Docstoc

2005

Document Sample
2005 Powered By Docstoc
					Hoboken, New Jersey, January 18, 2005 A Meeting of the Hoboken Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on the above date in the Conference Room, City Hall, Hoboken, New Jersey. Chairman Crimmins called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Mr. Bern, the Board Attorney, stated that the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act have been complied with.

ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Crimmins, Mr. Fusco, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Perry, Mr. Ponjoan. Absent: Mr. Foley, Ms. Camporeale. Also present were: Doug Bern, Esq., Board Attorney, Elizabeth Vandor, Planner, Robin Persaud, Board Engineer and Cathy DePalma. Chairman Crimmins and Ms. DePalma declared a quorum present.

211 MADISON STREET
Robert Matule, Esq. indicated the Planner for this application had a scheduling problem and requested that the matter be carried to February 15th meeting. It was also requested that notification be made to the Planner that this matter has been on the books for quite sometime. An announcement was made to the Public indicating that application has been carriered to February 15, 2005 and no further notice would be given.

81 WILLOW/261 NEWARK STREET
Frank Marciano, Esq. indicated that the applicant is in negotiation with the Condominium Association to seek independent counsel for advice on the procedure regarding the parking dispute. Mr. Burn noted that he has discussed the issue of reserving parking spaces as outlined in the Master Deed with Mr. Marciano and has suggested an approach that both attorneys seem to have accepted. Discussion by the Board to place this matter on the March 15th Board Agenda. Notification was made to the Public that this application will be postponed to the March 15th Meeting and no further notice will be required. Mr. Marciano agreed to prepare a letter to the Board waiving the time frame.

REORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD
Mr. Bern stated that the Board reorganizes on an annual basis and two

positions needed to be filled (Chairman and Vice Chairman). Motion made by Mr. Lisa to reelect Mr. Crimmins as Chairperson, seconded by Mr. Perry. Unanimous vote by the Board to reelect Mr. Crimmins as Chairperson. Motion made by Mr. Perry to elect Mr. Fusco as Vice Chair, seconded by Chairman Crimmins. Nominations closed by unanimous vote. Roll Call: Yes: Ponjoan. Chairman Crimmins, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Perry, Mr. Mr. Fusco.

Abstain:

Mr. Burn also noted that on an annual basis the Board reappoints professionals based on voter approved ordinance with Board approval. Mr. Bado addressed the Board concerning correspondence, advertising and the receipt of proposals in response to professional appointments. Motion made to approve continuation of legal services from Kaufman, Burn & Deutsch for an additional year by Chairman Crimmins, seconded by Mr. Lisa. Roll Call: Yes: Chairman Crimmins, Mr. Fusco, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Perry, Mr. Ponjoan Motion made by Mr. Lisa to approve the firm of Vandor & Vandor as Planner for an additional year, seconded by Mr. Ponjoan. Roll Call: Yes: Chairman Crimmins, Mr. Fusco, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Perry, Mr. Ponjoan Motion made to rehire Schoor DePalma in the capacity of Engineering Services for an additional year by Mr. Lisa, seconded by Chairman Crimmins. Yes: Chairman Crimmins, Mr. Fusco, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Perry, Mr. Ponjoan

132 MARSHALL STREET
Robert Matule, Esq. appeared on behalf of Marshall Terrace, LLC. This matter for preliminary site plan approval was originally scheduled to be heard on December 21, 2004, the lack of a Board forum caused the election of this matter to be carried. Variances for this project have been requested for the entire block on the west side of Marshall Street between 1st and 2nd street.

Dean Marchetto (1225 Willow Avenue, Hoboken) was sworn and his credentials as an Architect were accepted by the Board. A description and presentation of the project was provided by Mr. Marchetto along with visual exhibits. Exhibit A-1 (spring) Exhibit A-2 to mtg.) Exhibit A-3 Exhibit A-4 Aerial Photograph of the City of Hoboken taken 2004 4 Photographs of the surrounding area (8 weeks prior Enlargement of aerial photograph (A-1) Overlay sketch of the Site Plan

Mr. Marchetto provided a description of the exhibits which were taken to show the immediate and outlying areas surrounding the project site. He also stated that the property is 29,455 sq. ft. (.67 acres). Exhibit A-5 Diagram based on Hoboken Tax Map

This exhibit was prepared of an isolated building in the R-3 residential district and shows that it is uncharacteristic of the typical blocks in the district. The existing blocks are approximately 200x425 ft and the zoning in the District exhibits the standard Hoboken donut-type residential development which consists of 60% block coverage. The conditions at the edge of the City and this development change the existing condition by highlighting the high rise buildings at the edge of the development. Exhibit A-6 Site Plan Drawings (8 drawings)

The Plan as presented by Mr. Marchetto detailed the proposed six/eight-story two level structures which will include a two level parking structure at its base with the capacity for 103 parking spaces (94 residential and 9 retail). Also proposed at the base of the building are lobby areas (identified as North and South entrances), and 1775 sq. ft. of retail space. The lot coverage of the project would provide no room for a backyard area or open space, but a rooftop garden is planned in its place. The possibility of expanding this project by including additional structures in Phases was addressed. Exhibit A-7 Photograph of the Palisades South into Hoboken

This exhibit shows the proposed new structure between the railroad and the 17-story structure. Exhibit A-8 View of proposed Building

Shows comparison of building which has been inserted between the light rail and existing structures to the East and proposed building. Six variances are requested: (1) retail use, (2) lot coverage (88% of lot); (3) height (6/8 stories); (4) density (94 units and 2 retail spaces); (5) front yard (0 vs. 5ft); and rear yard.

The Board expressed concerns regarding the building placement, natural lighting, residential character, flood zone plan and storm drainage, roof deck planning, window styling and construction, garbage shoots, apartment sizes, the building being neighbor friendly, density, lot coverage, pedestrian accessibility and the request for five variances. (A short recess was taken) Chairman Crimmins opened the meeting to the public for questions. David White, Esq. (Garden Street) representing objector Leah Healey, raised questions concerning the proposed number of units to be built and the permitted number, the required open space set backs, lot coverage, and the proposed density and height in comparison to what is outlined on Page 150 of the Master Plan. Hank Forrest (518 Jefferson Street) inquired about the age of the aerial photographs presented as exhibits, and the utilization of the proposed open spaces on the north and south sides of the building, specifically whether fencing, landscaping or other materials will be used. John Gregorio (107 Jackson Street) addressed concerns about pedestrian safety and the lack of visibility of the access pathway from the light rail station on the westerly side of the building. He also brought to the Board’s attention past assaults and one murder that occurred in that area due to its isolation. Leanne Milhiser (208 Jackson Street) expressed safety concerns regarding the proposed roof terrace, and the existing flooding conditions of the storm drains and sewers. Hank Forrest made further inquiry into the proposed storm water retention system. The questioning was closed to the Public. Edward Kolling (741 Roselle Avenue, Ocean, NJ) was sworn and his credentials as a licensed Planner were accepted by the Board. Mr. Kolling provided testimony regarding his report dated 6/18/04 (marked as Exhibit A10) as presented to the Board. During the oral presentation of his proposal Mr. Kolling identified the lot as a large irregularly shaped site with varying footage, but nonetheless was viable for residential usage and was in compliance with the Master Plan interpretation. He noted that the bulk variances requested should be granted due to the unique shape of the parcel and its compliance with the State Transit Village Initiative. As to the requested D variance it also provides a positive use and development compliance as it would convert the use from industrial to commercial. In his view the project would provide benefit and little detriment by enhancing the general welfare, density suitability and is consistent with the existing zoning plan.

The Board questioned Mr. Kolling regarding his planning decisions on the proposed project. Extensive questions were posed regarding the proposed increased density. A request was made for further study into the issue for increased lighting and the creation of a positive pedestrian environment with respect to the light rail access pathway including but not limited to lighting, surveillance cameras, security, and doorman. With respect to safety and surveillance Ms. Vandore provided a suggestion of including a health club at the ground level which would provide observation of sorts for the light rail pedestrian access path.

600 CLINTON STREET
Chairman Crimmins announced that the 600 Clinton Street matter would be carried until the February 15th meeting without further notice to the public.

132 MARSHALL STREET (Continuation)
David White, Esq. made additional inquiry into the allowable number of residential units. With respect to Mr. Kolling’s report Mr. White requested that the DOT web page be marked as Exhibit 01 in support of his objection to the proposed increased density. He further questioned Mr. Kolling with respect to density and height and the desired objective to maintain lower densities in residential zones as set forth in the Master Plan on page 150. Chairman Crimmins opened the meeting to the public for questions. John Branciforte (1020 Garden Street) inquired as to Mr. Kolling’s expertise, familiarity with transit villages, and identification of the municipalities of transit village projects that he worked on. Dave White, Esq. requested that Mr. Kolling identify the aerial view in Exhibit A-1 of Hoboken, the rail station, the Palisades and the adjacent Jersey City properties that would harmonize with the proposed project. Mr. Kolling identified two 17 story buildings to the left, and west across the municipal line is Paterson Plank Road and the book bindery. Mr. Kolling also identified several mid-level buildings and pointed out the Hoboken/Jersey City boundary lines. The questioning was closed to the Public (A short recess was taken) Mr. Matule submitted the traffic report and placed reliance thereon. Mr. Marchetto proposed amending the application by eliminating the 16 smaller one bedroom units (from 92 units to 78 units), the elimination of 16 parking spaces plus the 5 surplus spaces (106 to 83). The space left by the eliminated surplus spaces can be converted to a community room to address the concerns of the Board and the public regarding the security, lighting and

cameras on the westerly side of the building. The decrease of the units would also serve to minimize the footprint of the building by 40 ft. An additional discussion by the Board on the decrease of units led to a request for the possible lowering of the height of the building. (A short recess was taken)

RESOLUTION 360-362 14TH Street
Mr. Burn presented the application for a vacant property in the I-1 Industrial Zone which was considered for a Use Variance and a C Variance for the construction of a 4-story building consisting of 4 residential units above ground floor and a parking garage. The Board heard the application and found that the project benefits outweighed any possible detriment. The Minor Site Plan approval was granted as well as C and D Variances, and the standard conditions were imposed. Motion made by Chairman Crimmins, seconded by Mr. Lisa. The motion was adopted by a unanimous vote:

600-604 Newark Street
Mr. Burn presented the application for a property in the I-2 Industrial Zone which was considered for a Use Variance and a C-2 Variance for the construction of a 7-story building consisting of 6 floors of residential units above ground floor and a parking garage. (Dean Marchetto, Architect; Ed Kolling, Planner). The Board heard the application and found that the project benefits outweighed any possible detriment. The Minor Site Plan approval was granted as well as C-2 and D Variances, and the standard conditions were imposed. Motion made by Mr. Perry, seconded by Chairman Crimmins. The motion was adopted by a unanimous vote.

119 Garden Street
Mr. Burn presented this application which was heard before the Board on December 2, 2004 for a special lot in the R-1 Residential Zone which was considered for C-1 and C-2 Variances for the construction of a 4-story building (3-story permitted), zero front yard coverage requested (5 ft. minimum); 15% roof coverage requested (10% required), lot coverage requested at 70.7%, deck coverage requested at 60%. (Frank Minerveni, Architect; consisting of 6 floors of residential units above a ground floor and a parking garage. The Board found that the project would be of positive

enhancement and its benefits outweighed any possible detriment. The application was amended to eliminate the roof deck, building coverage set at 59.8% and rear deck coverage set at 10.9%, with the imposed condition to make a good faith effort to work on the placement of the windows with neighbors. The application was approved as well as C, C-1, and C-2 Variances, and the standard conditions were imposed. Motion made by Mr. Lisa to accept the application as amended, seconded by Mr. Perry. The motion was adopted by a vote of 5. Chairman Crimmins abstained.

132 MARSHALL STREET (Continuation)
David White, Esq. raised objection as to the material amendments made to the application and the lack of opportunity to address them before the Board. Mr. Burn noted Mr. White’s objection and stated that the applicant has reduced the variance request and some degree of nonconformity as requested by the Board and additional discussion is still ongoing. Mr. Marchetto addressed the issues of the Board’s objection to the density, height and lot cover by proposing a 60 ft. decrease in open space, the elimination of the entire 8th story of the building (9 units) and 16 additional residential units for a total of a decrease in 25 units (69 remaining), the elimination of 30 parking spaces (73 remaining), and the reduction of lot coverage from 88% to 75%, the addition of a community room on the westerly side of the building. Dave White, Esq. inquired as to the intent and purpose of the community room, its proposed location and integrity of the building facade in relation to it. Chairman Crimmins closed the meeting to the public. Mr. Matule questioned Mr. Kolling on the architectural soundness and integrity of the proposed plan as amended by Mr. Marchetto. Robin Pesaud noted that a new set of plans must be submitted to the board as amended. Chairman Crimmins commented on the amending of the application and apologized to the public for the meeting delay and expressed the necessity for the changes and expressed his belief that the project was a good one and met the needs of the neighborhood and also the Master Plan. Chairman Crimmins opened the meeting to the public. Hank Forrest expressed his doubts about the project and voiced his opinion and views about the conformance of the project to the Master Plan, the performance of the Board, and made a recommendation that the project be

denied. Exchanges and comments regarding comments by Mr. Forrest. John Branciforte presented comments on experts, project, approvals, density, Board decisions, and the inaction of the Master Plan council. Dave White supplied comments as to the project meeting the test requirements for Board approval and its non-conformance to zone codes and ordinances and suggested the denial of the application. Dave Calligy supplied comment and urged a positive vote on the project. Public portion of the meeting closed. Mr. Matule made summation and indicated the variances requested were D-5 and D-6 variances and the proofs supported a D-1 Variance on an unusual piece of property. Also noted was the importance of conforming with the Motion made by Mr. Lisa to approve the amended plan to include the elimination of the entire 8th story of the east building, 69 units, to be built in two phases, decrease in parking spaces from 103 to 73 remaining, and the reduction of lot coverage from 88% to 75%, the addition of a community room, security plans, and update of drainage system. The building is being taken from a non-permitted use to a permitted use, in conjunction with the light rail station, open space to be decreased, and amended plans to be presented to the Planner, motion seconded by Chairman Crimmins. Roll Call: Yes Chairman Crimmins, Mr. Fusco, Mr. Corrado, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Perry, Mr. Ponjoan. Chairman Crimmins made apologies to the public for lateness of the meeting. Motion to approve Minutes of September 19, 2004, November 8, 2004, December 1, 2004, December 2, 2004, December 21, 2004. Motion made by Chairman Crimmins to accept Minutes of September 19, 2004, November 8, 2004, December 1, 2004, December 2, 2004, December 21, 2004. Motion approved by unanimous vote. Motion to close the meeting made by Chairman Crimmins, seconded by Mr. Fusco.

ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to attend to, this meeting adjourned at this time: 12:22 a.m. Respectfully submitted, AudioEdge Transcription, LLC

Matthew D. Hoffman Manager MH:mcm

Hoboken, New Jersey, March 15, 2005

A Meeting of the Hoboken Planning Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on the above date in the Conference Room, City Hall, Hoboken, New Jersey. Chairman Crimmins called the meeting to order at approximately 7:10 p.m. Mr. Bern, Board Attorney, stated that the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act have been complied with.

ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Joseph Crimmins, Vice Chairman Morris Fusco, James Perry, Alex Carrado, Jose Ponjoan, Cathy DePalma. Also present were Doug Bern, Esq., Board Attorney, Elizabeth Vandor, Planner and Jeff Marsdom, Board Engineer. Ms. DePalma declared a quorum of five. Mr. Crimmins stated that there were five members present. He added that he knew of one not showing up, and that there was at least two that he hasn’t heard from. The assumption was they might be coming. Therefore, the Board was going to start to go over the Resolutions.

158-14th STREET.
Mr. Bern, Board attorney, indicated that the first Resolution is for 158-14th Street. This was an Application for a property at 158-14th, Block 255, Lot 1. It’s in the R-1 W Industrial Zone District. The Applicant proposed to convert an existing warehouse building into a residential building with retail space on the ground floor. He required a C-2 variance relief as well as a D variance. The specific variances are spelled out at 1, 2 and 3 and 4 in the Resolution. The Board heard testimony of the Applicant’s architect, Dean Marchetto, Mechanical Engineer, and Mr. Kolling the Planner; the principal was Larry Bishu who also testified in support of the application, and the Applicant proposed to convert the existing structure into a seven story residential building containing twenty-seven dwelling units above a 10,856 square foot retail unit on the ground floor. The second to fifth floors are intended to become residential floors, and penthouse levels are intended to be constructed on the sixth and seventh floors. Dwelling units were ranging from 1,030 square feet to more than 2,000 square feet.

- 1 -

The Board heard the testimony of the design architect, Mr. Castorelli as well as Mr. Marchetto. Mr. Castorelli testified that the Applicants propose a green building and talked about the integrations associated therewith. It has a green roof, low flow plantings and fixtures on the roof which cause a reduced river use, et cetera, and the Board found that the D variance and the C variances could be granted, that the negative and positive criteria were met with respect to the D variances as well as the C variances, and the Board granted the approval together with site plan approval with certain conditions. The typical construction drawings are to be submitted to the Board’s engineer in compliance with all other inspections and the Applicant will provide tenant parking at the adjacent park and park garage. Access to the green roof is to be provided to tenants. A motion to approve was made by Chairman Crimmins. Board Member James Perry indicated that he thought there was one more condition that it was going to at least get the minimum green certification? Mr. Bern stated they intended to do that. That’s in the L-e-e-d Certificate, numbers nine on page 13. Chairman Crimmins made a motion to approve. Board Member James Perry seconded. All were in favor.

132 MARSHALL STREET.
Attorney Doug Bern indicated that the next Resolution is for 132 Marshall Street. This was an application for Block 24, Lot 6 through 21. The property is in an R3 Residential Zone District. The Applicant initially proposed to construct a new development comprising 94 dwelling units, two retail units and 103 parking spaces. The Applicant responded to concerns of the Board and agreed to reduce the number of dwelling units to 69 and the number of off street parking spaces to 73. A C-2 variance relief as well as D variance relief is sought as set forth on page 2, 1 thru 6. Attorney Bern stated that Dean Marchetto testified on behalf of the Applicant as did Edward Kolling. The hearing was held on January 18th, and the Applicant proposed to construct a new development consisting of 69 dwelling units, two retail units and 73 off-street parking spaces. The two buildings were to be connected with differing heights; the shorter building with a total height of 60 feet is to be at the southern end of the site and the taller building with a total height of 70 feet is proposed at the northern end of the site. The vehicular access to the property will be provided from Marshall Street. Mr. Bern further stated the Board heard the application and determined that the D variance was justified. It will benefit the community, promote an - 2 -

appropriate population density and would bring the building into conformance with the zone plan. The D variance was also granted. The Board found that the variance for retail use on the block frontage, notwithstanding that there are no other retail businesses, could be granted and special reasons exist for the relief to be granted. The proposed development will remove a detrimental lot for industrial use and provide desirable housing alternatives in a suitable location. There was discussion of the light rail that’s adjacent to the site and that this project would be a positive benefit in association with the light rail. The Board will also determine to grant site plan approval to the project, and in accordance with a number of conditions. All final plans have to be submitted to the Board Engineer due to some changes that were made and they have to be memorialized in plan form and other customary conditions. The Applicant also stated that they would construct the project in two phases and the construction phasing plan has to be submitted as well to the Board Engineer. Security cameras are to be provided in appropriate locations at the property and a security plan has to be presented to the Board and its professionals for review. An emergency door on the western building facade as well has to be provided along the light rail easement. The Applicant will increase the open space area by 60 feet at the northern end of the property near the light rail station as well, and with that the Board determined to grant a C variance. Chairman Crimmins inquired if there were any questions. Being none, Mr. Crimmins then made a motion to approve. Board Member Jose Ponjoan seconded. All were in favor.

11 PATERSON AVENUE.
Attorney Bern indicated an application for Block 9, Lots 2, 3, 4, 5.2 and 7, and Block 10 Lots 1 through 37. The property is situated in an I-2 Industrial Zone. The Applicant proposes to operate two 30 feet two-car hydraulic vehicle stackers which were previously installed at the property prior to the Applicant coming forward to the Board. The application was considered by the Board on August 17, October 19, November 18 and February 3rd. A number of exhibits were submitted to the Board and the Board was asked to provide a D-3 variance relief to allow the Applicant to operate the unenclosed hydraulic lifts at the existing commercial garage on the property. Mr. Bern indicated that a number of witnesses were heard on behalf of the Applicant. In addition, an Objector to the application, Mr. Delacoro represented by Attorney Dean Gaver, testified in opposition to the project and

- 3 -

also presented testimony of a planner, David Colmark. The Board heard the application on those dates and found that the Applicant did not meet its statutory burden to merit the award of the variance relief. The aesthetics were questioned, the height of the stackers was questioned, fence design and height were determined to be detrimental to the area. It was pointed out that the site was a gateway to the City and the Board found that the certain features of the application would be detrimental to the zone plan and the area. Operational issues also concerned the Board, off loading, inspecting, entering the areas and use of the street. The Board found that the application would cause a detriment and would impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and the zone ordinance. The Board determined that they could not grant the relief sought and that the Applicant did not meet his burden. Chairman Crimmins asked if there were any questions from the Board members and there being none, made a motion to approve. Mr. Bern remarked “approve with denial.” Board Member James Perry seconded. All were in favor in favor.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
Chairman Crimmins indicated that the Board has been given several copies of minutes, January 12, January 18, Feb 3rd and February 15. Chairman Crimmins asked if there were any questions. There being none, Mr. Crimmins made a Motion to approve. Motion was seconded.

