. Um and goal four, creation of major new employment opportunities within a modern industrial park, including provision of new manufacturing warehousing distribution, office, and recreational activities and opportunities. Uh the project with requested relief allows for development of this modern warehouse, which is part of that list. All right, that concludes uh my testimony. >> Okay, thank you. Anybody any questions? >> All right, thank you. We appreciate it. >> I don't have any further witnesses. >> Okay. Is anybody here from public that wants to comment on this application? Anyone from public? >> See, no one from public. I'd like to close the public portion part of the meeting. >> All right. Motion is made and seconded. Public is closed. Matt, do you have anything you want to add? Any concerns? >> Uh, no. Um, staff recommends approval with conditions. >> Okay. Thank you. I'll entertain a motion then. >> Um, am I going to read these um two separate motions? Yes, we're going to do uh the subdivision first and then the site plan. >> Okay, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve case P 2024-0172 primary and final subdivision. >> I second it. >> Okay. Motion is made and seconded for the subdivision. >> Commissioner Wick, >> I. >> Commissioner Stamato, >> I. Commissioner Patel, >> I. >> Commissioner Torres, >> I. >> And Chairman Langston, >> I. >> Um, motion for subdivision carries. All in favor? >> All right. Thank you, >> Chairman. I'd like to make a motion to approve case 2025-0132 as it was presented to the board today. Second. >> Okay. Motion is made and seconded for approval. >> Commissioner Wick. I >> Commissioner Stamato >> I >> Commissioner Patel >> I >> Commissioner Torres >> I >> and Chairman Langston. >> Yeah, my vote is I uh I think I agree with the planning testimony. I don't think there's any detriment to the master plan. It achieves its goals and objectives and there's no uh detriment to the Liberty Harbor redevelopment plan. Thank you. >> Motion for preliminary and final major site plan carries. All in favor? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. Before we move on to the next item, uh, is Mr. Harrington in here? Council, you, uh, Mr. Joseph, you're going to go on with your application tonight correct? >> I I would very much like to. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Harrington, not to put you on the spot. It is 9:46. Do you think there's any chance we get to your application in the next 14 minutes? >> Absolutely. >> With one in front of you. I I don't what what is the board is the board going to shut down at 10? >> So, we're not going to open up anything new any new application after 10. That's been our policy for years now, >> right? >> We won't take any new testimony on that open application after 10:30. We do have security here until 11, but we need to get our resolutions read into the record. We may need an executive session tonight and we need to get out of the building before it gets locked up. >> At this point, I'll just I I don't I know uh Mr. Amaro said it's not complicated, so I'm >> Well, you're not you're not up next either. >> I am. >> No, there's one. Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. >> So, I'm I would just sit tight. I've been here, you know, for another 15 minutes. Okay. >> And then come back up. >> Okay. >> All right. So let's call item 19 is case P2023-000099 is a preliminary and final major site plan with C variances for 133 Logan Avenue. Good evening. >> Good evening uh Stephen Joseph for the applicant. This is a notice application. I do have my notices if we can mark these as A1 please. >> Sure. Council, how many witnesses do you have tonight? >> I have two and an engineer on standby in case there's some pressing engineering. >> Okay. Thank you. >> We've seen those before. >> We meet you. Turn to see the affidav proof of mailing with respect to the application at 133 Logan Avenue here in the city does appear to be in order. We're going to mark it as A1 for purposes of the record. >> Thank you, councel. Great. Thank you. Uh 133 Logan Avenue. This is located mid block on Logan um in the SIP Avenue Gateway Redevelopment Plan. The applicant's proposing a new eight-story building with 35 dwelling units, 11 parking spaces, four of the units in the building uh will be affordable. In order to accomplish this, the applicant is requesting preliminary and final major site plan approval with C variances for drive with minimum landscaping and a design waiver for the compact parking spaces. Um, we'll get Ahmed sworn in and he'll take it away. >> Thank you, council. >> I do. >> Sure. Ahmed Amara, last name is E M A R A. >> Mr. Amar, good evening. Your license is current. >> It is. Okay, thank you. You're qualified. >> Thank you. >> And Ahmed, if you could just describe your presentation so we can enter it as an example. >> Uh, sure. A1 uh dated today. A2 dated today uh August 12th, 2025. And it's 17 slides >> 129 >> 129 133 Logan A planning presentation for the record. >> Correct. >> A2. Thank >> uh so you just mentioned the address 129-133 Logan Avenue. It is located on Logan Avenue between Freeman and Emerson A. This is the site right now. It's a um warehouse and there's open parking space, open parking lot next to it. This is the entire site now. This is just visual for the site from further back. And this is the proposed building um on the project on the property. The the property is currently in the SIP Avenue Gateway um residential Bzone