AGENDA ITEMS.
Chairman Crimmins stated that if there any members of the public present for the two applications on tonight: 81 Willow Avenue, 261 Newark Street which is one property, the second being 309 Newark Street, both of them have been removed from the Agenda. Frank Marciano, Esq., attorney for the Applicant, requested that the matter be adjourned without notice until the April hearing date and the Applicant had indicated he waives any constraints that may be on either application. Chairman Crimmins stated to any members present for either of those cases, that it has been postponed until the April meeting. Mr. Crimmins asked about the date and time of the April meeting. Board Member Alex Carrado responded that it is April 19. Mr. Crimmins then stated that the meeting will take place in this room.

- 4 -

EXPLANATION OF B-3 BUSINESS DISTRICT.
Ms. Vandor remarked that the Board members have been asking for several months as to when the Council was going to get started on the recommendations of the Master Plan, and she indicated that “Step one was finally on deck.” At the Council meeting this month, counsel introduced an ordinance to create the first zone based on recommendations in the Master Plan. It’s called the B-3 Business District which was the name the Master Plan had given it. The boundaries are described on one of the sheets that she handed to the Board. Essentially it runs from Bloomfield Street to that point of intersection where Newark Street intersects Observer Highway. It’s all on the north side of Observer Highway and then attaches to a funny arrow shape which if you look on the Master Plan it is essentially the way it was proposed. Because it is within a fairly short distance of the terminal, it’s designed to be a mixed group partially high intensity zone which is not meant to compete with Washington Street’s uses, but rather have different types of retail as well as allowing for encouraging artist work studios, artist workshops and galleries as well as artist live/work studios and other kinds of studios; health clubs and the like. The zone was recommended in the Master Plan discussions to allow the Observer Highway frontage to be high rise and high intensity use while protecting all the frontages running along Newark Street. As a result, there’s an overlay that can be seen with hatching running along Newark Street which is a limited heightened area where this building cannot exceed six stories; it’s really five stories over one of parking, but sixty feet whereas the buildings along Observer Highway can reach 12 stories and if they fulfill certain requirements for a bonus, they can go to 14 stories. The two sites that you would be familiar within the zone is the City’s Public Works Garage as well as the Neumann Leather site. The area along Newark Street is protected with this limited height overlay so that it more closely matches the residential zone that’s actually across Newark Street to the north. In summarizing, Ms. Vandor stated that what she distributed to the Board is the actual proposed map of the second page that describes the boundaries as well as the blocks and lots that are contained within the New B-3, and the final page is a Board list that summarizes the various uses and heights and densities that are permitted in the district. This has a direct effect on the two items that asked to be adjourned since both those are located on Newark Street within these boundaries. Chairman Crimmins asked when this will be heard again. Ms. Vandor said it was introduced at the first meeting this month and it will

- 5 -

be heard at the first April meeting, April 6th or 5th, whatever that Wednesday night is, that will be the one. Mr. Crimmins inquired if it would be 20 days after that if it’s approved. Attorney Matule said he believed the effective date was 20 days after and that it depends on the form of government. He believed it’s 20 days and asked Attorney Bern if he knew. Mr. Bern replied that when an ordinance becomes effective it is the same as any other municipality. Chairman Crimmins asked if there were any questions. A question was asked about mixed uses in the entire zoning. Ms. Vandor explained that the uses are the same because that’s what in the Neumann Leather building so they are uses that we want to encourage because we want it to be a mixed use zone. Mr. Bern remarked that the council has to approve this before it’s enacted. Ms. Vendor added that it is an ordinance but more significantly, it’s actually creating a new zoning district. She commended that she has been here a long time and other than adjusting boundaries at rare intervals over long periods of times, this is the first time that she has participated in a creation of an actual new zone. Mr. Bern inquired if this was B-3. Ms. Vendor agreed, and most of the area that it occupies was previously the I-2 Zone which runs along Observer Highway. One partial block was previously CBD which is central business district and a very small portion at the tail end of the Public Works garage was R-1 and, therefore, this is a very different experience for all of us. Robert Matule, Esq., attorney for 211 Madison Street, inquired if there would be a public hearing and a second proceeding. Ms. Vandor replied that they usually collapse the second and third hearing together. Chairman Crimmins asked if there were any further questions. Attorney Doug Bern remarked that as a result most of the applications should go to the Planning Board if there’s additional possibilities for people and higher buildings that sort of more intense development. Chairman Crimmins remarked that he had made an announced a while ago that these hearings would be postponed until the April meeting knowing that no one has come in or out of this room. The announcement is being rescinded and the Board is making the decision here to change anyone with 81 Willow Avenue/261 Newark and 309 Newark to our May agenda will be postponed to the May 17th hearing at 7:00 p.m. in this room. He further

- 6 -

inquired if there were any questions.

211 MADISON STREET.
Chairman Crimmins stated that based on the time being twenty-five minutes to eight and not hearing from the other Board members, he is going to assume that no one else is showing up. Robert Matule, Esq., attorney for 211 Madison Street, said that based on that assumption, and the fact that his clients have a D variance, he has discussed this with his client and he remarked that he would prefer not to proceed with only five Board members. He commented that the odds are just a little too tight, and so they will exercise their right not to proceed without a full Board. He further added that he didn’t don’t know if the Board can have any Special Meetings and assumed that April 19th is the next meeting. Mr. Crimmins indicated that April 19th is the next meeting. Ms. Vandor stated that if that’s the date to be carried then to either consent to extend. Mr. Matule stated that he would strike those options to his client and under the circumstances they will consent to an extension of time at which time the Board has to act to and through April 19th. When asked by Chairman Crimmins about signing the necessary forms, Mr. Matule indicated he would be happy to execute the forms. Chairman Crimmins asked if there were any members of the public there for 211 Madison Street, adding that the project will be carried to the April 19th hearing at 7:00 p.m. in this room.

133 HARRISON STREET.
Stephen Spector, Esq., attorney for the Applicant, stated that they agree to give the Board an extension to hear their Application for an adjournment this evening. Chairman Crimmins asked if Mr. Spector was going to sign the forms. Mr. Crimmins asked if there were any members of the public for 133 Harrison Street and indicated that that meeting will also be postponed until the April 19th meeting, and apologized for the lack of enough Board members. Chairman Crimmins asked if there was any other business before the Board.

ADJOURNMENT:

- 7 -

There being no further business to attend to, this meeting adjourned at 7:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, AudioEdge Transcription

Matthew D. Hoffman Manager of AudioEdge

- 8 -

Hoboken, New Jersey, April 19, 2005 The regular meeting of the Hoboken Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on the above date in the Conference Room, City Hall, Hoboken, New Jersey. Chairman Crimmins called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Marilyn Green Gittleman, Board Attorney, stated that the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act have been complied with.

ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Perry, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Foley, Mr. Ponjoan, Mr. Monaco. Absent: Mr. Lisa, Ms. Camporeale. Also present were: Marilyn Green Gittleman, Board Attorney, Elizabeth Vandor, Board Planner, and Robin Persad, Board Engineer. Chairman Crimmins declared a quorum present and welcomed Jim Monaco as a new member of the Board.

211 MADISON STREET
Mr. Foley recused himself from the hearing. Robert Matule, Esq. appeared on behalf of the applicant and presented proof of publication and mailing to the Board. Ted Radovici was sworn and his credentials as an architect were accepted by the Board. Mr. Radovici reviewed the existing structure and adjacent buildings. The proposed building will be four residential dwelling units and five floors. Variances are requested for number of floors, building height in feet and zero front yard setback. Mr. Persad requested that the applicant supply copies of the updated drawings. Katherine Gregory was sworn and her credentials as a planner were accepted by the Board. A photo board of the site was marked as Exhibit A-1. Ms. Gregory testified that the variances requested satisfy the positive and negative criteria of the Municipal Land Use Law. Ms. Gregory stated that one of the units will be a duplex and that the fifth story is set back in the front and the back. The curb cut and garage will be eliminated, both of which are nonconforming conditions. The zero front yard setback is in character with the surrounding buildings. Ms. Greogry noted that the 40-foot rear yard setback is 10 feet larger than what is required. Ms. Gregory believed that the project promoted the general welfare by eliminating nonconforming conditions and creating a desirable visual environment. There will be no substantial detriment to the public good, nor substantial impairment to the intent of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. The project meets the goals of the Master Plan. 1

Mr. Perry was concerned that the negative criteria for the five stories had not been satisfied. He stated that all lots to the north of the project could request the same consideration, which would negatively impact the zone plan. Ms. Gregory responded that the buildings on the opposite side of the street were taller and that there would not be a substantial impairment. Chairman Crimmins concurred with Mr. Perry regarding the height variance. Ms. Gregory noted that the building would provide larger, family-sized units, which is a goal of the Master Plan. Limiting the project to three stories and four units would result in two very small apartments on one floor. She opined that the project would enhance the neighborhood and that it conformed to the particular lot. Mr. Perry reiterated his concerns with the negative criteria. Ms. Vandor reviewed the ordinance controlling height and parking and found that the greater percentage of the buildings are at the lower height. Chairman Crimmins wondered if a 4 story building would better fit the neighborhood. Ms. Gregory noted that the majority of the buildings are 4 1/2 stories and that the setback 5th story is flush with the 4 1/2 story buildings. Ms. Gregory informed that they could provide a 4 story building, but the intent was to provide a larger duplex unit and additional outdoor space. Chairman Crimmins said that a streetscape is viewed along one side of the street. Ms. Gregory disagreed, explaining that the streetscape involves both sides. Ms. Vandor informed that it is viewed as one side under the ordinance. Chairman Crimmins wondered if it would be preferable to avoid applying for the D variance. The meeting was opened to the public. Curtis Crystal, 713-715 Monroe Street, commented that more and more families are trying to stay in town. The zoning ordinance and Master Plan need to be reviewed in order to be more family-friendly and provide for more 3 bedroom properties. There being no further comments, the public portion was closed. Mr. Matule indicated that although his client preferred to keep the 3 bedroom duplex, he was willing to remove it. Mr. Fusco asked if the duplex could remain but remove the second floor. Chairman Crimmins asked Ms. Vandor to opine on the larger unit. Ms. Vandor noted the Master Plan’s goal to construct larger units. Mr. Perry preferred eliminating the D variance. Mr. Perry motioned to approve the application with variances, amended to remove the fifth floor. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fusco and adopted by the following votes: Yes: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Perry, Mr.Carrado, Mr. Ponjoan, Mr. Monaco.

2

133 HARRISON STREET
Stephen Spector, Esq. appeared on behalf of the applicant. Frank Minervini was sworn and his credentials as an architect were accepted by the Board. Mr. Minervini described the proposed five story, mixed use building containing ground floor commercial and four apartments. A computer generated rendering was marked as Exhibit A-1. Mr. Minervini described the existing vacant lot, surrounding buildings and recently approved projects in the area. The building facade will be similar to a project recently approved to the north. There will be no roof decks or parking and the rear yard will be deeded to one apartment. The building will be fully fire suppressed and have an elevator. A variance is sought for 70% lot coverage where 60% is permitted. Mr. Minervini explained that this was necessary as the project is on a corner lot. It also increases the apartment size, making them more family friendly. A new sewer line has been installed and they have received a will-serve letter from the North Hudson Sewage Authority. Mr. Minervini testified that the building is in keeping with approvals to the north and south. Ms. Vandor discussed the site elements requiring variances. The rear yard variance is needed to accommodate the stair and the retail variance is needed since there are not two other retails on the same street. The rear yard will be deeded to an individual owner who will be responsible for maintenance and upkeep. Ms. Vandor wondered about storage for gardening equipment. Mr. Minervini imagined that it could be built into the unit or enclosed space under the stair. Mr. Persad indicated that he has been working with the design engineer regarding site drainage and that the issue would need to be resolved prior to Final Site Plan Approval. The meeting was opened to the public. Hearing no questions, the public portion was closed. Katherine Gregory was sworn and her credentials as a planner were recognized by the Board. Ms. Gregory’s report was marked as Exhibit A-2. The site is a vacant, overgrown lot in poor condition surrounded by commercial and residential. A photo board was marked as Exhibit A-3. Variances are sought for density and height. Ms. Gregory found that the variances met the positive and negative criteria of the ordinance. With respect to the density, they are proposing four dwelling units and one retail. Ms. Gregory believed the overage made sense due to the proximity to the light rail stop and the fact that it is a corner property. She did not believe that the height variance would affect the character or uniformity of the district. Retail is appropriate at the corner property due to the higher pedestrian traffic and location near the light rail.

3

Ms. Gregory discussed the space needed for elevators, fire stairs and mechanical units which increase lot coverage. By providing 1,000 square feet of retail space, and in attempting to meet ordinance requirements, they ended up with an overage on lot coverage. As to the zero front yard setback, Ms. Gregory did not believe setbacks were appropriate for corner lots. Ms. Gregory summarized that the revitalization improved the appearance and safety of the site. The project provides adequate light, air, open space, and promotes a desirable visual environment. She found no substantial detriment to the public good or zoning ordinance by the granting the variances. Ms. Gregory discussed the project as promoting the purposes of the R-3 district under the zoning ordinance. The benefit of the commercial on the first floor outweighs any detriment for granting the height and density variances. Mr. Fusco inquired about the size and use of the commercial spaces. Ms. Gregory stated that the commercial space was 1,000 square feet. She expected that the space would be used as some type of convenience retail. Ms. Vandor commented that the retail type is limited by the ordinance. Mr. Foley questioned what consideration the Board should give to the fact that a five story variance building was approved across the street. Ms. Gregory stated that corner lots are unique as they anchor the block. It is important to parallel the buildings to maintain the streetscape. The meeting was opened to the public. Hearing no questions, the public portion was closed. A motion to approve was made by Mr. Perry with the following variances: zero front yard setback, rear yard setback, lot coverage, building height and number of stories, and four units with one retail use. The motion was seconded by Mr. Foley, and adopted by the following votes: Yes: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Perry, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Foley, Mr. Ponjoan and Mr. Monaco. Mr. Foley commented that the planner’s testimony adequately supported the requested variances at this site. A short recess was taken.

415 ADAMS STREET
James Burke, Esq. appeared on behalf of the applicant. Peter Johnston was sworn and his credentials as an architect were accepted by the Board. A photo board was marked as Exhibit A-1. The property is located mid-block in an R-2 district. Mr. Johnston reviewed the heights of the adjacent buildings and noted that the existing building was blighted by a fire. The proposed building is five 2-bedroom, 2 bath units with rear decks. Mr. Johnston discussed the proposed front and rear yard landscaping and the building’s facade. A set of drawings was marked as Exhibit A-2.

4

A variance is requested for number of floors, five proposed where three are permitted. Mr. Johnston explained that the existing neighborhood is 4 1/2 and 5 stories. He believed the building fits in with the context of the neighborhood. A lot coverage variance is requested to accommodated the decks and fire escape. A final variance is requested for zero front yard setback to align with the neighboring buildings. Mr. Johnston reviewed the horizontal elements and opined that a facade variance was not necessary for horizontal demarcation. Mr. Fusco requested a height comparison of the existing and proposed buildings. Mr. Johnston estimated a six-foot difference. Mr. Johnston stated that the rear decks will have a roof, as required by code, but are otherwise open. Mr. Perry inquired about fire suppression. Mr. Johnston responded that the building will be fully fire suppressed with fire alarms and pull stations. Ms. Vandor inquired about the landscaping. Mr. Johnston informed that the rear yard would be landscaped with evergreen trees, hedges, annuals and daylilies. The front fence will be similar to adjacent fences. Ms. Vandor noted that an interior area was needed to store recyclables. Mr. Johnston pointed out the area for common storage under the stair, accessible to all tenants. Ms. Vandor discussed the elements of the facade ordinance and thought that a variance might be required. Mr. Johnston discussed the facade articulation of the proposed building and stated that they didn’t want to arbitrarily break the facade. Mr. Perry and Chairman Crimmins agreed with the architect’s comments and discussed including a facade variance, if necessary. Mr. Johnston responded to comments in Mr. Persad’s report regarding showing the limits of the construction on the sidewalk, approval of the staircase and fence in the public right of way. Mr. Persad inquired about a comment on the survey plan regarding support for a neighboring deck. Mr. Johnston informed that the adjacent building is encroaching on their property. Prior to construction, that owner will have to construct supports for his deck. The meeting was opened to the public. Hearing no questions, the public portion was closed. Ken Ochab was sworn and his credentials as a planner were accepted by the Board. Mr. Ochab discussed the variances for building height in feet and density, stating that they fit into the surrounding neighborhood and are consistent with the intent of the R-2 zone and zoning ordinance. The use meets the character of the immediate neighborhood and the overall height conforms with the existing development pattern. By removing the commercial use and putting in a conforming building, Mr. Ochab believed that the project protected the residential neighborhood and fostered neighborhood stability, which are goals of the R-2 zone in the Master Plan.

5

The building meets the intent and purpose of the zone plan and the Municipal Land Use Law by providing an appropriate population density and providing sufficient space to meet the needs of the citizens. The design promotes a desirable visual environment. Mr. Ochab found no negative impact by the granting of the variances. Ms. Vandor wondered if it would be worthwhile to attempt to create a duplex unit to meet the Master Plan objective of providing larger units. The meeting was opened to the public. Irene Murnane, 414 Grand Street, commented that the existing building is a terrible eyesore. She believed that the project was a tremendous improvement and expressed support for the granting of the variances. Hearing no further questions, the public portion was closed. Mr. Burke amended the application to include a variance for the facade. Mr. Foley raised an issue regarding the density and appreciated Ms. Vandor’s comments regarding the possibility of including a duplex or larger units. Chairman Crimmins believed that the plans would have to be totally reworked to include a duplex and was uncomfortable doing so in this particular situation. A motion to approve with variances for: (1) building height; (2) density, (3) lot coverage; (4) zero front yard setback; and (5) facade was made by Chairman Crimmins. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perry and adopted by the following votes: Yes: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Perry, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Ponjoan, Mr. Monaco. No: Mr. Foley.

604 GRAND STREET
Robert Matule, Esq. appeared on behalf of the applicant and presented proof of mailing and publication to the Board. Frank Minervini was sworn and his credentials as an architect were recognized by the Board. The applicant is proposing removing two existing buildings and constructing one 4-story, 4-family residential building, The second through fourth floors will have balconies. A variance is requested for lot coverage to provide larger, family-sized apartments, along with variances for number of stories and zero front yard setback. The rear yard will be deeded to the first residential floor. Mr. Minervini reviewed the landscaping plan for the property. The building will be fully fire-suppressed and the facade is in keeping with the neighborhood.

6

Ms. Vandor asked about the current uses of the two buildings. Mr. Minervini stated that there are two principal buildings on the lot, the front is a deli and the rear is residential. Ms. Vandor commented that the Board encourages applicants to remove these types of situations. Mr. Persad reserved the right to give engineering comments based on the documents he received that day. The meeting was opened to the public. Hearing no questions, the public portion was closed. A motion to approve with variances for: (1) lot coverage; (2) zero front yard setback; and (3) building height of four floors, and with the condition that the Board engineer and planner can review the plans for additional issues was made by Chairman Crimmins. The motion was seconded by Mr. Foley, and adopted by the following votes: Yes: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Perry, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Foley, Mr. Ponjoan, and Mr. Monaco.

402 MADISON STREET
Mr. Foley recused himself from the hearing. Robert Matule, Esq. appeared on behalf of the applicant and presented proof of publication and proof of mailing to the Board. Nicole Robertson was sworn and her credentials as an architect were accepted by the Board. Richard Garber, a licensed New York architect and associate of Ms. Robertson, was sworn as a fact witness. Mr. Garber described the existing site. There are currently two buildings on the site, 3 stories up front and 2stories in the rear, with a concrete patio between them. The rear building is structurally unsound and has been condemned by the City. The applicant is proposing to demolish both buildings, remove the concrete patio and construct a 4-story 40 foot structure with four dwelling units. A lot coverage variance is requested for patios. The building owner will likely occupy the first floor and have the yard for his use. Mr. Garber noted that Ms. Vandor suggested turning the stair to the cellar under the first floor stair. He explained that they were unable to do so due to the height. A street tree will be planted per the Shade Tree Commission’s recommendations. Mr. Garber discussed the existing fence line. Per Ms. Vandor’s suggestions, the applicant will put in a planter with shrubbery. The variances requested are for lot coverage, number of stories and zero front yard. Mr. Perry requested clarification of the depth of the buildings. Mr. Garber noted that they are a little more shallow due to an accessory structure behind the building to the south. Mr. Perry felt it was difficult to justify the lot coverage variance, as it would exacerbate the condition. Mr. Garber did not believe this would create any light and air issues. Further, Mr. Garber remarked that condo interiors are generally tight, so they tried to provide more amenities in terms of space and layout. 7

Ms. Vandor requested an explanation of the basement floor. Mr. Garber indicated that they proposed a cellar for storage and mechanical use. It will not be used as living space. Mr. Matule indicated that it was permitted as long as there is no habitable space. The meeting was opened to the public. Hearing no questions, the public portion was closed. A motion to approve with variances for lot coverage, building height and front yard setback was made by Mr. Carrado. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ponjoan and adopted by the following votes: Yes: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Perry, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Ponjoan, Mr. Monaco.