which permits uh or allows you to use R1, R2 or R3 as your uh zoning. We are uh electing to use the R3 multif family midrise. Um in in in this case the um eight stories is as of right the density is the variance the density permitted is 70 units per acre. We are uh we're pro we're proposing uh 35 units per acre using the uh 10% >> uh units per acre again >> 203 units per acre. Thank you. 10% of 35 uh units is 3.5 rounded to four. So we are pro providing the Ford affordable uh units. Uh this is the site plan. The landscaping in the front is the uh other variance. The minimum landscaping and part of this is providing parking on site. Even though with using the affordable housing um parking is is no longer a variance. It's no longer required. We still providing it because it's a request uh by the neighbors. And we also think this is a site that can that can handle the parking. the the first floor and the cellar. We have the utilities in the cellar. The first floor is the lobby as well as the parking. We have bike parking access on the right side here of the parking. The second floor is on the left. You'll see the rear units have patios because the garage is an enclosed garage. So, we we don't have a building on stilts. And then this is the typical floor plan for the second, third, and fourth. >> The fifth and sixth. >> Mr. tomorrow. I I know we're trying to get through this to hear the next >> application, but you know, we still need to look at these things. We're not going to rush ourselves through anything there. >> So, if we could just give us, you know, a second to take a look at your nice presentation here. >> Sure. >> So, let me quickly mention, I was going to mention it with the next one, but we have one um bedroom plus den. We have studios and then one bedroom. The light blue is the units uh with den. The dark blue is the one bedrooms and then the purple are the studios in the middle. But when you switch to the fifth floor, and this is what I was going to mention, we still have the units which are the onebedroom plus den. We still have one bedrooms and then the dark green is the three bedroomedroom uh unit in the front. Here on the right side, the six to eight floors, we have two bedrooms and onebedroom plus den units. So, we have slightly larger units than what's uh uh being proposed on other projects in the area, but this is because we didn't want to put more units than 35 units in the eight stories. We could, but I thought we thought this was a good uh density, good approach. And then the units are averaging 620 630 ft for one bedrooms. We have 770 for um uh one bedrooms plus den and then about thousand square ft,0001 for 1 point u 1,100 ft² for the two bedrooms and similar for the three bedrooms. >> And what's the unit breakdown the mix? >> Uh we I'm going to go back right here. We have seven studios, eight onebedrooms, 13 onebedrooms plus den, six one bed, six twobedrooms, and one threebedroom. >> Okay. And what's the breakdown of the affordable units? >> We would have one threebedroom, one twobedroom, one uh onebedroom, and one studio. >> Okay. Excellent. Thank you. >> Of course. >> And the um the threebedroom, the two-bedroom are the moderate. >> Yes. the studio and the one are the uh the low. Um I think the other thing worth mentioning is 35 units is not the ideal optimal unit count with the affordable housing overlay. >> At 40 units, we would still be required for >> uh this is the uh the roof top of the building. We do have a recreational area that's centered u north south on the sheets right here. And then we have the green roofs on the sides as well as the mechanical areas that are hatched on the on the back side of the bulkheads. And this is a rendering of what that looks like. Uh the materials of the building we have uh on the front facade we have uh brown brick. It's worth mentioning that we did meet with the uh neighborhood. They voiced their concern with the previous brick color which was a white brick. So we we went with a a more brown brick which is what which was their recommendation. Uh the brass metal panel and we have exposed concrete columns on the ground floor. The rear of the building has a a smooth stucco finish and the brass metal panel as well which is cut out of the stucco um on the sides right there. And this is the proposed building. And that concludes my testimony. >> Okay. I saw a screened area on the roof. Uh there's no PTAC units. That's where the condensers are going or >> Yes. Yes. There's no PTAC units. The condensers are going on the roof. Correct. >> Okay. And everything's screened, correct? >> Correct. Yes. >> How high is the screening? 4 foot. >> Four feet. Yeah. >> Okay. Great. >> Yeah. >> All right. Any other questions? >> Yeah. I'm going to have two questions for you. Since you have this um picture up right now, that's the back of the building, >> correct? Yes. >> And those are the balconies on the back of the building. I see the veilance with >> a lot of space um between them. the bottom of the veil. How much space do you have from the bottom of the veil to the >> less than four inches? >> Less than four, >> which would be like what? Two or three? >> Three and a half. >> Three and a half. That's That's not much less than four. >> Less than four. >> It is less than four. >> Not much less than four. We could do better than that. >> We can go to two. Sure. >> Yeah. Yeah, we could do better than that. Uh it's a safety precaution, not >> I hear you. for you know right now underneath there. What's in the bottom of that there where people are going to be sitting and >> on on the second floor there's a there's a walk out patio. Yeah. >> Yeah. Patio, right? So you got stuff that could fall from up above that you want to sit down there. Okay. >> Um I'm looking at your cell your seller plan. >> I can go back to it. Yeah. >> And then your first floor plan where the cars are parked. So the first floor plan that's street level. That is street level correct? >> So, you'll be taking the garbage out >> on street level >> to the garage doors. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And it'll be and it'll be put on Logan Avenue. >> Correct. >> Logan Avenue. Okay. >> No compact or anything like that. No, it's just so >> it's 35 units, so it's manageable with >> It's manageable. So, they'll be taking it. Somebody would be bringing it down the elevator or the >> shoot. There's a shoot. >> There is a shoot. >> Yeah, there is a shoot. There's a trash room on every floor, which is >> Well, I see a trash room. I just don't notice the shoot. >> No, there there'll be a chute in it and it's going to come down to the first floor where it'll be and then taken out. Yeah. Correct. Yeah, >> that's all I have then. Thank you. >> Okay. So, two things. Um, is there ventilation in that first floor parking garage or is that >> It would be mechanically ventilated. So if we kept it open, this was a something that we spoke about with planning and and being a variance for stilted buildings, which is a look that I understand and agree with is not something that we want to >> have. So we it's a it's an enclosed garage per building code. So it would have to be mechanically ventilated. >> Okay. Um the trash room doors, how do they open with that parking space there? So that's something that'll be worked out with management if it's they would have to take it out on probably on days or nights that the car is not there. >> And how is management going to >> I know it's their job to manage things but how do they manage that? >> So so there's two different ways of doing this. Um the one way was to take it through the lobby and we don't want to do it that way. Uh, but the original the original actually plan is to flip the van accessible space to that spot and that's what we're going to do. >> Yeah, that's what I was just going to suggest. Is there room to flip that and configure the parking? >> Yes. >> To the same number? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, we can. >> Okay. So, would we make that a condition of approval? >> Sure. >> Okay. Anybody else? Any other questions? >> No. >> All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Um are we have Sam Belly here as our planner sworn in? He has some brief planning testimony. >> Yes, I do. >> Samuel Bellamy. Last name B E L L A M Y. >> Mr. Bellamy. Good evening. Your license is current. >> Good evening. Yes, it is. >> Okay. Thank you. We're qualified. >> All right. So, as mentioned, we're in the SIP Avenue Gateway redevelopment plan, which allows us to use the R3 district requirements. Um, from a bulk standpoint, this project is conforming with all bulk standards um with respect to setbacks and coverage. Um, we're also utilizing the affordable housing overlay that replaces the standard density requirement um with the with the standard based on the the building massing. Um, as Mr. are detailed. This project does provide for an adequate unit mix and and sizes within it. So, I think that is a nice component here. Um, and then we're also replacing an existing non-conforming industrial use with a conforming uh multif family use with this project. There's uh two bulk variances we're requesting um along with the approval for the compact parking spaces. Um, so we're asking for a minimum drive a width variance. We're proposing 18.41 ft. That's when you enter the garage from the garage door. And then as you drive back to where the parking spaces are located, the drive aisle actually increases to about 33 feet. So substantially above the 24 ft requirement. Um also mentioned the curb cuts at 10 ft, the garage doors at 12 ft, and then it tailor up to 18 to 33 feet. So I think that allows for adequate circulation into and out of the garage. Um, and also the tapering down as you get to the sidewalk and into the street, I think would allow for um some safety aspects with pedestrians crossing and then cars uh cars within the right of way. Um, the the proposed parking spaces in general um meet the requirements. The LDO does allow you to uh provide compact parking spaces subject to planning board approval. Um, and with the additional drive aisle width where the parking spaces are located at 33 feet, I think there is adequate space here um for the for the compact spaces and that's where 8 foot minimum width of those spaces are provided. Um, and that'll be the full 18t uh deep parking spaces within the garage. We're also asking for a minimum landscaping variance here. Um, there is a conflicting requirement within the R3 district. It actually allows 100% law coverage where parking's provided. Um, but then there's also a 10% minimum landscaping requirement. So, a little bit conflicting there. Um, we're providing a 3.56% that's within the front yard landscaping areas. Uh, in addition, we're we have about uh 1,800 square ft of green roofing. Then, we're also proposing extensive uh tree pits um with two new street trees. Those tree pits will be bio whales that collect rain water from the street. So, I think that's another nice green component with this project. Um, and then overall we're meeting the city's uh storm water control ordinance um through those components of green roofing and the extensive uh tree pits areas here. Um, overall this project does promote the purposes of the municipal land use law. I think it promotes purpose A, E, and G. Um I think we are providing for an appropriate density here within the building and providing for the affordable housing units. Uh and I think there is sufficient space and appropriate location for the proposed uh multifamily building on this property. Um overall I think these variances can be granted uh pursuant to the C2 criteria where the benefits would outweigh the detriments. Um I don't see any substantial detriment to the general welfare here. Again, I think this building was designed um inconsistent consistency with the bulk standards um and with the height of the R3 district and I don't see an substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance. I think this project in fact promotes the purpose of the R3 district and the purposes of the m uh of the master plan by providing for balanced housing on this property. And overall, this project does promote uh does meet both the positive and negative criteria. Um, and with that, my direct testimony concludes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bellamy. >> Any questions? Anyone? >> All right. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. >> Council, I do have one last thing to go back to on the parking. Um, is there any indicator for pedestrians when that door is opening or cars are approaching? >> I can answer that. We we usually add that to all of our projects and I'm happy to put it as a condition. >> Okay. Yeah, I think we it's definitely warranted here. >> Definitely. Sure. >> Okay. Thank you. We appreciate it. >> Okay. That that concludes our testimony unless anyone wants to hear from the engineer. Um I know we went through that fast, but you know, we did do a lot of work before we got to this point. Sure. Um >> uh anybody engineering testimony? I don't know that we need it. >> Okay, great. So that concludes our direct testimony. >> Thank you. All right. Is there anybody here from public that wants to comment on this application? Come on up, Mike. >> Truth. >> I do. >> Michael Manzo, man. Zo, Lifelong, 82 right Avenue, Jersey City. >> Good evening. We have three minutes for you. >> Um, I just want to commend the uh people involved with this project. Uh, we asked them to meet with us. They came uh and they accommodated even after the meeting they were going back and forth with the color of the brick and the panels. So there was a lot of interaction there. I appreciate that. Uh this area, this Sip Avenue Gateway has been a mishmash for 20 something years. It's been open. This was allowed. This was disallowed. And what's happening now, I think we're at a point where uh this project and the church on a sip avenue is taking away that dormant space, the new lights, the landscaping. I think it's going to make a turn now. We we've had a decrease in crime. We had a decrease in abandoned vehicles. We had an uh a an upkeep of people taking care of their houses better. It's just it seems like it's inspiring and I hope we're going to get in that. and I only live a couple blocks away, so I'm pretty happy that this is going about uh with the neighborhood and everybody else. I think this project should be approved. Thank you for your time. >> All right. Thanks, Mike. We appreciate it. Always a pleasure. Anybody else from public? >> Okay. Um um Pam Mandy's from Councilman Rich Bojano's office and if he could just say whatever Mike Manzo said um he would be and basically he wants to thank the developer who met with the community, listened to them and made changes. The community commented on the brick color. The developer changed the color. The community wanted on-site parking. The developer changed the project to have on-site parking. You see, developers and the community can work together. It is possible. And that is all what the residents ask. Work with the community. The residents in this community is not a transient community. They're lifelong just like Mike Manzo. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Andes. >> Mike. >> Okay. Anybody else from public? Hello again. >> Good evening. And you're still sworn? >> I'm still Danielle Dammo. I'm still a lifelong resident of Jersey City, New Jersey for 47 years, especially in Ward C. And while I believe this project is inspiring and has a potential to positively impact our community, and while I acknowledge that both the community and the developers are in agreement on moving it forward, it must still comply with our zoning requirement that at least 10% of the site be dedicated to landscaping. The current proposal offers only 3%, which falls far short of this standard. Approving it as is would undermine the integrity of our planning process. I urge a planning board to require full compliance with the 10% landscaping minimum before granting final approval. Thank you. >> Thank you. We appreciate it. Anybody else from public? Anybody else? >> Seeing nobody else in public, I'd like to close the public portion part of the meeting. >> A second. >> Okay. Motion made and seconded. Public is closed. Uh this is Tanya. Hi. >> Um the applicant and I and the attorney and I have been working on this application for quite a long time. If you just look at the P2023 number, you'll