RESOLUTIONS:
600 Clinton Street A motion to adopted the Resolution was made by Chairman Crimmins, second by Mr. Foley, and adopted by the following votes: Yes: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Perry, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Ponjoan, Mr. Monaco.

36-42 NEWARK STREET
Stephen Spector, Esq. appeared on behalf of the applicant. The site was previously occupied by the Clam Broth House. Chairman Crimmins noted that there needed to be a discussion regarding the Historic Commission. Mr. Spector stated that his client was advised to come before the Board first to determine the height. Ms. Vandor informed that the Historic Commission must review all applications first and submit a written report to the Board. Danny Tattoli, contract purchaser, was sworn. Mr. Tattoli stated that Ms. Castellano advised him that the Historic Commission has no rights regarding height and zoning and that he should go before the Zoning Board first. The Historic Commission would then advise regarding the facade. Ms. Vandor instructed that the Historic Commission cannot make decisions regarding items which the Board has jurisdiction over, yet they can make recommendations to the Board. Chairman Crimmins requested that the Board Attorney review the appropriate procedure. Ms. Gittleman recommended that the matter be referred back to the Historic Commission. A motion to refer the matter to the Historic Commission was made by Mr. Perry, seconded by Vice-Chairman Fusco, and adopted by the following votes: 8

Yes: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Perry, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Foley, Mr. Monaco. No: Mr. Ponjoan. The matter was carried to the May 24 meeting, no further notice required.

9

ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to attend to, this meeting adjourned at 10:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, AudioEdge Transcription

Matthew D. Hoffman Manager of AudioEdge MDH/jar

10

Hoboken, New Jersey, May 17, 2005 The regular meeting of the Hoboken Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on the above date in the Conference Room, City Hall, Hoboken, New Jersey. Vice-Chairman Fusco called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Marc Leibman, Board Attorney, stated that the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act have been complied with.

ROLL CALL:
Present: Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Perry, Mr. Foley, Ms. Camporeale, Mr. Monaco. Absent: Chairman Crimmins, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Ponjoan. Also present were: Marc Leibman, Board Attorney, Elizabeth Vandor, Board Planner, Robin Persad, Board Engineer, and Cathy DePalma, Secretary to the Zoning Board. Ms. DePalma declared a quorum present.

900-912 MONROE STREET
The matter was carried to the June 21 meeting with no further notice required.

324-326 GRAND STREET
The matter was carried to the June 21 meeting with no further notice required. The applicant consented to an extension of time for the Board to act.

1422 GRAND STREET
The matter was carried to the May 24 meeting with no further notice required. The applicant consented to an extension of time for the Board to act.

RESOLUTIONS:
133 Harrison Street: Board Attorney Leibman reviewed the Resolution for the Board. A motion to adopt the Resolution was made by Mr. Perry, seconded by Ms. Camporeale, and adopted by the following votes: Yes: Mr. Perry, Ms. Camporeale, Mr. Foley, Mr. Fusco, Mr. Monaco.

-1-

415 Adams Street: Board Attorney Leibman reviewed the Resolution for the Board. A motion to adopt the Resolution was made by Mr. Perry, seconded by Ms. Camporeale, and adopted by the following votes: Yes: Mr. Perry, Mr. Foley, Ms. Camporeale, Mr. Monaco. Abstain: Mr. Fusco. 604 Grand Street: Board Attorney Leibman reviewed the Resolution for the Board. A motion to adopt the Resolution was made by Mr. Fusco, seconded by Mr. Monaco, and adopted by the following votes: Yes: Mr. Fusco, Mr. Perry, Mr. Foley, Ms. Camporeale, Mr. Monaco. 402 Madison Street: Board Attorney Leibman reviewed the Resolution for the Board. A motion to adopt the Resolution was made by Mr. Fusco, seconded by Mr. Monaco, and adopted by the following votes: Yes: Mr. Fusco, Mr. Perry, Ms. Camporeale, Mr. Monaco. Abstain: Mr. Foley.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the minutes of April 19, 2005 was made by Mr. Fusco, seconded by Mr. Foley and adopted by the following votes: Yes: Mr. Fusco, Mr. Perry, Mr. Foley, Ms. Camporeale, Mr. Monaco. The Board discussed the Clam Broth House application and issues with the Historic Commission review. Mr. Leibman will forward a letter requesting a member of the Historic Commission attend the Zoning Board hearing and provide recommendations. Ms. Vandor suggested conducting a workshop for Planning and Zoning Board members. The presentation would illustrate the meaning of variance requests, and how they change items such as bulk, height and coverage from what the ordinance permits. There would also be a comparison of approved plan drawings to photos of the finished projects.

-2-

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to attend to, this meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, AudioEdge Transcription, LLC

Matthew D. Hoffman Manager of AudioEdge

-3-

Hoboken, New Jersey, May 24, 2005 A special meeting of the Hoboken Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on the above date in the Conference Room, City Hall, Hoboken, New Jersey. Chairman Crimmins called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Marc Leibman, Board Attorney, stated that the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act have been complied with.

ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Perry, Mr. Ponjoan, Ms. Camporeale, Mr. Monaco. Absent: Mr. Carrado, Mr. Foley. Also present were: Marc Leibman, Board Attorney, Elizabeth Vandor, Board Planner, Robin Persad, Board Engineer, Andrew Hipolit, Board Engineer and Cathy DePalma, Secretary to the Zoning Board. Ms. DePalma declared a quorum present.

509-511 JACKSON STREET
The matter was carried to the June 21 meeting with no further notice required. The applicant agreed to an extension of time for the Board to act.

2, 4, 6 PATERSON AVENUE
The matter was carried to the June 21 meeting with no further notice required. The applicant agreed to an extension of time for the Board to act.

FUND FOR A BETTER WATERFRONT VS. THE CITY OF HOBOKEN
Mr. Leibman read a letter from Judge Velazquez affirming the decision of the Zoning Board.

36-42 NEWARK STREET
Stephen Spector, Esq. appeared on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Spector reviewed items that were raised at the prior hearing. A letter was read confirming participation in the Park and Shop program. A letter from the Health Department was read concerning food prep space in the basement. Mr. Spector informed that the Historic Commission recommendations were submitted to the Board. He stated that the applicant is also requesting a major subdivision. Mr. Persad noted that the drawings needed to be updated prior to any approvals. James McNeight was sworn and his credentials as an architect were accepted by the Board. He explained that the applicant is attempting to recreate the Clam Broth House. A two-sided photo -1-

board was marked as Exhibit A-1. The original application was submitted to the Historic Commission for review. A facade model of this submission was marked as Exhibit A-2. After receiving comments from the comments, revised plans were drawn up, marked Exhibit A-3. Mr. McNeight discussed the comment letter from the Historic Commission and that he did not believe the project was reconstruction, as stated by the Commission. Paul Summerville, representative of the Historic Commission, affirmed before the Board. Mr. Summerville discussed the Commission’s recommendations and the term “reconstructive” as used in the Commission’s letter to the applicant. They did not believe the original design met the criteria and suggested the Board could remand the project back to the Historic Commission for the architect to come up with a new design. Mr. McNeight inquired about the distinction between reconstruction and new construction. Ms. Vandor reviewed Hoboken’s general standards. She believed reconstruction applied to a building that replaced a demolished historical structure. Mr. Summerville stated that the architect must identify the point in time being recreated. Mr. Spector advised that the applicant was agreeable to the decision of the Historic Commission, but would leave the height decision to the Zoning Board. The facade was redesigned to comply with the wishes of the Historic Commission. There is a question of the time to be recreated. Mr. Summerville recommended setbacks if there was a need to go higher than 4 stories. He also noted that the Historic Commission cannot mandate a business. Responding to inquiries from Chairman Crimmins and Mr. Lisa, Mr. Summerville explained that the Commission recommended more appropriate changes to the design, but never recommended that the building go higher. Mr. Spector stated that his interpretation of the meeting was very different. Portions of the building are only 50 feet deep, making it difficult to have a setback. They agreed to consider the Commission’s position regarding the facade, but there was no discussion about height because that decision was to go before the Zoning Board. Mr. Crimmins noted that historic issues are normally finalized before appearing before the Board. Mr. Summerville indicated that he would like to see what the Zoning Board approves before it going back to the Commission. Mr. Leibman discussed the problems with this scenario. The Commission provides advice, but the Zoning Board makes the final decision. Mr. Summerville asked that the revised plans be evaluated by the Historic Commission first. Ms. Vandor said that the Board professionals had not received revised plans. Mr. Lisa asked about the differences in the plans. Mr. McNeight explained that the plans would be the same as the original, with all variances, but the dome room would be removed from the roof Chairman Crimmins stated the decision regarding height would be made by the Zoning Board. An issue was raised as to whether the Board’s decision should be based on the revised or original plans. Mr. Leibman reviewed the Board’s options to either remand it to the Historic Commission or to vote on the original application. In order to consider revised drawings, the -2-

hearing must be adjourned to allow the Board professionals a chance to review them. Chairman Crimmins requested that the applicant go forward with the original plan. All decisions would be subject to the Historic Commission’s review to determine the external facade. A short recess was taken. James McNeight described the project and surrounding area. Variances are requested for depth, lot coverage, height, rear yard, density and roof coverage. The cellar will consist of storage, restrooms, kitchen prep and utility rooms. The first and second floor will consist of the Clam Broth House Restaurant and Bar. The third and fourth floor will consist of office space. The fifth and sixth floors will be residential. The restaurant will include a glass enclosed sidewalk café. Mr. McNeight opined that the variances requested are generated by the location and shape of the lot. He noted the site’s proximity to a parking garage on Second and Hudson and that they have received confirmation of parking availability in the garage. Mr. Lisa inquired about the elevators. Mr. McNeight explained that the elevators are separate for the office and residential. Mr. Lisa thought this was a good design for security purposes. Ms. Vandor asked about proposed landscaping, lighting and parking. Mr. McNeight responded that they are proposing two street trees and five lamps near the main entrance. The 27 required parking spaces will be leased. Ms. Vandor informed that a lighting plan must be submitted Mr. McNeight agreed to comply with engineering comments raised in Mr. Persad’s May 3rd letter. The meeting was opened to the public. Allen Kratz, 1245 Bloomfield Street, submitted a copy of the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historical Properties, marked Exhibit P-1. He inquired as to what extent the project complied with the standards for a reconstructed project. If the height variance was granted, Mr. Kratz wondered if they could create a visual distinction which doesn’t bring in second empire style of architecture, as it didn’t really exist in the neighborhood. He discussed structures in Washington, D.C. where modern facades are placed above historic lower facades, without resorting to this style. Mr. McNeight was unaware of these structures but agreed to look at examples to be provided by the Historic Preservation Commission. Mr. Kratz acknowledged that the site was not on the National Register of Historic Places. There being no further questions, the public portion was closed. Kathryn Gregory was sworn and her credentials as a planner were accepted by the Board. Ms. Gregory prepared a report dated March 25, 2005. A photoboard of the site was marked as Exhibit A-4. Ms. Gregory compared the streetscape of the 1920's to way it looks today. Ms. Gregory testified as to the variances. The increase in density will not affect the character of the zoning district. Also, some of the five story buildings from the 1920's are now six to nine stories, therefore, the building height fits in. -3-

Ms. Gregory commented as to the esthetics of the proposal and surrounding character of the historic district. She reviewed the zoning ordinance and Secretary of Interior Standards. The Standards say that they “may” be applied to all properties in the National Register of Historic Places. Hoboken code states that the Secretary of Interior Standards shall “guide” the Historic Preservation Committee recommendations. Ms. Gregory advocated that the proposal was an improvement to the previous building and reflects the historic nature of the building. As to rear yard setback and lot coverage variances, the existing building goes over the lot line, therefore, they will be improving an existing condition. Ms. Gregory believed that the roof appurtenances were part of the architecture of the building and found no detriment to the public good. The project promotes the general welfare and purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law, responds to the historic goals of the district and promotes a desirable visual environment. There is no substantial detriment to the public good by the granting of the variances, nor any substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. Mr. Perry asked if it was incompatible to have mixed use in the building, rather than all commercial. Ms. Gregory believed that it was compatible based on the architect’s design, the more urban setting and proximity to public transportation. Chairman Crimmins requested justification for the height, since the tallest building on all four sides of the block was four stories. Ms. Gregory stated they have proposed six stories, where five are permitted. She did not believe it would impact the light, air and open space and believed the architectural design was appropriate for the height. Ms. Vandor noted that five stories is generally 50 feet, but the proposal is 76 feet. Ms. Gregory responded that floor-to-ceiling height is greater in historic architecture, therefore, it is appropriate in the context. The architectural features are reflective of a historic district on a grander scale. Mr. Perry asked if the empire style was done to attract people to live in the building. Mr. McNeight believed it was beneficial esthetically and allowed there to be windows on the side without slanting the building inwards. Mr. McNeight mentioned that the structure will be a totally non-combustible building made of concrete, which will mitigate noise between the various uses. Chairman Crimmins wondered what would happen to the windows if a neighboring building was approved at the same height. Mr. McNeight responded that the windows would still be functional, though the view would be blocked. Ms. Vandor commented on the square footage of the restaurant. Mr. McNeight believed that Hoboken is lacking facilities of this size to accommodate large banquets and functions. The meeting was opened to the public. Allen Kratz, 1245 Bloomfield Street, inquired about Ms. Gregory’s interpretation of -4-

reconstruction and the justification for not replacing the Clam Broth House with an exact replica. Ms. Gregory stated that her interpretation of reconstruction was directed toward the jurisdiction of the Historic Commission and Zoning Board. Ms. Gregory noted that the Clam Broth House structure was condemned and was not listed on the National Historic Register. She did not believe an exact replica was in the best interests of the community. There being no further questions, the public portion was closed. Mr. Leibman informed that the ordinance mandates evidence of a lease for parking to be provided to the Zoning Board. Mr. Spector stated that the applicant was amenable to enter into a long term arrangement for 27 long term spaces. Mr. Spector concluded his presentation and the hearing was opened to the public. Elizabeth Mason, 921 Hudson Street, asked about the requirement whereby the restaurant space remains restaurant space and does not become a bar. Ms. Vandor informed that there is no limitation on that in the district. Hearing no further questions, the public portion was closed. Mr. Perry was concerned about the mixed use of the project and the viability of office, residential and restaurant space. He preferred continuing office space above the fourth floor. Mr. Lisa liked the design and was satisfied with the architect’s explanation of the compatibility of uses. He noted that the Clam Broth House design changed many times throughout its history. Chairman Crimmins believed the office space provided a buffer between the residential and restaurant, but remarked that he did not like the design above the fourth floor. Mr. Perry raised concerns about building alarm systems. He believed the project presented compatibility issues. Mr. McNeight stated that the building would be completely up to code, fully sprinkled and have a sophisticated alarm system. Mr. Ponjoan commented on the elevator system and the privacy for the residents. He found the design preferable to the revised version. Mr. Fusco wondered about the height of the surrounding four story buildings, as he did not want the project to be substantially higher than the surrounding properties. A motion to approve the project was made by Mr. Lisa with the subdivision as proposed, and variances for lot coverage, building height, rear yard, density, roof coverage and food prep in the cellar. Lighting plans must be submitted to the Board and a lease must be entered into with a parking facility. Upon approval, the applicant will work with the Historic Commission for input on the facade materials and return to the Board for amended preliminary approval. The applicant must comply with the engineer’s comments regarding site plan and subdivision. -5-

The motion was seconded by Ms. Camporeale and adopted by the following votes: Yes: Mr. Fusco, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Ponjoan, Ms. Camporeale, Mr. Monaco. No: Mr. Perry, Mr. Crimmins. A short recess was taken.

121-127 HARRISON STREET
The matter was carried to the June 16 meeting with no further notice required. Counsel for the applicant consented to an extension of time for the Board to act.

1422 GRAND STREET
The matter was carried to the June 16 meeting with no further notice required. Counsel for the applicant consented to an extension of time for the Board to act.

700 FIRST STREET
Dennis Oury, Esq. appeared on behalf of the applicant. Irwin Kizel was sworn and his credentials as an architect were accepted by the Board. A book prepared by the architect containing previously submitted plan documents and partnership biographies was marked as Exhibit A-1. Mr. Kizel reviewed the proposed restaurant facility, including the 544 square foot exhibition kitchen and lobby area. Support areas in the basement include the prep kitchen, dry storage area, general storage, break room and locker area, wine cellar, walk-in box and staff restrooms. Mr. Oury indicated that a door leading out to the residential portion would be closed off, in response to Ms. Vandor’s comments. The revised customer service area is now 1,999 square feet. Kitchen and toilet space on the ground floor totals 2,396 square feet and basement space with food prep and storage is 2,205 square feet. Ground floor space anticipated as retail will now be used as restaurant space. The hearing was opened to the public. Annette Illing, One Marine View Plaza, wondered if the project would include an outdoor café and requested clarification of the ordinance regarding the same. Mr. Kizel reviewed that there would be seating outdoors, but not a separate café. Ms. Vandor noted that a license may be required. Ms. Illing stated that the 2004 subdivision approval was not registered and asked if DEP approval was required. Mr. Hippolit was sworn. Mr. Hippolit inquired if the DEP was involved concerning

-6-

underground contamination of the site. Mr. Kizel stated that the DEP was not involved and residents are occupying the building. Mr. Hipolit informed that a No Further Action letter would have been required by the lender prior to financing the building. There being no further questions, the public portion was closed. Edward Kolling was sworn and his credentials as a planner were accepted by the Board. An illustration of the project’s relationship to the economic development area from the Master Plan was marked as Exhibit A-2. The applicant is seeking a D3 variance to the limitation that no restaurant exceeds 1,000 square feet in service area. Two restaurants were approved in the original application, which this application seeks to combine. Mr. Kolling testified as to the suitability of the site for a larger restaurant and how the project meets the goals of the Master Plan. There is no substantial detriment to the community or zone plan and the total area of restaurant space is not being increased by the application. The meeting was opened to the public. Annette Illing, One Marine View Plaza, inquired about the foot traffic and accessibility to the restaurant. She noted that the subdivision was supposed to be recorded and sent to the county within 95 days of Board approval, but was done substantially past the due date. The public portion was closed. Robert Raju was sworn. Responding to inquiry from Mr. Lisa, Mr. Raju stated that they would comply with the ordinance regarding hours of use for the five tables located outside. The meeting was opened to the public. Annette Illing, One Marine View Plaza, asked if outdoor seating area should be included in the restaurant space calculation. Ms. Vandor informed that outdoor seating within the private property line is not part of the restaurant square footage. Ms. Illing remarked that there is no record of the subdivision or tax payments in the file. Mr. Oury advised that it has not been taxed as a separate entity yet as there is no CO. Ms. Illing commented on the numerous variances granted on the project and that there should be a halt to the granting of variances. A motion to approve was made by Mr. Lisa with variances for restaurant space exceeding 1,500 square feet, use of the basement for food prep and storage. Conditions include closing the door leading to the restaurant lobby and outdoor seating will comply with the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Ms. Camporeale and adopted by the following votes: Yes: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Perry, Mr. Ponjoan, Ms. Camporeale, Mr. Monaco.

RESOLUTION
-7-

211 Madison Street: Mr. Leibman reviewed the resolution for the Board. A motion to adopt the Resolution was made by Mr. Perry, seconded by Mr. Monaco, and adopted by the following votes: Yes: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Perry, Mr. Ponjoan, Ms. Camporeale, Mr. Monaco. Abstain: Mr. Lisa.

ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to attend to, this meeting adjourned at 11:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, AudioEdge Transcription, LLC

MATTHEW HOFFMAN Manager of AudioEdge MH/jar

-8-

Hoboken, New Jersey, June 16, 2005 A special meeting of the Hoboken Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on the above date in the Conference Room, City Hall, Hoboken, New Jersey. Chairman Crimmins called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Mr. Bern, Board Attorney, stated that the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act have been complied with. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Ponjoan, Ms. Camporeale. Absent: Mr. Perry, Mr. Foley. Also present were: Doug Bern, Esq., Board Attorney, Elizabeth Vandor, Board Planner, Thomas Malavasi, Board Engineer, Cathy DePalma, Secretary to the Zoning Board. Ms. DePalma declared a quorum present. 515-517 JEFFERSON STREET The matter was postponed to the July 19, 2005 meeting. 121-127 HARRISON STREET Stephen Spector, Esq. appeared on behalf of the applicant for Preliminary Site Plan Approval. Russell Bodner was sworn and his credentials as an architect were accepted by the Board. The variances requested for the proposal include building height in feet and stories. The project is a 5 story, 50 foot tall residential building with parking. Mr. Bodner reviewed the dimensions of the sixteen units. Decks are included on the second through fifth floors and the streetscape will be -1-

landscaped. The rear yard will be maintained by the condo association. Mr. Bodner testified that he revised the plans to comply with the comments in Mr. Persad’s April 2005 letter. He further agreed to comply with the Ms. Vandor’s letter of May 5, 2005. Mr. Bodner discussed the drainage and storm water retention system for the project. Mr. Crimmins requested further discussion of the storm water tank and the roof. property. The roof will contain a boiler room. There are no plans for a roof deck. Ms. Vandor noted that the ordinance requires rear yard landscaping. Mr. Bodner indicated that plans can be provided. Further, windows will be included in the garage door. The hearing was opened to the public. Hearing no questions, the public portion was closed. Kathryn Gregory was sworn and her credentials as a planner were accepted by the Board. A photoboard of existing site and the surrounding area was marked as Exhibit A-1. Ms. Gregory discussed the variances requested and reviewed the findings in Grasso vs. Spring Lake Heights, regarding height variances. Ms. Gregory testified that the project conforms to the existing neighborhood and opined as to the special reasons for granting of the variances. The building promotes the purposes of the state plan for redevelopment and promotes several goals of the Master Plan, such as larger units, significant architecture, streetscape, compatibility of scale and design, ground level parking and providing open space. The project proposes four stories over one level of parking. Ms. Gregory believed the benefits outweighed the detriments. The project allows for larger family units and is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. There is no substantial impairment to the general public, zone plan or zoning ordinance. Ms. Gregory found the lot coverage variance for balconies to be de minimus in nature. The benefit of providing the decks outweighs the detriment of the small lot coverage increase. Mr. Bodner explained that the tank will be located under the property, with drainage outlets in the rear of the

-2-

Mr. Fusco inquired if commercial space was being provided. Ms. Gregory indicated that it was not. Mr. Lisa asked about the surrounding properties. Ms. Gregory reviewed the heights of the adjacent properties. Ms. Vandor informed that architectural consistency is limited to the same blockfront. Ms. Gregory stated that two projects have been approved on the same side for five stories. The meeting was opened to the public. Hearing no questions, the public portion was closed. A motion for Preliminary Site Plan Approval was made by Mr. Fusco, with variances for building height and lot coverage. Conditions include that a landscape plan will be added and the garage windows and storm drains will be further discussed with the Board engineer. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisa and adopted by the following votes: Yes: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Ponjoan, Ms. Camporeale, Mr. Monaco. 1422 GRAND STREET Robert Matule, Esq. appeared on behalf of the applicant and submitted proof of service, affidavit of mailing and campaign contribution statements to the Board. Lee Levine was sworn and his credentials as an architect were accepted by the Board. Mr. Levine described the existing five story building with parking in the rear. A rendering of the proposed building was marked as Exhibit A-1 and a photograph of the existing site was marked Exhibit A-2. Mr. Levine testified as to the modifications to the building. A sixth floor will be added and a restaurant will be included on the ground floor. A trellis structure will be placed over the six parking spaces and new fire stairs will be constructed. Mr. Levine reviewed the building entrances. Twenty-one dwelling units are proposed. Mr. Levine discussed the potential layouts of the live/work units, which were done in anticipation of the area be rezoned. Variances are

-3-

requested for use, number of stories, rear yard parking and number of parking spaces. Mr. Levine discussed the lighting plan and testified that the building will be fully fire suppressed. Mr. Levine stated that he addressed most of the issues raised in Mr. Persad’s letter. They have not yet agreed to repave the streets around the building, nor have they agreed to replace the sidewalks and handicapped accessible corners on the three other corners at the intersection. Mr. Lisa inquired about the retrofitting of the artist’s apartments. Mr. Levine responded that the tenants will be responsible for retrofitting the live/work units to the landlord’s specifications. Ms. Vandor asked why the additional floor is requested. Mr. Levine stated that the Master Plan discusses providing public amenities. The proposal includes public not-for-profit gallery space. The sixth floor will provide additional live/work space. Ms. Vandor suggested the owner offer testimony as to the intent for the gallery. Mr. Matule represented that the space would be made available for community gatherings, speakers, art exhibits and similar events. Ms. Vandor discussed the intent of the Master Plan regarding activity along 15th Street and asked why all of the entrances are coming off Grand Street. Mr. Levine discussed the difficulty of moving the entrances. He stated that the restaurant will have a glass frontage along 15th Street, but a sidewalk café would encroach on the narrower sidewalk there. Ms. Vandor asserted that the focus should remain on 15th Street, rather than Grand. Mr. Levine agreed to café doors on 15th Street. Chairman Crimmins raised concerns about having only 6 spaces where 184 are required. Mr. Matule noted the Master Plan’s call for cooperative parking spaces. A future owner would likely participate in a park-and-shop program or provide valet parking. Mr. Bern suggested including a parking plan as a condition of approval. The meeting was opened to the public. Hearing no questions, the public portion was closed. Edward Kolling was sworn and his credentials as a planner were accepted by the Board. Mr.

-4-

Kolling opined that the applicant’s proposal is consistent with the recommendations of the Master Plan. He discussed the anticipated rezoning of the area and stated that the building highlights the area’s former industrial heritage. Mr. Kolling talked about building height and the provision for additional stories when providing public amenities. The applicant is requesting an additional story by providing a public cultural facility. He opined that the height in feet conforms with the zone and reusing the existing building further advances the goals of the Master Plan. Mr. Kolling reviewed the parking and the anticipation of shared parking facilities. Providing the required parking would necessitate the demolition of the structure. It is unlikely that the City would prefer to demolish this building, as the Master Plan makes numerous references to preserving industrial structures. Currently, adequate on-street parking exists in the area. Mr. Ponjoan inquired about having on-street parking and only one corner which is handicapped accessible. Mr. Kolling indicated that handicapped parking is provided on-site. Mr. Kolling stated that requiring an applicant to provide ramps on all four corners is typically not done. The public improvement is done by the municipality. Further, as the lots are developed, the corners will be demolished and redone by the new developers. Mr. Kolling agreed that all crosswalks are ultimately expected to be accessible. The meeting was opened to the public. Hearing no questions, the public portion was closed. Chairman Crimmins remarked on the issues raised in Mr. Persad’s letter. Mr. Matule remarked that the area is existing development and that requiring the applicant to repave 15th and Grand was an unreasonable condition and beyond the scope of the application. Mr. Lisa noted that it has not been the past practice of the Board to impose such requirements. Chairman Crimmins commented on the preservation of the building. He believed the look of the building did not change with the extra story and that the project supports the intent of the Master

-5-

Plan for the zone. There is a concern about the parking, therefore, some type of parking plan should be provided. Mr. Fusco concurred with Mr. Crimmins. He further agreed with Ms. Vandor’s comments regarding putting the activity along 15th Street. Ms. Vandor found it preferable to include the gallery area on the ground floor and make the restaurant preparation area visible along 15th Street. Mr. Levine noted that moving the utilities may present a hardship, but the applicant was willing to stipulate moving activity areas to 15th Street. A motion to approve was made by Mr. Lisa with variances for use, number of stories, parking in the yard and number of parking spaces. Conditions include the restaurant owner demonstrating a good faith effort to obtain parking, addition of café doors and to revise the ground floor layout. The comments in Mr. Persad’s letter will be addressed at Final Site Plan Approval. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carrado and adopted by the following votes: Yes: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Ponjoan, Ms. Camporeale. Abstain: Mr. Monaco. A short recess was taken. 605 GARDEN STREET Robert Matule, Esq. appeared on behalf of the applicant and submitted proof of mailing, affidavit of service and contribution disclosure forms to the Board. George Weiner was sworn and his credentials as an architect were accepted by the Board. Photographs of the existing streetscape were marked as Exhibit A-1. Mr. Weiner described the unusual circumstances of the site. The lot contains a three family building in the rear and L-

-6-

shaped garage/carport in the front. Mr. Weiner discussed the proposal to add a duplex unit in the front, thereby converting the accessory structure into a second principle structure. The applicant has contacted both the fire department and building officials regarding fire access to the property. The front building will be fully fire suppressed and a fire line will be brought back to the rear building to substantially improve the safety. Mr. Weiner indicated that he reviewed Mr. Persad’s letter and will comply with the six items raised. A short film depicting existing conditions and the proposed structure was marked Exhibit A-2. Mr. Weiner discussed the landscaping and lighting of the courtyard between the structures. The applicant will bear the cost of closing a property line window of the neighboring building. Responding to inquiries from Mr. Lisa and Mr. Crimmins, the architect reviewed the means of egress from the buildings. The meeting was opened to the public. John D. Frederickson, Esq. appeared on behalf of the owners/objectors at 607 Garden Street. Mr. Frederickson questioned the architect about the pre-existing nonconforming conditions at the site and about the neighbor’s blocked view. Mr. Weiner responded that the neighbor’s south side, second level window would be blocked. He noted that the window is not permitted under building code. Responding to inquiries regarding access, Mr. Weiner stated the rear building is not currently accessible to fire trucks, but it will be sprinklered. Roy Hession, 168 Sixth Street, strongly objected to the application. He asked about the impact on the neighboring properties and asked the architect to confirm the anticipated footprint of the building. Mr. Weiner anticipated a 10-12 foot landscaped distance between their properties and testified that the structure would not impact the light or emergency access to Mr. Hession’s property. Hearing no further questions, the public portion was closed. Edward Kolling was sworn and his credentials as a planner were accepted by the Board. Mr.

-7-

Kolling stated that the property meets the use, lot size and density requirements. He discussed the intent of purpose of the R-1 zone. The proposed design meets the purpose of the zone plan and recommendations of the Master Plan. The proposal is in character with the area and the added two stories are in line with the height requirements. Mr. Kolling discussed the impact of constructing a four story conforming structure on the property, which would have similar or greater impact than the proposal. Further, requiring the owner to demolish the existing structures would be unreasonable. Granting the variances is appropriate and will make it more conforming with the streetscape, promote a desirable visual environment and appropriate population density. The positive and negative criteria are satisfied and the nonconformity of the rear structure will be improved by the introduction of the fire suppression system. Mr. Fusco inquired if the carport could be esthetically improved and rear building fire sprinklered without building the addition. Mr. Kolling stated that it could be enclosed to look more like a garage, but it would not be in keeping with the streetscape. The rear building could also be fire suppressed. Mr. Crimmins asked if two principal buildings on one lot was good planning. Mr. Kolling stated that it was typically not done, but there is a pre-existing condition. The front building is not visually-pleasing and can be improved. He found it preferable to improve the front property than to leave it as is. Mr. Crimmins suggested improving the front building and eliminating the back building. Mr. Kolling acknowledged that this could be done, but it would require demolishing a viable, structurally sound building, which is unreasonable. Mr. Crimmins found no justification for project as the carport can be sealed up and visually improved. Mr. Lisa wondered about design alternatives. The hearing was opened to the public. John Frederickson, Esq. inquired about the eight pre-existing, nonconforming issues raised in

-8-

Mr. Persad’s letter and questioned the planner regarding the comments raised in Ms. Vandor’s letter. Mr. Kolling discussed the intent of the zone plan and zoning ordinance to create continuous streetscapes and maintain scale, and the need to weigh this against the competing interest to discourage the additional construction. Mr. Frederickson asserted that a lot could be esthetically improved without increasing the impact of the structure. Mr. Kolling stated that density would not increase over what is permitted. He believed that a four story conforming structure would have more of an impact on light, air and open space than the proposal. Roy Hession, 168 Sixth Street, asked about the use of the garage, as he had never seen a car coming out of the area. It was his understanding that the garage is being used as a language school. He further inquired about the change in density. Mr. Kolling explained the density calculations and number of permitted units. The meeting was opened for general comments. Suzanne Klarewicz, 135 Park Avenue, commented on the architectural structure and appearance. She remarked that the rear architecture is not esthetically pleasing. Roy Hession, 168 Sixth Street, maintained that the project will block the neighbors’ views. John Frederickson, Esq. noted the objectors serious concerns regarding the impact of the project. The objectors do not believe the project meets the intent of the zoning and Master Plan. Further, the objectors state that a school is being run out of the garage. Mr. Frederickson argued that the application should be denied. Mr. Matule objected to the statements regarding the school. Hearing no further questions, the public portion was closed. A motion to deny the application was made by Chairman Crimmins, seconded by Mr. Fusco and adopted by the following votes:

-9-

Yes:

Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Ponjoan, Ms.

Camporeale, Mr. Monaco. A short recess was taken. 207 SECOND STREET James Burke, Esq. appeared on behalf of the applicant. An issue was raised regarding notice of the hearing. Chairman Crimmins advised that notice is served on condo associations, not to each individual unit owner. encountering service problems inform the Board. The following tenants raised concerns about the service of the notice: Kristin Brown, condo president at 134 Garden Street; Michael Evers, 252 Second Street; and Suzanne Klarowicz, 135 Park Avenue. After discussion with the residents and applicant’s attorney, the Board determined that a good faith effort was made to serve the individuals listed in the tax records. James McKnight was sworn and his credentials as an architect were accepted by the Board. Mr. McKnight explained that a building at the site had burned down. He reviewed the dimensions of the L-shaped lot containing an old garage and a parking lot. Underground utilities are available to serve a structure on the site. A photo of the existing conditions was marked as Exhibit A-1. The applicant proposes a four story building with eight residential units, one commercial space and a ten car garage. The roof will only contain the mechanical equipment for the structure. Mr. McKnight reviewed the architectural details of the project and safety features of the garage. The owner’s unit will be an artist’s studio. Mr. Lisa requested clarification of the facade materials and remarked that the parking appeared He asked that anyone

-10-

tight. Mr. Carrado inquired about the rear yard setback. Mr. McKnight explained that 100% of the lot would be used on the first floor, with a setback on the upper floors. Mr. Fusco asked if consideration was given to removing the parking, which is not permitted, and instead provide for a backyard. Mr. McKnight discussed that there is parking currently on the site. Mr. Monaco asked if the commercial space could be removed to provide for parking. Mr. McKnight indicated that a continuous curb cut would be required the length of Second Street. Ms. Vandor commented that parking is not permitted in the zone and not having it was preferable from an urban design standpoint. Mr.McKnight stated that the applicant would comply with the issues raised in Mr. Persad’s letter. The meeting was opened to the public. Suzanne Klarowicz, 135 Park Avenue, wondered about the garbage and exhaust fan. Mr.

McKnight responded that refuse cans would be stored in the garage. The exhaust fan will be activated by a carbon dioxide meter and vented through the lower roof of the garage. Ms. Klarowicz presented pictures of the lower roof of the existing garage, marked Exhibit O-1. Kristin Brown, 134 Garden Street, asked about the number of cars in the existing and proposed garage. Mr. McKnight responded that there are six in the existing garage and ten are proposed. Michael Evers, 252 Second Street, asked about the building height. Mr. McKnight explained that variance is needed for height in stories, but not feet. Mr. Evers commented about the parking. Brian Critz, 137 Park Street, inquired about the depth of the building coverage, which extends beyond the neighboring building.

-11-

Suzanne Klarowicz, 135 Park Avenue, remarked on the 100% lot coverage of the project and questioned if parking could be eliminated. Laura Siegel, 137 Park Avenue, wondered the shadows cast by the building and blocking of light. Mark Rosenthal, 135 Park Avenue, asked if the applicant was proposing 100% coverage on two lots. Mr. McKnight confirmed that the first floor was 100% coverage over the two lots. Hearing no further questions, the public portion was closed. Chairman Crimmins announced that the hearing would continue at the July 19 meeting with no further notice required. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to attend to, this meeting adjourned at 11:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, AudioEdge Transcription

MATTHEW D. HOFFMAN Manager of AudioEdge

-12-

Hoboken, New Jersey, June 21, 2005 The regular meeting of the Hoboken Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on the above date in the Conference Room, City Hall, Hoboken, New Jersey. Chairman Crimmins called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Mr. Bern, Board Attorney, stated that the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act have been complied with.

ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Perry, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Ponjoan, Ms. Camporeale, Mr. Monaco. Absent: Mr. Foley. Also present were: Doug Bern, Esq., Board Attorney, Elizabeth Vandor, Board Planner, Robin Persad, Board Engineer, and Cathy DePalma, secretary to the Zoning Board. Ms. DePalma declared a quorum present.

RESOLUTIONS:
36-42 Newark Street: Board Attorney Bern reviewed the Resolution and Conditions for the Board. Chairman Crimmins informed that a letter was received from a member of the public seeking to stop the Resolution based on discussions at the Historic Commission meeting. Mr. Perry suggested rescinding or delaying the approval while the issues are worked out. Chairman Crimmins disagreed, as no official notification had been received. Mr. Bern noted that the applicant had agreed to go back before the Historic Commission regarding the facade. A motion to adopt the Resolution was made by Mr. Lisa, seconded by Mr. Ponjoan and adopted by the following votes: Yes: Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Ponjoan, Ms. Camporeale. No: Chairman Crimmins, Mr. Perry. 700 First Street: Board Attorney Bern reviewed the Resolution for the Board. A motion to adopt the Resolution was made by Mr. Lisa, seconded by Mr. Carrado, and adopted by the following votes: Yes: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Perry, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Ponjoan, Ms. Camporeale.

-1-

900-912 MONROE STREET
Mr. Bern reviewed that an issue arose at the last hearing regarding a possible zoning change. Attorneys for the parties briefed the issue and Mr. Bern determined that there was no impending zoning change and the Board would not be usurping the authority of the Mayor or Council by deciding on the application. John Jennings was sworn and his credentials as a traffic expert were accepted by the Board. Jonathan Drill, Esq., attorney for objector Leah Healey, objected to the expert’s credentials. Traffic counts were conducted at the request of the Board. Mr. Jennings testified that his study supported the applicant’s expert findings that there would not be a significant degradation of service and he reviewed the anticipated levels of service. The meeting was opened to the public. Zach Gross, 811 Bloomfield Street, asked about the peak traffic hours in Hoboken. Eric Dollman, 915 Madison Street, inquired about the traffic going to the Shop-Rite. Mr. Jennings explained that Shop-Rite was not studied. John Keim, 1103 Washington Street, questioned the expected levels of service once all of the recently approved buildings are constructed. Mr. Jennings stated that the proposed developments were included in his calculations. Elizabeth Markevitch, 706 Grand Street, asked if anyone requested the delivery schedule from the yarn company to analyze truck traffic over the easement. Mr. Jennings indicated that this information had not been requested. Hearing no further questions, the public portion was closed. John Pavlovich, applicants’ traffic expert, was recalled. Mr. Bern reminded Mr. Pavlovich that he remained under oath. Mr. Pavlovich testified that the level of service at the intersection would remain a level “D” in both the build and no-build scenarios for the project. Mr. Arseneault concluded his presentation. The meeting was opened for public comment. Rebecca Hoffman, 154 Ogden Avenue, Jersey City, stated that the area is zoned industrial. Rezoning is the purview of the City Council, not the Board. Ms. Hoffman raised concerns about the domino effect on future projects. She believes that the project should be denied as it does not fit with existing zoning and provides no public benefit. The applicant has been disingenuous by appearing before both Board and Council with respect to the property. Hank Forrest, 518 Jefferson Street, expressed disappointment that Commissioners have expressed approval for the project as the case was being presented. He found the project -2-

contrary to the recommendations of the Master Plan. The zoning of the Northwest Redevelopment Area should not apply as this area was specifically excluded. Further, the project does not comply with the transit village concept. Mr. Forrest reviewed eighteen references to the site contained in the Master Plan and stated that the project does not comply with what was envisioned. Jim Doyle, 806 Park Street, commented that he wanted to see a park in the area. He was concerned that the Board was accepting the project simply because a developer had come along, rather than exploring avenues of obtaining funding for a park. He implored the Board to vote against the variances and allow the City Council to zone the area. Elizabeth Mason, 921 Hudson Street, discussed the issue of campaign funding and contributions. Elizabeth Markevitch, 706 Grand Street, talked about Hoboken as a community-oriented neighborhood and the need for additional park space. Ms. Markevitch informed that there are numerous groups which provide funding for the development of park space and sports fields. Ann Graham, 1021 Grand Street, inquired about the campaign contribution disclosure forms. Chairman Crimmins advised that the forms were able for review in Ms. DePalma’s office. John Keim, 1103 Washington Street, urged the Board to consider alternate uses. The building does not comply with the Master Plan and will block the views of New York and the Palisades. Zach Gross, 811 Bloomfield Street, commented on the literature distributed by the Mayor in support of the Master Plan. The Board, appointed by the Mayor, is accountable for upholding the recommendations of the Master Plan and should use the area for park space. Eric Dollman, 915 Madison Street, talked about the charm of Hoboken. He expressed concern about the density of the northwest area and about losing the opportunity to create park space. John Gregorio, 107 Jackson Street, commented on the impact of various Board decisions and hoped that the application would be denied and a better plan presented. There being no further questions, the public portion was closed. Michael Kates, Esq., attorney for objector Doric Apartments, presented his summation. Excerpts from the Master Plan were marked Exhibit O-3. Documents downloaded from the municipal website were marked Exhibit O-4. Mr. Kates reviewed the need for open space in Hoboken. He opposed the rationale for the variances, arguing that obsolescence of the zoning for the area does not support a use variance and that zoning is being reconsidered by the governing body. The zone permits office space and there has been no support of the affirmative or negative criteria. Mr. Kates requested that the area be reserved for a period of one year, per municipal land use law, while the governing body considers obtaining the property for park space. A short recess was taken -3-

A document entitled Relief Required for 900 Monroe Application and Applicable Standards was distributed by Mr. Drill. He reviewed the legal standard for a use variance and argued that the project does not provide an inherently beneficial use and does not satisfy the positive criteria. Transitional uses have been rejected by the courts, the project reduces light, air and open space, and the proposed pocket park is not the type needed at the site. The project is not compatible with the neighboring municipalities and the Board should not assume it will be rezoned to the standards of the Northwest Redevelopment Area. The project does not comply with the standards of a transit village and there is no promotion of the general welfare. Mr. Drill contended that the variances should be denied as the site is designated as park space and the City is in the process of determining whether to rezone the area. The project will generate additional traffic congestion. Mr. Drill reviewed opposition to the height variance and the detrimental effects of the variances relating to lot coverage and front and rear yard setbacks. Further, the ordinance requirements have not been satisfied for site plan approval. Mr. Arseneault discussed the applicant’s attempts to meet with the objectors and countered the opposition presented. He reviewed the lengthy application process beginning in April 2004 and the collaborative development process. Mr. Arseneault stated that the Master Plan does not provide an acquisition plan and does not provide for a one year reservation at this site, as suggested by Mr. Kates. One-third of the applicant’s property is being deeded to the City and will begin the necklace of green. Mr. Arseneault asserted that the zoning in the area is very old and revisions were suggested as far back as 1986. The design of the building is consistent with the Master Plan and will not obstruct the view to the Palisades or New York City. Mr. Fusco inquired about the one year reservation. Mr. Bern clarified that the open space map is a concept plan. The area is not dedicated open space. Mr. Ponjoan discussed the investment of New Jersey Transit into the light rail system. He preferred the residential building, rather than a big box retailer, and did not believe the building would block the views of the Palisades or New York. Mr. Perry stressed the effort that went into the Master Plan and selection of sites for park space. He did not find the variance arguments compelling and was concerned about the risk of zoning by variance. Chairman Crimmins concurred with Mr. Perry’s statements and believed the granting of the variances would be spot zoning. Mr. Carrado commented that a residential building was appropriate next to the light rail. He did not believe the project would obstruct the views. A motion to deny the application was made by Mr. Perry and seconded by Chairman Crimmins. Yes: Chairman Crimmins, Mr. Perry. -4-

No:

Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Ponjoan, Ms. Camporeale.

A motion to approve the application with variances was made by Mr. Carrado, seconded by Mr. Lisa, and adopted by the following votes: Yes: No: Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Ponjoan, Ms. Camporeale. Chairman Crimmins, Mr. Perry.

246 PATERSON AVENUE
The matter was carried to the July 26 meeting with no further notice required. Robert Matule, Esq., attorney for the applicant, consented to an extension of time for the Board to act.

324-326 GRAND STREET
Robert Matule, Esq. appeared on behalf of the applicant and submitted financial disclosure statements and proof of mailing. Mr. Fusco recused himself from the hearing. Frank Minervini was sworn and his credentials as an architect were accepted by the Board. Mr. Minervini reviewed the existing vacant site. The applicant is proposing four levels of residential over one level of parking. Mr. Minervini agreed to comply with Mr. Persad’s May 10 letter. Variances are sought for height, lot coverage and front yard set back. The adjacent properties are at the lot line. A design waiver is sought for the 20-foot wide access way, as the lot width is only 50 feet. Mr. Minervini discussed the landscape plan for the property and stated that the building is fully fire suppressed and ADA accessible. Mr. Persad’s inquired if there were any additional obstacles, such as columns, in the access way. Mr. Minervini indicated that there were not. Chairman Crimmins wondered if there were any environmental issues, as it was previously a fuel oil company. Mr. Matule represented that a No Further Action notice was issued in 2001 after a site clean up. Ms. Vandor questioned the architect regarding the drawings submitted. She suggested sidewalk planting areas, with which the applicant agreed to comply. Robin Persad discussed the ADA compliance of the parking area. The hearing was opened to the public. Hearing no questions, the public portion was closed. Ken Ochab was sworn and his credentials as a planner were accepted by the Board. Mr. Ochab summarized his report of December 2004 and distributed photographs from the report. The building is identical in height to the 50-foot building to the north, and five feet higher than the building to the south. Mr. Ochab found the height consistent with the neighborhood and noted that the height allows for parking in the building. There will be no substantial impact on the surrounding area, nor will it render a substantial impairment to the zone plan. A de minimus

-5-

variance is requested for building coverage of 1.3% over the permitted amount to provide for balconies. The front yard setback variance will align the building with the existing streetscape. Mr. Perry wondered about parking as a positive criteria for the D variance, since a parking garage is located at Fourth Street. Mr. Ochab believed that the private, off-site parking was beneficial, but the heights of surrounding buildings are the primary reason in support of the height variance. Ms. Vandor distinguished that stories and feet generate two separate variances. Further, zoning limits comparisons to the same side of the block. Mr. Ochab stated that he concentrated on the block front, but included the surrounding areas as well. Ms. Vandor disagreed that off-street parking supported the variance for increased building height. The meeting was opened to the public. Not hearing any questions, the public portion was closed. A motion to approve was made by Mr. Crimmins, with variances for 61.3% lot coverage, four residential units, 50 feet height and zero front yard. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisa and adopted by the following votes: Yes: Chairman Crimmins, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Perry, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Ponjoan, Ms. Camporeale, Mr. Monaco.

509-511 JACKSON STREET
Stephen Spector, Esq. appeared on behalf of the applicant. A will-serve letter from the sewer department was submitted to the Board. Frank Minervini was sworn and his credentials as an architect were accepted by the Board. The proposed site is four residential floors over one level of parking. Mr. Minervini reviewed the six space parking garage and stated that a waiver is requested for the access way. The building is fully fire suppressed and meets all ADA requirements. The roof contains mechanical units for heating, cooling and the elevator, along with two decks. Mr. Minervini stated that issues raised in the engineer’s letter will be addressed and reviewed the drainage, landscaping, facade and setbacks. Mr. Perry inquired why two balconies were created rather than one, which he found preferable. Mr. Minervini stated that a single balcony would require a larger variance, but the applicant would be pleased to combine them. Ms. Vandor questioned the architect about the inclusion of the roof decks in the roof calculations. Mr. Minervini stated that the decks were included in the calculations and made smaller as not to create an additional variance. Ms. Vandor commented that the front door canopy was inadvertently removed and requested that it be included. Chairman Crimmins asked if the building could be constructed as three levels of residential over parking, rather than four. Mr. Minervini responded that the units would be much smaller. Mr. -6-

Persad commented on the garage door opening and discussed the approval process for the sewer department. The meeting was opened to the public. Todd Harpersberger, 510 Monroe Street, expressed his approval for the project. Hearing no further questions, the public portion was closed. Kathryn Gregory was sworn and her credentials as a planner were accepted by the Board. Ms. Gregory reviewed a photo board of the existing site and surrounding area, marked Exhibit A-1. Photos of the existing block and the block frontage of Monroe between 5th and 6th were marked Exhibit A-2. Variances are requested for front yard setback, height in feet and number of stories. Ms. Gregory testified as to the positive and negative criteria of the variances. She did not believe connecting the balconies would cause any substantial detriment. The benefits of the variances outweigh the detriments. Ms. Gregory discussed the revitalization of the R-3 zone and the following photo boards were marked: Exhibit A-3 (603-607, 613, 618 & 621, 624 Monroe), Exhibit A-4 (325, 402, 404 & 601 Monroe), Exhibit A-5 (204, 327, 329 & 323 Jackson) and Exhibit A-6 (107, 121, 208-210 & 218-220 Jackson). Further, Ms. Gregory discussed the reduced unit size of the eight units over three floors, rather than the four proposed. Chairman Crimmins wondered if the number of units could be reduced, thereby keeping the units the same size, over three floors. He commented on several applications in the immediate area where height variances were denied. Ms. Gregory discussed the balance between height and density and reviewed the benefits of the project. Mr. Lisa inquired about the unit size of eight units over three floors. Mr. Minervini explained the reduced unit size. Providing family-sized units over three stories adds 10-15% lot coverage. Ms. Vandor commented that the Master Plan calls for a variety of housing types and questioned the architect about alternative designs. The meeting was opened to the public. Todd Harpersberger, 510 Monroe Street, believed that the height was appropriate for the neighborhood. He appreciated the space between their properties and wanted to keep the old, large trees in the open area. The current buildings are in state of disrepair. Hearing no further questions, the public portion was closed. Mr. Fusco inquired about increased building heights on corners, as opposed to mid-block. He noted that increased height was not granted on the corner. Mr. Ponjoan commented on the need for improvement on the block and did not find that the height was an overwhelming variation. Mr. Monaco agreed with Mr. Ponjoan and noted the neighbor’s support for the project.

-7-

Chairman Crimmins believed that increased height would be precedent setting. Mr. Lisa felt it was the applicant’s right to build eight units and liked the idea of joining the balconies. Mr. Perry was concerned about the tradeoff in unit size and did not want to compromise the design. A motion to approve the application was made by Mr. Ponjoan, with variances for lot coverage, building height in feet, building height in stories, and front yard setback. Further, the requirements raised in Mr. Persad’s letter must be complied with, the balconies will be joined, roof decks will be removed, and hardscaping added to the rear yard landscape. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carrado and adopted by the following votes: Yes: No: Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Perry, Mr. Carrado, Ms. Camporeale, Mr. Ponjoan. Chairman Crimmins.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
A motion to approve the minutes of May 17, 2005 was made by Chairman Crimmins, seconded by Mr. Fusco, and adopted by the following votes: Yes: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Perry, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Ponjoan, Ms. Camporeale. A motion to approve the minutes of May 24, 2005 was made by Mr. Lisa, seconded by Mr. Fusco, and adopted by the following votes. Yes: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Perry, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Ponjoan, Ms. Camporeale.

-8-

ANNUAL REPORT
Ms. Vandor summarized the Board’s decisions of 2004. Applications proposed 194 dwelling units, 183 were approved, with only 41 extra. Retail and office space of 28,604 square feet was proposed, 29,404 square feet was approved. There were proposals for 189 parking spots, 172 were approved. The most requested variances are (1) lot coverage, (2) building height in floors, and (3) front yard setback.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to attend to, this meeting adjourned at 11:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, AudioEdge Transcription

MATTHEW D. HOFFMAN Manager of AudioEdge MH/jar

-9-

Hoboken, New Jersey, July 19, 2005 The regular meeting of the Hoboken Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on the above date in the Conference Room, City Hall, Hoboken, New Jersey. Chairman Crimmins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Bern, Board Attorney, stated that the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act have been complied with. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Perry, Mr. Ponjoan, Mr. Monaco. Absent: Mr. Foley, Ms. Camporeale. Also present were: Doug Bern, Esq., Board Attorney, Elizabeth Vandor, Board Planner, Robin Persad, Board Engineer, and Cathy DePalma, Secretary to the Zoning Board. Ms. DePalma declared a quorum present. 907 CASTLE POINT TERRACE The matter was carried to the August 16 meeting. The applicant must provide notice, as a variance is required. Ms. Vandor explained that there was an issue regarding the zoning map. 515-517 JEFFERSON STREET James Burke, Esq., attorney for the applicant, requested that the matter be carried. Chairman Crimmins announced that the hearing was carried to September 20, no further notice required. 207 SECOND STREET James Burke, Esq. appeared on behalf of the applicant. Catherine Gregory was sworn and her credentials as a planner were accepted by the Board. Ms. Gregory reviewed a photoboard of the existing site and surrounding area, marked as Exhibit A-2. The applicant is seeking eight residential units, one commercial unit and ten parking spaces. Pedestrian access to the residential units is off Second Street, and pedestrian access to the commercial space is off of Garden. Ms. Gregory testified that the proposal promotes several goals of the Master Plan and that first level commercial space is appropriate for a corner property. The project promotes a pedestrianfriendly environment and maintains an appropriate mix of land uses. The building is comparable in scale to the surrounding buildings. Ms. Gregory stated that a variance is required for the retail use since there are not two other retail businesses on the block frontage. Ms. Gregory noted that there is retail at the other corners of -1-

the intersection of Second and Garden and believed that this was an important consideration. Ms. Gregory asserted that the project met the positive and negative criteria for the D variances. She noted that the existing, nonconforming condition of 16 parking spaces is being reduced to10 and one curb cut is being eliminated. The applicant is also requesting a D variance for density for 8 residential units and one commercial, where 8 residential are permitted. Ms. Gregory explained that residential units are not permitted to be located below base flood elevation, which is several feet above the sidewalk. Utilizing this space as commercial and parking, rather than as a large building base, will not have an impact on the integrity of the zoning district. Several C variances are requested, some of which are related to the unique configuration of the site. These include 100% lot coverage, front yard setback, rear yard setback, rear building wall and maximum principal building height. Ms. Gregory opined that the project would enhance the corner and that having the parking hidden inside the building would be an esthetic improvement. Mr. Fusco inquired if there were any other properties with 100% lot coverage. Ms. Gregory stated that there is a parking lot with a 100% lot coverage, but she did not study other residential buildings. Chairman Crimmins wondered if a majority of the positive criteria could be met by building a conforming building without the variances. Ms. Gregory responded that it could. Chairman Crimmins found no benefit in using all available space. Ms. Banyra commented that a proposal should have as few variances as required, and suggested eliminating the interior portion. Ms. Banyra believed that the interior portion could be removed while still maintaining some parking. The hearing was opened to the public. Suzanne Klarewicz, 135 Park Avenue, asked if the parking entryway was large enough for emergency vehicles and how cars would turn around in such a small space. Ms. Gregory indicated that this was not her area of expertise and also stated that fire trucks do not go into parking garages. Ms. Klarewicz presented a photo marked as Exhibit O3. The photo showed the garage section of the building intersecting into the donut hole where the cars would be located and where the carbon monoxide would filter into her backyard. Ms. Klarewicz also expressed concern about the fire escape access from her building. Brendan Pahlen, 134 Garden Street, asked about the garage exhaust. Mr. Burke noted that this was the architect’s area of expertise and offered to bring the architect back up. Chairman Crimmins asserted that the architect’s portion was closed and that it would not be reopened. Mark Rosenthal, 135 Park Street, asked if the back building was actually dilapidated, as testified to by Ms. Gregory. Ms. Gregory explained that the brick structure will be an improvement over the existing frame garage structure, and will also be a safer condition. Meredith Luddy, 209 Second Street, commented that no notices were received in her building. Chairman Crimmins explained that jurisdiction had been established. Ms. Luddy further asked -2-

about the windows on the left wall of her condo. Chairman Crimmins informed that side windows are illegal and will be eliminated. Kristin Brown, 134 Garden Street, asked about the height of the neighboring buildings. Natalie Diemer, 135 Park Avenue, expressed concerned about the height and width of the project and the impact on her light and air. Ms. Gregory responded that there would be no impact on Ms. Diemer’s light because of the direction that the sun comes up. Hearing no further questions, the public portion was closed. Richard Kocher, applicant, was sworn. Mr. Kocher stated that the other three corner lots were at 100% lot coverage. The hearing was opened to the public for comments. Suzanne Klarewicz, 135 Park Avenue, stated that there is no need for more buildings at 100% lot coverage, or for more commercial space at the corner. It will negatively affect quality of life. Laura Siegel, 137 Park, commented on the impact on the light and air into their unit. She was also concerned about the air quality being vented from the garage. Vanessa Phalen, 134 Garden Street, stated that the proposed parking goes right to their back fence and that she was concerned about the car fumes. Ryan Critz, 137 Park, introduced a photo, marked Exhibit O-4, showing the view from the back of his condo. Responding to Ms. Gregory’s testimony, Mr. Critz stated that parking will not be hidden from the neighbors. Further, the building extends 8 feet deeper than the existing structure and he asserted that there would be an impact on light and air. There will be a severe detriment on the neighbors of this project. Craig Rowe, 137 Park Avenue, stated that he enjoys the light and fresh air coming into his apartment. He believed that the height of the building, the car exhaust, and construction noise would cause disruption and quality of life issues. Kristin Brown, 134 Garden Street, remarked that a building should be built, but this proposal is too large and requires too many variances. Bob Guida, 211 Second Street, believed that 100% lot coverage was inappropriate. Hearing no further questions, the public portion was closed. Mr. Burke requested a short recess. Mr. Burke stated that after hearing the public comments, the applicant is willing to eliminate the parking garage and make it a backyard. A motion to deny the project was made by Chairman Crimmins, seconded by Mr. Fusco, and -3-

adopted by the following votes: Yes: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Perry, Mr. Ponjoan, Mr. Monaco. A short recess was taken. 900 CASTLE POINT TERRACE Robert Matule, Esq. appeared on behalf of the applicant. Jeffrey Kantowitz, Esq. appeared on behalf of resident Elizabeth Mason of 921 Hudson Street. Mr. Kantowitz raised a jurisdictional issue regarding service to individual condo owners. The Board determined that the notice provided was proper. Vasant Kshirsagar was sworn and his credentials as an architect were accepted by the Board. A scale model of the streetscape was marked as Exhibit A-1 and a model of the proposed building was marked as Exhibit A-2. Alternative models were marked as Exhibits A-3 and A-4. A single family home currently exists on the corner. The applicant proposes demolishing the home and constructing a new structure, articulated to give the impression of being three buildings. Mr. Kshirsagar stated that site has an existing curb cut and parking. Mr. Kshirsagar testified that there is a ten foot drop from Castle Point Terrace to the back of the property and they are proposing using the space as a garage. Computer renderings showing the proposed view from the corner of Hudson and Ninth were marked as Exhibit A-5. Computer renderings of the building directly from Castle Point were marked Exhibit A-6. Mr. Kshirsagar testified that courtyards created in the front and rear address the light and air issues for the neighbors. Mr. Kshirsagar opined that the design is in character with the neighborhood. The building is 40 feet in height, which is similar to the neighboring structure. A view of the building from the courtyard was marked Exhibit A-7. If the proposed garage was eliminated, Mr. Kshirsagar stated that a retaining wall would still be required along Ninth Street to level the lot. He believed that the garage was a better use of space. Variances are requested for lot coverage, rear yard, depth, and rear building wall depth. Mr. Kshirsagar explained that the variances were generated due to the fact that they are working on a corner lot. The architect then discussed the alternative models, Exhibits A-3 and A-4. Additional variances are sought for height and number of stories. Mr. Kshirsagar asserted that the sloping condition creates a 2 ½ foot difference from the highest point at the corner to the edge of the property, creating a technical variance for height. As to number of stories, the ordinance permits three stories in 40 feet, where the applicant is requesting four stories and 40 feet. Mr. Kshirsagar stated that this allowed for more spacious units and that the building is similar in height to its neighbor. Further, the existing retaining wall encroaches 2 ½ feet into the public right of way, which will be removed and pulled back into the property line. -4-

Mr. Kshirsagar stated that he will comply with the issues raised in Mr. Persad’s report and that the project is in full compliance with the flood elevations. The third project revision was marked Exhibit A-8 and the project was amended to include a height variance. Mr. Kshirsagar testified that the parking area would be use exclusively by the residents and discussed the various building materials used in the project. Mr. Perry inquired if the applicant considered the Master Plan design criteria for historic districts. Mr. Kshirsagar indicated that he did review the criteria. Responding to further inquiry, Mr. Kshirsagar reviewed the existing retaining wall. Mr. Ponjoan wondered if knocking down the existing one family and replacing it with a ten unit building was in keeping with the neighborhood. Mr. Kshirsagar explained that the structure is no taller and no wider than existing structures. Chairman Crimmins and Mr. Lisa requested a review of the alternate models presented and the variances needed for each. Ms. Vandor favored the design broken up into three segments, but inquired why the western segment couldn’t drop down to meet the adjacent property, as parking is not permitted. Mr. Kshirsagar responded that it would make the electrical connections very difficult. Mr. Persad inquired about the maximum height of the structure. The hearing was opened to the public. Allen Hantman, Esq., 168 E. Main Street, Denville, appeared on behalf of numerous objectors on Castle Point Terrace and Monroe Street. Mr. Hantman questioned the architect about why the variances were needed since a ten unit building could be built under the ordinance. Glenn Davis, 802 Hudson Street, commented that a large portion of the building was visible from Hudson Street and that the proposal was much larger than the existing structures there. Richard Pasquarelli, 932 Hudson Street, inquired about the architectural style of the structure, the proposed masonry and make-up of the retaining wall. Carl Kershin asked about the criteria for granting a variance. Chairman Crimmins instructed that the question should be directed to the applicant’s planner. Ms. Lederman, 901 Hudson Street, questioned the architect about the number of parking spaces and the impact on the traffic. Richard Mason, 921 Hudson Street, asked if there were any other thirteen car garages in the neighborhood or any other buildings of this size. Mr. Lutkenhuse, 903 Castle Point Terrace, inquired about the parking.