notice that um I submitted my staff memo, I think at the last meeting. So all the conditions are on the record um in that in the Tyler portal file. Um and staff recommends approval with all those conditions. And then of course the added condition for the chairman which is the warning light for the garage. It sounds like you all want to add that. >> Um so it's the warning light. It's reducing to 2 in on the railing for the balcony and the flip the ADA space with the space next to the trash. >> Okay. >> And there's also the the traffic memo and the engineering memo. I believe a lot of these have already been addressed in the revised plans, but continue to work with traffic and uh and MUA, I'm sorry, not engineering and on those conditions. They're all acceptable. >> And Tanya, do you see any way we can increase landscaping? >> I No, I think I think Mr. Bellamy explained it pretty well. It's a it's it's a standard that kind of goes against itself. If you're allowed 100% landscaping because you're 100% lock coverage because you're doing parking, that it goes to say that the landscaping is going to be zero. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. I'll entertain a motion then. >> Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve case P2023- 0099 as it was presented to the board tonight. Okay, we have a motion and a second for approval with conditions. >> Commissioner Wick, >> I. >> Commissioner Torres, >> I. >> Commissioner Stamato, >> I. >> Commissioner Patel, >> hi. >> And Chairman Lex, >> uh, yeah, it's an I for me and I I once again, I think the variances are reasonable and uh, and don't uh, there's no detriment to the master plan of the city. So, it's an I. >> Motion carries. All in favor with conditions. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, council. >> Thank you so much, >> Mr. Harrington. >> 10:11, sir. >> That's right. >> I was I was holding out hope, but I miscalculated when I saw Mr. Bellamy walking up front. I didn't didn't realize they had two witnesses. >> So, Cam, what do we look like? >> We can put them on the next meeting, which would be August 26th. >> Okay. They need to be on first. Hands down. First. >> I appreciate that. Not only for my client, but the community here. They've been here two long nights. >> Agreed. Um, okay. So, we're going to move them to >> August 26th. >> August 26th. The dates are in August 26th with preservation of notice and a guarantee that this will be up first on August 26th and there will be a vote on the 26th and everyone will be heard on the 26th. >> Thank you. We appreciate that. >> All right. Thank you, council. Okay. So, that is carried. That is carried. All right. We're going to move on to memorialization of resolutions. I have seven resolutions that I need to read into the record. Um, number one is resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City. Applicant Jersey Aav 18 Land LLC for final major site plan approval 853 Jersey Avenue Jersey City New Jersey block 6005 lot 10 case number P2024-0126 number two is resol resolution of the city of Jersey City Planning Board in the matter of 33 Makadoo a application number P2024-0245 5 decided on July 29th, 2025, memorialized August 12th, 2025. It's an application for conditional use approval. Number three is a resolution of the City of Jersey City Planning Board, case number P2023-000093. Applicant is Usher Levy uh 42 to 46 Van Nostrin A, Jersey City. Block number is 25901 lot 44 decided on May 27 2025 memorialized on July 15 2025 application for minor subdivision. Item four is a resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City applicant 549 Summit Avenue Realy Acquisition Acquisition LLC for interim use approval at 547 to 549 Summit Avenue and 594 Pavonia Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey. Block 7904, lots 910 and 11. Case number is P2024-0246. Did I read that twice? >> Okay. All right. Item five is Sorry, Mike. Uh >> uh number five is resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City applicant Westside Holdings LP amended preliminary and final major site plan with C variances for 277 to 301 Westside Avenue and 19-23 Fisk Street, Jersey City, New Jersey. Block number is 22103. Lot is 5.01. 01 formally lots 513 and 14 that case number is P2024-0147. Uh item six is resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City. applicant is Kesler Hudson County Rehabilitation LLC for preliminary and final major site plan approval at 135 Green Street, Jersey City, New Jersey, block number 11607, lot one. That case number was P2025-000011. Lastly, item seven is resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City recommending the block 13103, lot one study area to be designated as an area in need of redevelopment, a non-condemnation area without the powers of eminent domain. So, I do need a motion and a second. >> Yeah, just say motion. And do I have a second? All right, we have a motion and a second for resolutions. >> Commissioner Wick, >> hi. >> Commissioner Torres, >> Commissioner Stamato, >> yes. >> Commissioner Patel, >> I. >> And Chairman Langston, >> I. >> Motion carries. All in favor to memorialize resolutions. >> All right. Thank you everybody. Do we need an executive session to talk about scheduling? >> Should we? >> Just want to thank you guys for the agenda. No worries. >> Hopefully, we'll get >> All right. Have a good night. Okay, we do need an executive session. If we could clear the room and close the doors as soon as it's clear.