-5-

Bill Tobias, 2 Constitution Court, commented on the percentage of ground floor lot coverage and asked about other lots with noncomplying lot coverage on the block. Jeffrey Kantowitz, Esq. questioned Mr. Kshirsagar about the area that he studied, the number of visits made to the site and if potential development was taken into account. Mr. Kantowitz asked if the architect studied the roof profiles and requested that the architect describe them. Responding to additional inquiries, Mr. Kshirsagar discussed the proposed setback in relation to the immediate vicinity and the stamped concrete base of the building. Mr. Kantowitz inquired if there were other buildings which used the Georgian architectural style. Mr. Kshirsagar responded that he was not aware of any. Mr. Kantowitz questioned Mr. Kshirsagar at length regarding the impact statement that he prepared, the studies that he reviewed in preparing the statement and how the project would enhance the historic architecture of the neighborhood. Mr. Kantowitz requested a discussion of how the property advances the goals of the Master Plan and promotes the purposes of the district. Curtis Crystal, 713-715 Monroe Street, asked about the permitted density, height and square footage of the site. Hearing no further questions, the public portion was closed. Chairman Crimmins announced that the hearing would be continued at the August 16 meeting. Mr. Matule indicated that he would meet with the attorneys for the objectors in an attempt to resolve the concerns that were raised. A short recess was taken. 901-903 HUDSON STREET This matter was carried to the August 16 meeting with no further notice required. Mr. Matule waived the time for the Board to act. RESOLUTIONS: 324-326 Grand Street: Mr. Bern reviewed the Resolution and Conditions for the Board. A motion to adopt the Resolution and Conditions, as reviewed and discussed, was made by Chairman Crimmins, seconded by Mr. Lisa, and adopted by the following votes: Yes: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Perry, Mr. Ponjoan, Mr. Monaco. 509-511 Jackson Street: Mr. Bern reviewed the Resolution and Conditions for the Board. A motion to adopt the Resolution and Conditions, as reviewed and discussed, was made by Mr. Lisa, seconded by Mr. Perry, and adopted by the following votes:

-6-

Yes: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Perry, Mr. Ponjoan, Mr. Monaco. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion to approve the minutes of June 21, 2005 was made by Chairman Crimmins, seconded by Mr. Perry, and adopted by the following votes: Yes: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Perry, Mr. Ponjoan, Mr. Monaco. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to attend to, this meeting adjourned at 10:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, AudioEdge Transcription

Matthew D. Hoffman Manager of AudioEdge MDH/jar

-7-

Hoboken, New Jersey, July 26, 2005 A meeting of the Hoboken Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on the above date in the Conference Room, City Hall, Hoboken, New Jersey. Chairman Crimmins called the meeting to order at approximately 7:10 P.M. Mr. Bern, Board Attorney, stated that the provisions of the Open Public Meeting Act have been complied with.

ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Joseph Crimmins, Dominick Lisa, James Perry, Alex Carrado, Jose Ponjoan. Also present were Doug Bern, Esq., Board Attorney, Elizabeth Vandor, Planner and Robin Persad, Board Engineer. Chairman Crimmins called upon Elizabeth Vandor, Board Planner, to inform the Board of the Annual Report of Variances. Ms. Vandor told the Board that this was an annual procedure and that the purpose of it is to see what kinds of variances were requested on a repeated basis and that the report is sent to the Planning Board and Council. She indicated the number of new applications; those that were carried; how many were acted on and how many were withdrawn. She also related the amounts of final site plans and amended site plan requests and the numbers of requests for building heights, parking and rear yard. As to particular variances, she said that the leading requests were for lot coverage and that density was only requested on seven occasions and that on two occasions the Board reduced times. She told the Board about the applications for decks; Use variances and requests for increased occupancies 1

in two restaurants and about the building heights everywhere in the city and that it should be measured from the average sidewalk grade. In conclusion, she told the Board that if they have any suggestions, she will make modifications; otherwise, the report had to be adopted by resolution and then referred to both counsel and the Planning Board along with the report and the resolution. Mr. Bern asked Ms. Vandor about a time frame on the Board’s response to this report and she replied that there wasn’t any, that it was an annual report and that when the Board was satisfied with the report, they will and it’s up to the Council and Planning Board to determine if they want to act on it or not. Chairman Crimmins asked if anyone had any questions. Board Member Dominick Lisa inquired if anything came to mind with the foregoing issues. A voice commented that if you look at it for the number of cases throughout the year, some of them especially are for lot coverage, a 25 by 100 feet, 60, 75 foot, first floor. Chairman Crimmins asked if there was flooding in that area that had been discussed at the last meeting. A voice replied that they were going to have them come in. Board Engineer Robin Persad stated that this was the extension of the approvals for the Stevens parking garage and they were held up their preliminary approval; that it is good for one year, and it’s close to expiration. It ended up in a lawsuit and they’re seeking an extension of that for another year. A voice reminded the Board that they extended the one year to two years. A voice replied that he thought that it was extended when Mr. Schaefer was there, that the conditional use aspect, they have three approvals: preliminary site plan; filed subdivision and conditional use approval. The conditional use approval is the one that only has

2

a one year duration. Chairman Crimmins told the Board that this matter was going to the Appeals Court and they will possibly be back next year. Mr. Matule added that they will probably have to come back for their preliminary also. Chairman Crimmins commented that it’s possible that Stevens will have to request a second extension next year because they’re in litigation and a Motion was made to approve it until it’s out of court because it might go to a higher court after the State Supreme Court. Chairman Crimmins asked Mr. Perry to take a roll call. Four in favor, one abstention.

2,4,6 PATERSON AVENUE
Present: Chairman Joseph Crimmins, Dominick Lisa, James Perry, Alex Carrado, Jose Ponjoan. Meeting began at 7:33 p.m. Mr. Matule indicated that in light of the fact that there was only five members present, he would need five more members because the next meeting is on August 16th. Board Attorney Doug Bern indicated that he did not believe that he would be able to proceed with 907 because Mr. (Inaud) was going on vacation and would not be able to get a report to Mr. Bern by August 6th. He added that he was looking for someone else to get the report to him and if not, he asked if the matter could be carried to the meeting of the 16th; and that if 907 doesn’t go off, perhaps the Board could make an announcement of this application. Chairman Crimmins stated that if it goes to the next meeting, it would give the Board Members some time to review it and participate at that point and not have to go through a complete hearing the next time. Mr.

3

Bern said that if the members are going to vote, they’ll have to review the transcripts. Mr. Crimmins stated that the Board was almost booked until September whereby Mr. Bern suggested that it should be put on the 16th in place of 907 and they can hear it that night. Mr. Matule, the applicant’s attorney, stated that before proceeding, he is presenting on behalf of 2,4,6 Paterson Avenue, LLC., proof of mailing, publications and disclosure forms for the architect, the planner, the applicant and the attorney. Mr. Matule said that the applicant is seeking a preliminary site plan approval and a number of variances, both C and D variances, to construct a new residential unit building on the property in question, and that the architect will testify to its unusual shape which presents several challenges. The Board heard testimony of the applicant’s architect, Frank Minevini, who described the site on Paterson Avenue between Monroe Street and Jackson Street. He said that the applicant proposes a five story residential building comprised of a ground floor parking garage and lobby. A computer generated rendering was shown to the Board. Mr. Minevini explained that you would enter on Paterson Avenue, approximately the center of the building and that there will be two parking spaces and two egress stairs. The remaining six parking spaces and the two lots come to 35 and 36. The residential entry in the main lobby is directly to the west of the garage entry. A question was asked if Mr. Persad’s letter of June 13, 2005 had been received and reviewed with respect to his comments. Mr. Minevini replied that he had received and reviewed it. It was pointed out that in Ms. Vandor’s report of June 15, she talked about the width of the curb and that it cut in the driveway, and asked Mr. Minevini if that

4

been modified and Mr. Minevini said that it was. A question was asked if a curved property would be both reasonable and safe. Mr. Minevini answered, yes, and that we’re not losing any property on the street. Mr. Matule concluded his questioning of Mr. Minevini. Mr. Crimmins asked if there were any questions. Mr. Lisa asked if the rental units were one, two and three bedrooms. Mr. Minevini replied that there were no three bedroom units. Mr. Crimmins asked Mr. Minevini about the first floor parking and if they are going back 100 percent there. Mr. Minevini said yes. Chairman Crimmins further inquired if they were going back 100 percent in the other areas. Mr. Matule stated that for all practical purposes to take up two of these parking spaces because of the eight foot (inaudible.) A question was asked of Mr. Minevini if he could project at this time, or would it have to be a calculation when you have to come back to the Board with ultimately how many parking spaces. Mr. Minevini stated that he thinks they could design it in such a way and was comfortable in saying they could lose two, hopefully one; but thinks two is realistic. Mr. Matule inquired that if we would lose two units, would they need a variance for space. Mr. Minevini replied yes. Mr. Crimmins stated that he is uncomfortable with the density being increased to 25 percent. Mr. Matule remarked that it is something Mr. Minevini can visit.

5

Chairman Crimmins asked Mr. Matule how many witnesses he has and Mr. Matule replied that he has one. Chairman Crimmins asked if there were any other questions of the Board and of the architect. There being none, the public meeting was closed. Mr. Matule called on the applicant’s Planning Consultant, David Spatz, to testify before the Board. Mr. Spatz testified as to the land uses on the adjacent property along Paterson Avenue and on Monroe Street stating that the larger multi-family residence is on the southern side of Paterson and Observer Highway. He said that one is an 11 story, the other a 15 story structure. As for the D variances, the zone is in conformance with the Master Plan for the southwest area. The amendments to the plan further state that the residential development of neighborhoods is appropriate for the industrial areas of Hoboken and that they meet that point. The multifamily development that is being proposed is compatible with the new and multi-family structures that are on the southern side of Paterson Avenue and Observer Highway as well as being in conformity with the structures on Jackson and Monroe. He stated that they are proposing, although it requires a variance, is lower height and density than those existing structures both newer structures which are eleven and fifteen stories, and then the existing structures which are five stories and the others are four stories and that the use itself is permitted in the R3. He remarked about the negative criteria to see whether any of the variances would be substantially detrimental to the public good or substantially detrimental to the Zoning Board and believed that there aren’t any negative issues and that the variances that they are seeking are similar to the existing residential developments in the vicinity of the site and that the proposed height is compatible with the existing developments. Mr. Spatz told the Board that parking is provided on

6

the site and access can be provided without a negative impact on the adjourning properties. He felt that the density and the height that have been proposed are compatible to the size of the neighborhood and that a reduction in the density of the building, would certainly meet the standards and would be compatible. Mr. Persad raised a concern about the negative criteria that he said has been met, and stated that this property is in the R zone as well as the adjoining lots 4, 3, and 2 excluding the florist on the corner of Jackson Street. Mr. Spatz replied that they don’t believe that that’s going to make an impact necessarily because there are a number of five story buildings on the interior of Jackson and Monroe as well as much taller buildings across the street, and that whatever is decided on these lots will probably affect this whole elevation on Paterson Street between Monroe and Jackson. Mr. Crimmins indicated that this is right next to the pet shop and inquired on how high the pet shop is. Mr. Spatz replied that it is three stories and he showed a photograph to the Board. Mr. Crimmins inquired about the buildings at the other end of property. Mr. Spatz replied that the pizzeria is set back one and a half and that the florist is three. Chairman Crimmins indicated that the Board is recommending to the Council that they allow the four residential floors. Ms. Vandor asked Mr. Spatz if he knew what the said elevations are and that in practical terms, the building would be permitted to actually rise thirtyfour feet above sidewalk grade and this rise is fifty feet above sidewalk grade. Mr. Crimmins said that he’s concerned that the neighborhood is dense because there are a lot of buildings, and they have a lot of floors going up, a lot of construction and that his biggest concern is definitely the density they are allowing.

7

Ms. Vandor stated that she specifically has an issue, with the particular range of bedrooms as apartment types. She asked Mr. Spatz what he thought the Master Plan is looking for because it also talks about family and three bedroom units. Mr. Spatz said that they’re looking for large units and it’s actually better than twos and ones because the two bedroom unit is not necessarily going to have large families. Ms. Vandor said that Hoboken often gets buildings that have predominantly two bedrooms and if it were possible to design them as duplexes. Mr. Spatz said that is possible. Chairman Crimmins asked if there were any questions. There were none. Mr. Matule stated that he would formally like to amend the Application that’s before the Board to use the ground floor extension as the Chair has suggested and eliminating the two parking spaces at the back of the building, and to combine the four one-bedroom units into two units with the caveat that the architect will look at and try to reconfigure them into a one and a three. He said that with ten units, they would still be within the required parameters of the provided parking and that they might be able to get seven and that depended on how the handicap space lays out. Chairman Crimmins opened the meeting to the general public and stated that the Application is amended. He asked if any members of the general public had any questions or comments on this project. There being none, the public portion of the meeting was closed. Mr. Matule told Chairman Crimmins that he would also make a Motion for amendments on the record so that Mr. Minevini can testify that he could cut back to not more than twenty feet.

8

A question was asked as to which kind of curb Mr. Minevin was using. Mr. Minevini replied that it would be a new curb. An inquiry was made as to using any of the existing curb. Mr. Minevini replied that new curb was being installed and there is no reason to use any of the existing curb. A question was asked as to how to how wide the curb was for the speed shop. Mr. Minevini replied that he did not know. Mr. Crimmins told Mr. Matule that he wanted to look at the variances one more time and said that he wanted to know about the conditions of the rear yard. Mr. Minevini replied they were still going to have a zero rear yard on Lots 35 and 36. Mr. Crimmins asked if there were going to be lot coverage changes Mr. Matule stated that lot coverage is going to change and that they’re going to add 80.2 percent from the upper floors. A question was asked if that would be maximum. Mr. Minevini responded yes. Mr. Crimmins remarked that then it becomes ten. Mr. Matule stated that they are still going to have four residential floors over parking versus three residential floors. A question was asked to Mr. Matule that if you go below six spots, would they need a parking variance. Mr. Matule replied that can have six, minimal.

9

A question was asked to Mr. Minevini if a variance was needed for a seventy foot rear wall deck. Mr. Minevini said no. Chairman Crimmins stated that they talked about two conditions which were the curb and enlarging the trash room, and if there any questions or comments. There were none. Mr. Crimmins told Mr. Matule that the Board will give him the option of waiting for a vote next week or the Board could go forward now. He then called for a five minute break. Recessed at 8:40 p.m. Reconvened at 8:45 p.m.. recess. All present before the

Mr. Matule told Chairman Crimmins that he had discussed this with his client and said stated that they are willing to proceed with what the Board has constituted this evening. Chairman Crimmins indicated to the Board Members that Mr. Matule has decided to go forward that evening. With that said, Mr. Crimmins asked if there any questions or comments from anyone. Mr. Minevini stated that he appreciated the Board’s considerations of amending the former site plan. A Board Member made a Motion to approve the project as amended. Chairman Crimmins stated that it’s been amended with the conditions that the curb cut be 24, enlarging the trash room (inaudible) opaque glass on the windows, the (inaudible) on the garage door and the entry door. Mr. Matule stated “and plus the density, the ten units.” Chairman Crimmins stated that was all in the variance and that in addition as part of the Motion, there are

10

some positive and negative criteria. Mr. Matule summarized that in this particular area because of Monroe Street, the five story building and new development are not much existing in support of the Master Plan larger apartments, so, therefore, the fourth floor versus the three. He remarked that the negative criteria since you pulled it back, he didn’t see that on Monroe Street and that he had concerns about that. Chairman Crimmins made a Morion to approve. Board Member Jose Ponjoan seconded. All were in favor.

ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to attend to, this meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, AudioEdge Transcription

Matthew D. Hoffman Manager of AudioEdge

11

Hoboken, New Jersey, August 16, 2005 A meeting of the Hoboken Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on August 16, 2005 in the Conference Room, City Hall, Hoboken, New Jersey. Chairman Joseph Crimmins called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. Board Attorney Doug Burn noted for the record that the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act had been complied with. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Perry, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Ponjoan, Ms. Camporeale. Also present: Doug Burn, Esq., Board Attorney, Elizabeth Vandor, Board Planner, Robin Persad, Board Engineer, Ms. DePalma, Secretary to the Zoning Board. Ms. DePalma declared a quorum present. 900 CASTLE POINT TERRACE Attorney Robert Matule, attorney for the above address, stated that at the last meeting it was discussed that this would be carried to October 18, 2005, with no further notice. He asked that the Board make an announcement to that effect for anybody who was present regarding that application. Mr. Crimmins stated that the Board was extremely backlogged. Mr. Crimmins announced to the public that this matter will be carried to the October 18, 2005 meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room of Hoboken City Hall. Attorney Jeffrey Kantowitz, who represents adjusters to 900 made the Board aware that October 18th falls in the middle of the observance or Sukkot and it would not be possible for individuals to attend on that date. Attorney Robert Matule stated that he was concerned that since it was already being carried for two months that it would now have to be carried into November. Board Attorney Burn inquired of Attorney Kantowitz if somebody else in his firm could cover that meeting. Attorney Kantowitz stated he would check with his firm to see if someone else was available to cover that meeting. Board Attorney Burn stated it would be carried to that date and it may be further adjourned. Mr. Crimmins announced once again that 900 would be carried to October 18th meeting with a -1-

possibility it might be postponed again at that time. Mr. Crimmins stated, after recess, that Zoning Board is pretty much backlogged and after having a sidebar meeting he stated that the Zoning Board will call a special meeting on Thursday, October 6th at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room of Hoboken City Hall. 907 CASTLE POINT TERRACE Same as above. 901-903 HUDSON STREET Mr. Matule stated that the adjusters are represented by several attorneys and they will be raising the jurisdiction issue, so that before this matter is discussed the Board might want to address those issues. Mr. Hantman spoke regarding the above address. Mr. Matule stated that he spoke to Mr. Hantman this afternoon regarding the above address and it was explained to him that if there are preexisting and nonconforming conditions on the site that the Planning Board doesn’t have jurisdiction. In the past the Zoning Board has taken the position that they have jurisdiction where there is a preexisting and nonconforming condition on the site. He stated that it wasn’t in his client’s benefit to proceed if this Board doesn’t have jurisdiction either. Mr. Matule deferred to Attorney Burn to make that determination. Attorney Burn stated that he agreed, and with the exception of the D variance, he doesn’t think it’s properly before this Board. It’s a C variance and a D variance can certainly be obtained. The Board has jurisdiction to grant subdivision relief. But without the D variance he doesn’t think they can move forward. Mr. Matule stated that if that’s the Board’s position then he would ask the Board to defer the matter over to the Planning Board on an expedited basis. Mr. Crimmins stated he didn’t know what the Board could do on an expedited basis. What the Board could do is waive the fees or carry it over to the Planning Board. Mr. Crimmins stated that one of the agreements he would like to see is that all of the professional materials that have been submitted and everything be carried to the Board as part of the package so that they don’t have to start from scratch. But anything submitted be submitted as part of the referral going over to the Planning Board. Mr. Crimmins made a motion to transfer the jurisdiction of the above address over to the Planning Board. With that there will be no requirements, no new fees, the fees are carried from the Zoning Board. All documents and works submitted by the professionals are considered part of the transfer to avoid starting over. -2-

Dominick Lisa seconded the motion. Quorum voted yes. Mr. Crimmins notified the public that regarding the above address the applicant will be required to send a new notice. 329 WILLOW AVENUE Mr. Matule spoke regarding the jurisdiction on the above address. There are actually two buildings on this property. Mr. Matule stated that this matter was heard previously in November of 2004 and the application was denied at that time. A new application had subsequently been submitted. Mr. Crimmins spoke about why it was rejected previously. He stated that since it was rejected only a couple of months ago they really can’t come back with the same plan. Clarification was needed on the difference in the new plans as opposed to the old rejected plans. Various Board members discussed the nonconformity of the buildings. Architect Minivervini-Vandermark stated that the building in the rear, the nonconforming building, will have one unit removed and the remaining three units will be reconfigured. Dominick Lisa made a motion that since the application is changed it should be heard tonight. Mr. Perry seconded the motion. Roll Call: Mr. Perry voted no. All other Board members voted yes. Frank Minervini, architect for above address, was sworn in and testified as to the C variance applied for. Donna DiGregorio, private citizen, spoke about concerns regarding above, but they were concerns from the first application and not the new application submitted. Her other concerns were addressed by Frank Minervini. Mr. Minivernini also advised her that the back building was not going to be touched. Mr. Perry made a motion to deny the application. Vice Chairman Morris Fusco seconded the motion. Roll call: Mr. Fusco, yes; Mr. Carrado, no; Mr. Lisa, no; Mr. Perry, yes; Mr. Ponjoan, no; Ms. Camporeale, no; Mr. Crimmins, no.

-3-

Mr. Crimmins stated the project is not denied. Attorney Matule spoke to the Board regarding the application. Mr. Ponjoan made a motion to approve the application. Mr. Carrado seconded the motion. Roll call: Mr. Fusco, no; Mr. Carrado, yes; Mr. Lisa, yes; Mr. Perry, no; Mr. Ponjoan, yes; Ms. Camporeale, yes; Mr. Crimmins, yes. 62 MADISON STREET Attorney Matule spoke on behalf of the applicant. He submitted proof of mailing and financial disclosure statements for all the professionals involved in the above matter. Architect Frank Minervini was sworn in and testified regarding the above address and also answered Board members' questions. Planner Cathryn Gregory was sworn in and testified regarding the above address and also answered Board members' questions. Mr. Perry made a motion to approve the application. Mr. Lisa seconded the motion. Roll call: Unanimous vote of yes. 158 14TH STREET Board members and Attorney Matule discussed issues regarding the above address for final approval. Mr. Crimmins stated that the Board heard extensive testimony on this building. Attorney Burn stated that an amended preliminary approval was needed. Mr. Crimmins made a motion to have the applicant maintain accessibility to the roof to the attempts feasible per the ADA requirements. And follows that there is a condition that on the drawing they document this on the front page with a notation. Mr. Perry seconded the motion.

-4-

Roll call: Mr. Lisa voted no. The rest of the Board voted yes. Mr. Matule stated he will contact the architect tomorrow and make necessary changes and send to Attorney Burn. MINUTES Approval of the minutes of the June 21, 2005 meeting was unanimous. RESOLUTIONS 207 SECOND STREET: Preliminary Site Plan/Denied No minutes on above address. 2,4,6 PATERSON STREET: Preliminary Site Plan Approval No minutes on above address. 605 GARDEN STREET: Variance/Denied Attorney Burn stated that hearing was held June 16, 2005. Mr. Matule was the attorney. George Weiner was the architect. Ed Colling was the planner. The public commented on application. The Board found that the required proofs for the D variance were not provided and no special reason was demonstrated for the variance. Based on the present condition of the property the Board found that the applicant would be able to improve the front of the building without the construction of the proposed addition. The improvement of the structure did not justify the granting of the D variance. Board found that criteria were not met and the application was denied. Mr. Crimmins made a motion to approve the resolution. Mr. Lisa seconded the motion. Roll call: Unanimous vote of yes.

-5-

324-326 GRAND STREET: Minor Site Plan Approval Attorney Burn stated that this is in the R2 zone district and presently vacant property. Applicant proposed to build a five story building containing eight residential units and a ground floor parking garage and requested Various C and D variances. Applicant’s architect was Frank Minervini. Kenneth Oshab was the planner. Board heard the application on June 21, 2005. Board determined to grant minor site plan approval provided conditions were met as specified and stipulated by the applicant, including all customary requirements. The recommendations were submitted to the Board Planner. No further action notice was provided to the Board Attorney. Landscape plans had to be revised. Front door was to include glass. With those modifications, it was granted by the Board. Mr. Crimmins made a motion to approve the resolution. Mr. Perry seconded the motion. Roll call: Mr. Lisa was not at hearing so he did not wish to vote. The rest of the Board voted yes. 1422 GRAND STREET: Preliminary Site Plan Approval Attorney Burn stated this was in the I1 industrial zone. Applicant proposed to build a six story building on the existing structure. And to renovate and convert the building to residential and commercial use. There was a C2 and D variance. Lee Levine was the architect. Ed Cohn was the planner. New covered exterior egress stairway at the rear of the building to replace the existing fire escape. The Board received reports from the various professionals and heard the application. The Board determined to grant the relief sought in that the variance and C variance were met. Standard conditions were imposed by the Board as well as the stipulations made by the applicant at the hearing. Mr. Lisa made a motion to approve. -6-

Mr. Ponjoan seconded the motion. Roll call: Unanimous vote of yes. 121-127 HARRISON STREET: Preliminary Site Plan Approval Attorney Burn stated this property is situated in an R3 residential zone. The applicant proposes to remove current structures and construct a 16 unit residential building with a ground floor parking garage containing 14 parking spaces. This entails various C and D variances. The Board heard the application on June 16th. Russell Bogner was the architect. Cathryn Gregory was the planner. Kyle Enger was the applicant. The Board heard the testimony presented, reviewed the reports, and determined to grant the relief sought with certain conditions. The conditions being those stipulations made by the applicant at the hearing. Landscape plans to be submitted to the Board for review and approval. Mr. Crimmins made a motion to approve. Mr. Fusco seconded the motion. Roll call: Unanimous vote of yes. ANNUAL REPORT Attorney Burn stated this was just a resolution to draft the annual report which was reviewed at the last meeting. Pursuant to NJSA40:55B-70.1 the Zoning Board of Adjustment adopts the Annual Report. Mr. Crimmins made a motion to approve. Mr. Lisa seconded the motion. Roll call: Unanimous vote of yes. 517-521 JACKSON Ms. Vandor stated that occasionally after the Board gives final approval for something and before it gets built there’s a change of architect. The new architect is not allowed to sign his name to the facade drawings done by the previous architect. Usually changes are made to the -7-

facade of the building. The original architect was Dennis Devino. His facade was approved. It hasn’t been built yet. The developer changed architects to Studio One and wanted them to do something different that would still comply with the facade ordinance because they can’t have any new variances. Because of the choice of the materials the new facade is different looking and the style is more modern looking. Can the Board consider this a diminimous enough change so that they don’t have to send it back to the Board? Mr. Crimmins stated that they would have to come back to the Board. Ms. Vandor asked if they could be added onto the soonest agenda and heard them first or last on that evening. Mr. Crimmins stated he didn’t like that because they are very backlogged already. And they are having special meetings because of the backlog. The Board discussed this issue. Mr. Crimmins stated they would have to get back on the agenda and come back before the Board again.

ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to attend to, this meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, AudioEdge Transcription

-8-

Matthew D. Hoffman Manager of AudioEdge MDH/ryn

-9-

Hoboken, New Jersey, September 20, 2005 The regular meeting of the Hoboken Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on the above date in the Conference Room, City Hall, Hoboken, New Jersey. Chairman Crimmins called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. Mr. Leibman, Board Attorney, stated that the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act have been complied with. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Perry, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Ponjoan. Absent: Mr. Foley, Ms. Camporeale. Also present were: Marc Leibman, Esq., Board Attorney, Elizabeth Vandor, Board Planner, Robin Persad, Board Engineer, and Cathy DePalma, Secretary to the Planning Board. Ms. DePalma declared a quorum present. 515-517 JEFFERSON STREET James Burke, Esq., applicant’s attorney, submitted a written request to withdraw the application. A motion to accept the withdrawal without prejudice was made by Chairman Crimmins, seconded by Mr. Lisa, and adopted by the following votes: Yes: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Perry. 507 MADISON STREET Robert Matule, Esq., applicant’s attorney, requested that the matter be carried to the October 6th meeting. The Board granted the extension with no further notice required. 128-132 HARRISON STREET Robert Matule, Esq. appeared on behalf of the applicant and submitted proof of mailing and proof of publication to the Board. Responding to an inquiry from Ms. Vandor, Mr. Matule stated that he was unaware of the status the tax payments, but would provide this information. Russell Bodnar was sworn and his credentials as an architect were accepted by the Board. Mr. Bodnar reviewed photos of the existing structure and surrounding buildings, marked as Exhibit A-1. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing building and construct a 60 foot, six story building, with five levels of residential over one level of parking and commercial. Variances are requested for 100% lot coverage on the first level and 89% on the upper levels. A density variance is requested for 20 dwelling units and 1,630 square feet of retail, where 11 -1-

dwelling units and 1,630 square feet of retail are permitted. A parking variance is required. Architectural diagrams were marked as Exhibit A-2. A rendering of the street facade was marked as Exhibit A-3. An additional rendering was marked as Exhibit A-4. Mr. Bodnar reviewed the dimensions of the units. Second and third floor plans were marked as Exhibit A-5. Mr. Bodnar testified that the units were larger family-sized units, with 10 threebedroom units and 10 two-bedroom units. A variance is also sought for the retail space since there are not two other retail units on the block. Mr. Matule noted that the customer service space would not exceed 1,000 square feet. Mr. Bodnar reviewed the variance requests as zero front yard, zero rear yard, 60 feet in height where 40 is permitted, 5 residential levels over parking versus 3 over 1 permitted, parking variance for 3 spaces, retail space where there are not two other on the block front and 20 units with commercial where 11 units with commercial are permitted. Mr. Bodnar testified that he will address the issues raised in Mr. Persad’s report. Mr. Bodnar explained that the facade will be broken up into several sections to give it a smaller residential feel. Mr. Perry inquired if the architect considered moving the open terrace to the opposite side and setting the upper elevations back, thereby mitigating some of the height issues. Mr. Bodnar responded that it would eliminate many of the windows and he didn’t believe it was a good streetscape. He discussed some potential modifications. Mr. Perry also questioned the placement of the lobby at the corner and the commercial along Harrison. Mr. Fusco asked about the availability of public parking. Mr. Bodnar responded that spaces are available for sale or rent in the adjacent parking structure. Mr. Persad requested that the applicant clarify the height and BFE prior to Final with the surveyor. Mr. Persad noted the flooding problems in the area and that the sewer department may have specific requirements. Further, the street corners must be made ADA accessible. The meeting was opened to the public. David Sokasits, 132 Jackson Street, commented on the lack of parking in the area and believed the larger units encouraged more than one car per household. He asked availability of spaces in the adjacent garage. Mr. Bodnar responded that no arrangements have been made with the garage at this time. Hearing no further questions, the public portion was closed. Edward Kolling was sworn and his credentials as a planner were accepted by the Board. The planner’s report was marked as Exhibit A-6. Mr. Kolling testified that the building’s proximity to the light rail made the site particularly well-suited for the added height and density. Mr. Kolling stated that the change of use from industrial to residential will be more consistent with the zone plan. He discussed the appropriateness of high density housing near the light rail and in having commercial development to serve transit riders and the increased population. Mr. Kolling discussed the existing 8 story garage and opined that constructing a taller building would -2-

be more suitable on the site, and that there would be no adverse impact. Mr. Kolling stated that the retail use generates the parking variance. It is anticipated that the retail will serve the transit riders, therefore, Mr. Kolling found no adverse impact by not having parking. Mr. Kolling discussed commercial uses in the area and the site’s suitability for retail. The 100% lot coverage is requested to provide for parking. Mr. Kolling did not believe this would impact the adjoining parking garages. He discussed the lot configuration creating the need for the rear yard variance and that the zero front yard setback continues the existing streetscape. Mr. Kolling concluded that removing the nonconforming use and granting the variances advanced the purposes of the zone plan, Municipal Land Use Law, promoted the general welfare and the purposes of New Jersey smart growth. The density and height are suitable for the site and the residential building will be more in character with the neighborhood. The benefits of granting the variances outweighed the detriments. Mr. Fusco wondered what type of commercial was envisioned for the site. Mr. Kolling expected that it would be a small service-oriented business. Mr. Lisa asked about the 100% lot coverage. Mr. Kolling explained that it was done to provide parking. Chairman Crimmins asked if the criteria and intent testified to could be supported with fewer variances. Mr. Kolling responded that the front and rear yard variances would still be generated by a smaller building. He did not believe reducing height and density was appropriate near the light rail or next to the eight story neighboring structures. Mr. Perry commented that it could be reduced to 15 units and a more meaningful courtyard created in the back. Mr. Lisa commented on the developer’s risk in developing in an area surrounded by a parking garage and across the street from a public utility. He found no detriment with the height, but expressed concern about the parking. Chairman Crimmins noted the numerous developments that have been approved in the area will be bringing in new residents and additional cars. He agreed with Mr. Perry’s suggestion of reducing the density to eliminate the parking variance. The Board members stressed that the height was not an issue, but the density did present a problem. Mr. Matule asserted that the retail space was generating the variance, which was included to create street activity. He requested a short recess to discuss the Board’s concerns. A short recess was taken. Mr. Bodnar was brought back to address the issues raised by the Board. He stated that light and air issues would be addressed by removing a five foot section of the building. Apartments on the second and third level would be combined into duplex apartments, along with the apartments on the fifth and sixth level. A simplex apartment will be located on the fourth level. This would reduce the number of units to 18 residential with one commercial. The parking requirement would be reduced to 17 spaces. The applicant’s proposal includes 16 spaces.

-3-

Mr. Perry asked why the stack of two bedroom apartments couldn’t be removed. Mr. Bodnar believed the change would be detrimental and cost-prohibitive. Mr. Bodnar found it preferable to remove the top floor. Mr. Leibman reviewed that the application amendments included expanding the courtyard by five feet, levels two and three will be duplexes, the fourth floor will be a one-bedroom, and levels five and six will be duplexes. There will be one 1-bedroom, seven 2-bedrooms, and ten 3bedrooms. The meeting was opened to the public. David Sokasits, 132 Jackson Street, asked about the building in relation to the neighboring 8 story garage and 17 story tower and about the changes in the Master Plan since the construction of these structures. Mr. Sokasits inquired if the application was rezoning by variance and about economic viability as a justification for variances. Mr. Kolling discussed the site’s proximity to the light rail and the recommendations in the Master Plan. Chairman Crimmins reopened the public portion in response to Mr. Bodnar’s testimony. Hearing no questions, the public portion was closed. Vincent Wilt, representative of the applicant, was sworn. Mr. Wilt testified that the units would be rentals. He believed that the commercial space would be viable at the site and create a more friendly atmosphere on the street when people are getting off the light rail and walking past the parking garage at night. Mr. Wilt stated that parking spaces are available for rent at the garage. Mr. Perry asked why the stack of apartments could not be removed. Mr. Wilt preferred removing the top floor and noted the increase in the courtyard space. He did not believe people would want to rent an apartment with a view of the transformer station. Mr. Matule clarified that they have attempted to address the Board’s density concerns. The most practical and economically viable way to do so would be to remove the top floor. The meeting was opened to the public. Stephanie Burzenas, 132 Jackson Street, reiterated that parking is going to be a serious issue. The public parking is $200 per month, which is cost prohibitive for many. David Sokasits, 132 Jackson Street, believed the retail would be a positive in the space. He commented that the density and parking would present a problem and that many of the apartments would have more than one car. He did not find the courtyard esthetically pleasing. Hearing no further comments, the public portion was closed. Mr. Matule summarized the uniqueness of the site and the Master Plan’s recommendations regarding higher density near the light rail. He discussed the parking generated by the retail use and the modifications proposed by the architect to reduce the density.

-4-

Mr. Matule concluded his presentation and requested that the vote be held until the next meeting to provide absent Board members an opportunity to review the transcript. Chairman Crimmins announced that the final vote would be carried to October 18. Chairman Crimmins announced that Mr. Ponjoan joined the meeting at 9:25 p.m. 662-666 FIRST STREET Robert Matule, Esq. appeared on behalf of the applicant and submitted proof of publication and proof of service to the Board. Russell Bodnar was sworn and his credentials as an architect were accepted by the Board. Four photos of the existing site were marked as Exhibit A-1. A set of plans was marked as Exhibit A2. Mr. Bodnar described the proposed building as four stories residential over a level of commercial and parking. Variances sought include 100% lot coverage, retail where there are not two other on the block, height in feet, number of stories, front yard setback, density and rear yard setback. A document dated 9/2/05 was marked as Exhibit A-3. Mr. Bodnar stated that there will be two 3-bedroom apartments per floor, 1,800 square feet per apartment. The commercial space will be located on the corner and be less than 1,000 square feet. There are eight parking spaces. Mr. Bodnar discussed the heights of the neighboring structures and the materials used in the building facade. The architect responded to issues raised in Mr. Persad’s report. Mr. Bodnar expected that North Hudson Sewage Authority would require a storm water detention system. Mr. Persad noted that if the system is required, the design approval would be conditioned upon his review of the engineer’s plans. Mr. Bodnar further testified that an environmental study will be performed. Since the project is located on a county road, the applicant will also be seeking county approval. Mr. Ponjoan inquired about the entrance to the parking garage. Mr. Bodnar responded that the entrance will be located on Harrison Street. There will be no entrance on First Street. Ms. Vandor asked about signage for the commercial use. Mr. Bodnar stated that they will comply with the ordinance. Mr. Persad noted that the comments raised in his report will need to be addressed prior to Final Site Plan Approval. The hearing was opened to the public. Hearing no questions, the public portion was closed. Edward Kolling was sworn and his credentials as a planner were accepted by the Board. Mr. Kolling testified that the nonconforming auto repair facility will be removed and replaced with a more conforming use. The applicant is requesting a variance for one additional residential unit than is permitted. Mr. Kolling stated that the Master Plan encourages retail use on First Street and opined that the project would advance the achievement of a viable residential neighborhood and will achieve the recommendations in terms of commercial use. Mr. Kolling discussed the building’s proximity to the light rail and the suitability for higher -5-

density. The height of the project promotes compatibility of scale and density with the adjacent buildings. Mr. Kolling explained that the lot coverage variance is incurred by providing parking and commercial. It is also a function of working on a corner lot. The zero front yard variance fits in with the context of the community and is mitigated by the landscaping provided along the street. He also explained the hardship of creating a rear yard on a 60 by 75 foot lot. The planner opined that the positive criteria have been met for granting the variances, the project promotes the purposes of the zone plan and that there is no detriment to the surrounding community. Responding to an inquiry from Ms. Vandor, Mr. Kolling discussed the appropriateness of the density. Mr. Matule informed that a letter was received from the Shade Tree Commission stating that the design was acceptable. The meeting was opened to the public. Hearing no questions, the public portion was closed. A motion to accept the application was made by Mr. Lisa, with the conditions regarding: (1) approval of the North Hudson Sewage Authority; (2) taxes will be paid; (3) an application will be made before the Hudson County Planning Board; and (4) architect will add color notations to distinguish different parts of the building. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carrado and adopted by the following votes: Yes: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Lisa, Mr. Perry, Mr. Ponjoan. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to attend to, this meeting adjourned at 10:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, AudioEdge Transcription

Matthew D. Hoffman Manager of AudioEdge

-6-

Hoboken, New Jersey, October 6, 2005 A special meeting of the Hoboken Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on October 6, 2005 in the Conference Room, City Hall, Hoboken, New Jersey. Chairman Joseph Crimmins called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Board Attorney Marc Leibman noted for the record that the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act had been complied with. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Crimmins, Vice-Chairman Fusco, Mr. Carrado, Mr. Perry, Mr. Ponjoan, Ms. Camporeale, Mr. Monaco (alternate). Also present: Marc Leibman, Esq., Board Attorney, Elizabeth Vandor, Board Planner, Robin Persad, Board Engineer, Ms. DePalma, Secretary to the Zoning Board. Ms. DePalma declared a quorum present. HEARINGS 900 CASTLE POINT TERRACE Preliminary Site Plan, C & D variances - to be carried Attorney Robert Matule, attorney for the applicant, stated that it was his understanding that this project is being redesigned and will be going to the Planning Board. At this time, Attorney Matule asked that this application be carried without a new date and after it goes to the Planning Board to re-notice. Also, they will waive any time limits that the Zoning Board has to act. Chairman Crimmins advised the public that this application will not be heard tonight and they will receive official notice if the determination is made to go forward. Esther Milsa, private citizen, asked what determines the new date. Ms. Milsa also expressed numerous concerns regarding this application. Chairman Crimmins responded that the Zoning Board did not know at this point what determines the new date. Attorney Leibman responded to Ms. Milsa regarding the Time of Decision Rule. 907 CASTLE POINT TERRACE

-1-

Minor Site Plan, C & D variances Attorney Robert Matule, attorney for the applicant, Seth Martin, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Zoning Board Attorney Marc Leibman stated that this property falls into a zone that is the subject of 30 separate ordinances that are going to modify the zoning in that area. Attorney Leibman said that case law stated that this Zoning Board should not act on this application because by doing so this Zoning Board would be usurping the authority of the Mayor and Council, which decides what ordinances to enact. Attorney Leibman recommended that the Zoning Board not hear this matter until the Mayor and Council finish their review and decision making on those ordinances. Attorney Leibman also suggested the Zoning Board take a vote on that matter. Attorney Matule stated that he objected to that. As far as the case law goes this matter is distinguishable because in the case law there was actually an ordinance adopted. Attorney Matule also stated that this application was originally filed with the Planning Board in January of 2005, and at the end of January the Planner for the Planning Board rejected the application. At that time the Planner stated the Planning Board did not have jurisdiction because the property was not in an R1 zone, but was in an R1E zone. This was an error on the zoning map. Attorney Matule also stated that after discussions with the Planning Board it was agreed that it would be more expeditious to just move the matter at the Zoning Board, and this is what was being done. Attorney Matule stated that the drawings were amended to comply with the R1E, notices were sent out, and the matter was supposed to be heard on July 19th. On July 15th, he was advised he needed to ask for a Use variance. Attorney Matule stated that the matter was then carried to the August 16, 2005 meeting and at that time the question was raised about the adequacy of the notice. Then everyone was re-noticed for tonight. Chairman Crimmins responded that based on the decisions made by the Council and based on the advice of Attorney Leibman he preferred not to go forward at this time. Chairman Crimmins stated that he preferred to let the City Council do what they are doing and let the application conform to what the City Council believes it should be in the Castle Point neighborhood. Attorney Matule responded that he understood and respectfully noted his objection on the record. Attorney Leibman, when asked, stated a motion should be made to not hear the matter pending the decision by the Mayor and Council. Attorney Leibman also stated that the applicant could come back and be heard but to make sure it is for variances that are required. New notices will also have to be sent. Mr. Fusco asked what happens if the City Council does not act on this? Attorney Leibman responded that if nothing happens and it doesn’t become law then Attorney Matule will be contacted and asked to re-notice and come back before the Zoning Board. Chairman Crimmins made a motion to not hear this application, without prejudice. Also, if the -2-

Zoning Board is going to hear the application future notice will be required. Mr. Perry seconded the motion. Roll Call: Unanimous vote of yes. Chairman Crimmins advised the public that 907 Castle Point Terrace will not be heard until further notice. After a five minutes recess, Chairman Crimmins resumed the meeting at 7:28 p.m. 507 MADISON STREET C & D variances Minor Site Plan Attorney Matule, attorney for the applicant, 507 Madison Street, LLC, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Attorney Matule said this application is for minor site plan approval and variances to construct a five unit building on the existing lot. Attorney Matule noted that since this application was filed the existing building has been razed and preliminary construction has begun. Attorney Matule requested, for the record, that he previously gave to the Board Secretary his Proof of Publication, Proof of Mailing, and copies of all the necessary financial contributions and disclosure statements. Ms. DePalma stated she had received everything. Attorney Leiberman said everything looked like it was in order. Architect James McNeight was sworn in and also spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. McNeight testified that he is a licensed architect in the State of New Jersey and has appeared before this Board in the past. Mr. McNeight explained that 507 Madison Street is a 25 foot wide, 100 foot deep site, and it’s the fourth lot on the east side of Madison Street, above 6th Street. Mr. McNeight went on to explain that for many years the site was the home office of a local painting company with a curb cut and their trucks were always parked inside a garage located on the site. Mr. McNeight said in recent months the garage has been torn down and, basically, the site is a vacant lot. Mr. McNeight said the proposal was to construct a new building with a garage on the first floor and five residential units on top of that for a six-story building, 56 feet 6 inches above base flood elevation. This would match the height of the building immediately north of this site. Mr. McNeight said the proposed garage would hold five cars, and floor plans from 2nd through 6th floors have one apartment per floor. He said it would be an elevated building with scissoring stairs inside. -3-

When asked, Mr. McNeight responded that in the garage there is a minimum of 300 square feet per car. Mr. McNeight said the building will be fully suppressed with sprinklers. The roof won’t be used for any other purpose other than the air conditioning and condenser units and the venting of the mechanical spaces and systems within the building. Mr. McNeight explained that on the rear of the building there will be a steel deck off the rear of each floor. When asked, Mr. McNeight explained the lot coverage on the ground floor is 100 percent and 60 percent on the upper floors. Mr. McNeight explained that aside from the height variance in both feet and stories he is also seeking a variance for five units versus four units. Mr. McNeight testified the bays on the front of the building project out into the right of way which means it encroaches on city property, therefore, approval is needed from the Mayor and Council. Board member, Mr. Perry, asked about the property to the north having windows on the lot line. Mr. McNeight responded that there is a 3 foot side yard that belongs to that existing building that protects all those windows and the exhaust vent. Mr. McNeight explained that as long as you are greater than three feet off the property line you can have penetrations through that side wall. Mr. Perry said the drawing does not reflect that and Mr. McNeight responded the site plan does but in the drawing the two buildings were pushed together to show the comparison in height and elevation. Board member, Mr. Fusco, confirmed that the height of the building is the same as the building next to it and asked if the building next door had 100 percent lot coverage on the first floor. Mr. McNeight responded, no, it has about 80 percent lot coverage. Mr. Fusco asked if the neighboring building was also five over one. Mr. McNeight responded the building next door was five over base flood elevation that used to contain stores. He said there is a stoop on that building and it also has taller than 10 foot floor to floor height because of its age, which makes the building 60 feet tall. So, the neighboring building is actually five floors. Mr. Crimmins asked what was on the other side.

-4-

Mr. McNeight responded it used to be Anthony’s Restaurant and now it is the 11 Lounge. He said on the corner of 6th Street and Madison Street it is a vacant lot. Mr. Crimmins asked why the Board did not receive the street scape for the entire block of that street. Mr. McNeight responded that he supposes he should have but since prevailing height is not the way it is figured anymore he sort of forgot about doing the whole street scape. Mr. Crimmins asked if the garage did not go 100 feet and just to the back of the building instead, what would that do to the parking inside the building. Mr. McNeight responded only two cars would fit in there as opposed to the four cars with 100 percent lot coverage. Mr. Crimmins said the plan he is looking at show five parking spaces. Mr. McNeight agreed and said if it was cut back 60 percent only two or three cars would fit. Mr. Crimmins also inquired, by looking at the parking, it appears that the last vehicle parked at the end would need the next two vehicles to move so it can get out. Mr. McNeight responded, no, the way it works with a width of 15 feet 6 inches where the first car is parked allows each of the cars to come and go without moving any other cars. Mr. McNeight said from past experiences in Hoboken with these kinds of garages it does work in realty. When asked, Mr. McNeight said there was currently a curb cut. Mr. McNeight noted that the 11 Lounge is 100 percent lot coverage. And, the building is a 20 foot tall one story building. Ms. Vandor, Board Planner, asked what the previous use of the lot was. Mr. McNeight responded it was the warehouse, office and garage for a local painting company. Ms. Vandor asked what the previous lot coverage was. Mr. McNeight responded he didn’t remember, but the garage was all the way to the rear of the property with another smaller building that was half the width of the property. Looking at a picture, Mr. McNeight said it looks about 60 percent coverage. Ms. Vandor was asked to show the picture to the rest of the Board. Mr. Crimmins asked which property they were talking about and Ms. Vandor pointed out the Lshaped building that was on the site previously. -5-

Ms. Vandor said that since Mr. McNeight did not get back to her on some of her questions from her August 29th report she would ask them now. Ms. Vandor asked if the roof coverage complied with not more than 10 percent. Mr. McNeight responded they have nine percent. He said on the second page of the drawings it contains the roof coverage calculations. When asked the date of the drawing he was looking at Mr. McNeight responded June 28, 2005, which is a revised drawing. The original drawings were submitted June 8, 2004. Ms. Vandor asked if Mr. McNeight resubmitted large drawings, because she and Mr. Persad never received the revisions. Mr. McNeight responded he didn’t recall. Ms. Vandor asked Mr. McNeight if he was aware the building height is measured to the roof slab, not including the parapet, and Mr. McNeight responded yes, and the drawing shows it that way. Ms. Vandor asked if there was a location for the recycling and a calculation. Mr. McNeight responded, no, not yet. He said it will go behind the elevator machinery. Ms. Vandor asked if isolip (phonetic) diagrams were submitted for the exterior lighting. Ms. McNeight responded no, that he specified the lighting but did not provide the isolip diagram. Mr. Crimmins confirmed that Mr. McNeight said the recycling would have to go behind the elevator mechanical room. Mr. Crimmins inquired if that would eliminate one of the parking spaces. Mr. McNeight said it would fit in the triangular area that is not utilized by the cars. Also, since it’s only a five unit building it would only require two containers. Ms. Vandor asked if lot coverage was included for the balconies and Mr. McNeight responded no, it was not. Ms. Vandor said it has to be included. Mr. McNeight said then the uppers floors would be 70 percent lot coverage. Ms. Vandor said she did not agree with the proposed parking but asked if Mr. McNeight demonstrated that there is 300 square feet per car. Mr. McNeight said he did not demonstrate it but he can tell there are way more than 300 square feet per car. He said it is a 2,500 square foot enclosure. -6-

Ms. Vandor stated that’s the number that has to be shown in addition to a workable layout. In terms of the variances being requested, Ms. Vandor confirmed it was 100 percent lot coverage at the ground level and 70 percent on the upper floors. She also confirmed the building height in floors was five over one versus three permitted. Ms. Vandor asked if the building height was 60 feet above base flood elevation or 60 feet above grade to the roof slab. Mr. McNeight responded he has it as 56 feet 6 inches above the base flood elevation. Ms. Vandor confirmed, as far as density, he has five units as opposed to four permitted. Ms. Vandor stated she didn’t know what the Board would do about preexisting conditions, which was a zero front yard and zero rear yard. Attorney Matule responded that he asked for those in the application as variances. Mr. Crimmins said the Board was looking at three D variances and four C variances. Attorney Matule said he was taking the position that there already was a parapet there. Ms. Vandor said the use has been changed and there is no grandfathering for that. Board Engineer, Mr. Persad, asked Mr. McNeight if he looked at his letter dated September 16, 2005 and he responded yes. Mr. Persad asked if there were any problems complying with any of the items. Mr. McNeight responded no, he didn’t think so. One of the Board members said the letter says an 8 foot wide access aisle is proposed where an 11 foot wide access aisle is required. Mr. Persad said if you look at the layout the first parking spot takes away 15 feet of that 25 foot overall width. Attorney Matule asked Mr. Persad if the layout parameters still apply if the 300 square feet are demonstrated and it is less than 25 cars. Mr. Persad responded it was good engineering practice. Ms. Vandor said it’s not the basis for a variance. Mr. Persad said it’s not a variance but more of a design standard.

-7-

Ms. Vandor said if, in Mr. Persad’s opinion, you really cannot operate five cars in there then you can’t claim to have five cars in there. Mr. Persad said most of the items in his letter are similar to questions Ms. Vandor raised regarding lighting and table changes. Mr. Crimmins asked if this application went before the Committee. Mr. Persad said that it did and there were several recommendations made several months ago based on the (indiscernible) prints. Also, additional updated prints were never received. Mr. Crimmins inquired why this matter was even put on the agenda. Mr. Crimmins said there were several items missing from the plans. Ms. Vandor said this was part of the very large number of applications the Board was proceeding within order to keep the agenda moving. Attorney Matule said his office submitted a new survey of the site showing the present conditions, which are basically an empty lot. Ms. Vandor said she and Mr. Persad never received the drawings that Attorney Matule had which contains some of the revisions. Mr. Crimmins stated the plans are missing the lighting, the recycling, the square footage and the street scape for the entire block. Ms. Vandor said the plans also needed a revision to the lot coverage calculation to include the balconies. Mr. Fusco wasn’t sure that the Board was voting on a complete application. He was concerned that what is voted on here is not actually what the Board intends to vote on. One of the Board members asked Mr. McNeight if he thought the layout of the parking was feasible, from a realistic point of view, with the access aisle that would be available at the opening of the garage. The same member also asked how the vehicles are maneuvering in and out of the garage. Mr. McNeight said the vehicles would be backing out of the garage. Mr. McNeight said he has used this design numerous times in Hoboken and it works as far as getting past the first car. Mr. Persad said they need to coordinate the elevations with the surveyor to make sure the basic flood elevations are in the 1929 (indiscernible) because that is what FEMA uses, rather than using USGA for the Board. Mr. Leoncavallo testified that this particular application is particularly suited given the -8-

neighborhood it is in. He said that north of this property there are several properties that are very similar in density and height requirements as this property in question. Mr. Leoncavallo also said they do formulate the same size and scale of the neighborhood and the buildings north of the property and the immediate neighborhood. Mr. Leoncavallo said the rail system located about a quarter of a mile from the property is within walking distance for access to mass transit. Mr. Leoncavallo said they are also meeting the requirements as special reasons in terms of advancing several purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law with this application. Those being the following; the property will be used and developed in a manner that will promote a general welfare consistent with N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2a by providing quality housing and encourages neighborhood stability. The second special reason would be that they would be utilizing a density that is comparable to the neighborhood and in close proximity to mass transit, in conjunction with N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2e. And, also, that they are providing sufficient space in an appropriate location for residential use, which is a permitted use within the zone district as a function of the height of the structure which meets the needs of the New Jersey citizens as stated under N.J.S.A. 40:55-2g. And that the project will promote a desirable visual environment through creative developmental techniques as proposed under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2. Mr. Leoncavallo testified the project meets the negative criteria in that there is no substantial detriment to public good. And, again, this is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Leoncavallo said there will also be no substantial impairment to the intent purpose of the zone plan within the City of Hoboken. The construction quality of the houses relayed in the rehabilitation of housing and the creation of the viable residential neighborhood which already exists. Mr. Leoncavallo testified this project is consistent with the City Master Plan in that it promotes the goal of compatibility in a scale size density, design and orientation of existing and new buildings. Mr. Leoncavallo went on to say the benefits of the height variance outweigh any detriments simply because they are slightly above what is allowed, but south of this property is a one-story building that doesn’t make any sense given the neighborhood. Lastly, Mr. Leoncavallo testified the benefit of having housing on this site outweighs any detriments of those deficiencies. Mr. Perry referred to the section of Mr. Leoncavallo’s report regarding justifying the height and density issues, and said if you look at sheet Z1 where you see the elevation of the proposed building what is adjoining it to the north there is no alignment whatsoever. Mr. Leoncavallo said his interpretation was that there was a degree of alignment. He said it is not completely aligned with the windows. Mr. Perry responded that it doesn’t support Mr. Leoncavallo’s testimony as to what is being asked for. Mr. Perry said Mr. Leoncavallo is supporting something that says it aligns and he -9-

doesn’t see any alignment on the window orientation. Mr. Crimmins asked Mr. Leoncavallo to go over his third special reason as he was confused and didn’t see how it differed from other comments made. Mr. Leoncavallo replied that the third special reason was that the proposed application provides sufficient space in an appropriate location for residential use which is a permitted use in the zone district as a function of the height of the structure which meets the needs of the New Jersey citizens as stated under N.J.S.A. 40:55-2g. In other words this is an appropriate area of this building at this height given the neighborhoods in terms of appropriate and compatible density, size and scale of the building. Mr. Crimmins asked if Mr. Leoncavallo, as a planner, thought it was good planning putting 100 percent lot coverage on the first floor where you have an opportunity to have a backyard. Mr. Leoncavallo responded that the balconies mitigate some of that. He said if the Board is concerned about that and the Board wishes to reduce the parking spaces he feels the applicant may reduce the 100 percent coverage. Mr. Crimmins asked Mr. Leoncavallo to look at the benefits of the surrounding properties. Mr. Leoncavallo responded that this is probably not the best situation but the creation of the 100 coverage is mitigated by the creation of the balconies in the back. Also, there is no open space on the ground level and the balconies do provide appropriate open space for the occupants. Mr. Crimmins asked, as a planner, couldn’t most of the criteria be met if the building was a story lower then the existing building next door. Mr. Leoncavallo responded it could be, but usually the scheme of the building may look a little different in terms of when it’s lower, and it always looks better if it’s a little higher than the existing building. Mr. Crimmins said he is concerned with the higher building on the north, and if there is a building already there then why go high as opposed to low. Mr. Leoncavallo responded that it’s a function of the density and the density in the area accommodates more than the five units that are allowed. Mr. Crimmins stated a D variance for density could be eliminated if a floor was removed. Mr. Crimmins asked Mr. Leoncavallo, again, as a planner, if he thought it would be an overall benefit to the neighborhood if a D variance was eliminated. Mr. Leoncavallo responded that if the Board is suggesting that a floor be eliminated to reduce one of the D variances then that is something the applicant could contemplate.

-10-

Mr. Crimmins thought a good planner would recommend that an applicant come forward with as few deviations as possible, specifically D variances. Attorney Matule responded that’s usually a good policy. Attorney Matule stated that Mr. Leoncavallo’s testimony was in the context of this neighborhood and the densities and building heights that are there and, in his opinion, he felt this was an appropriate size building. Mr. Crimmins said looking at the plans before him and the parking situation, he as a Board member has two concerns. One of them being that there is a parking lot where cars have to move to get another one out. Another concern of Mr. Crimmins’ was for someone to have to back out of a parking space, go over a sidewalk and inch their way out into on coming traffic. Mr. Crimmins asked if a lot of the criteria used could still be made if there were no parking in that building. Mr. Crimmins felt the proposed parking was unsafe both inside the building and backing out onto a street into oncoming traffic. Mr. Crimmins asked Mr. Leoncavallo, as a planner, if he had a comment on that. Mr. Leoncavallo responded from a community planning standpoint, in this case, in this neighborhood, off street parking should be allowed, and since there was a prior cub cut, even though the situation has changed in terms of the existing conditions now. Mr. Leoncavallo felt that in this case this Board should grant a variance for parking on the first level. Ms. Vandor said in terms of the Master Plan’s recommendations regarding residential zones, and more specifically in regard to garages and curb cuts, the Master Plan suggests that in the current R2 and R3 zones that the limitations on curb cuts are reviewed and modified to increase the minimum lot frontage required to permit new curb cuts. Existing curb cuts in the residential zones should not be permitted to be reused when a property is redeveloped unless they comply with the new requirements. Ms. Vandor asked Mr. Leoncavallo how he reacts to that in terms of the current application. Mr. Leoncavallo responded that he would fall back on his position that given this building and neighborhood you have a unique set of circumstances. He said he understands what the Master Plan is trying to do in terms of four units as opposed to five units and the parking. Mr. Leoncavallo asked, again, for the Board to grant this application. Ms. Vandor asked Mr. Leoncavallo what he thought was so unique about this property. Mr. Leoncavallo responded the property had a history and it had a nonresidential use previously and is in a zone that allows residential uses. He also said it would be compatible to the residential uses in the area, both in density and scale in size. Mr. Leoncavallo said that all those factors should be considered in the Board’s decision. Ms. Vandor said the Master Plan also talks about maintaining the lower densities and heights in residential zones that were approved only in recent years. Ms. Vandor asked Mr. Leoncavallo why he wouldn’t want to establish the context that the zoning and Master Plan are recommending and limit the project to four stories.

-11-

Mr. Leoncavallo responded that it’s a function of the neighborhood and the density in the neighborhood, which is much higher than the four units that are in the zoning ordinance and the Master Plan guidelines. He feels that as a function of that the client is trying to achieve a higher density to be compatible. Mr. Leoncavallo also said compatibility, scale in size and density is something that is a principle in the Master Plan. Mr. Persad asked Mr. Leoncavallo, in terms of the positive and negative criteria, regarding parking, didn’t he think it a negative criteria and safety concern to have to back out of a garage, go over a pedestrian walkway and into oncoming traffic. Mr. Leoncavallo responded if the Board had any suggestions that would mitigate that the client would be glad to hear them. Although, his answer to that question is that this is not the only situation where it is done. Granted, it’s not the optimal situation but it’s a situation that does exist. Mr. Persad said it is a D variance and it needs to be justified and that could be negative against this application. Mr. Leoncavallo agreed. There were no public questions or comments at this time. Attorney Matule said he did not have any more witnesses bu the applicant was present if the Board had any questions for him, which they did not. Attorney Matule commented on Mr. Leoncavallo’s testimony. Attorney Matule also spoke about the parking situation and said while it is a negative one it is a tolerable one. Attorney Matule again asked the Board to grant the minor site plan. There were no public questions at this time. Ms. Vandor, Zoning Board Planner, was sworn in and Mr. Crimmins asked her if she thought, in her professional opinion, this application met the intent of Hoboken’s Master Plan. Ms. Vandor responded in the negative. She said for the reasons she raised in her report and the questions she asked the Planner. Ms. Vandor said the parking lot on the 25 foot lot is contrary to the proposal of the Master Plan, as is the additional height and density. Ms. Vandor felt the parking was the worst aspect of the variances requested. There were no questions for Ms. Vandor from the Board. Hank Forrest, 518 Jefferson Street, said he lives within 200 feet of the property and his backyard is five lots from this property and he considered himself part of this neighborhood. Mr. Forrest opined regarding this application and his disapproval of it.

-12-

There was no further public portion at this time. Mr. Perry made a motion to deny the application citing the request for an unreasonable amount of variances, the engineers pointed out the physical limitations for the parking and the testimony heard is not near supportive to approve a D variance. Mr. Fusco seconded the motion. Roll call: Unanimous vote of yes for denial. MINUTES Approval of the minutes of the July 26, 2005 and August 16, 2005 meetings were unanimous. RESOLUTIONS 900 MONROE STREET: Preliminary Site Plan Attorney Leibman stated that this was a very lengthy resolution, 40 pages, and it was distributed well in advance so all the Board member would have it in time to review the extensive list of conditions. Chairman Crimmins requested that Attorney Leibman go through the list of conditions after a five minute recess. The meeting was resumed at 8:35 p.m. Attorney Leibman stated that this property is a 12 story building with 125 residential units built over a multilevel garage with 163 parking spaces. Attorney Leibman asked the Zoning Board to go off the record and that the members go to page 34 of the resolution to review the lengthy list of conditions. At 8:42 p.m., the Zoning Board went back on the record and unanimously stated that they have reviewed the list. Attorney Leibman, at this time, went through the extensive list of conditions with the Board. Mr. Ponjoan made a motion to approve. Mr. Carrado seconded the motion.

-13-

Roll Call: Mr. Fusco, yes; Mr. Carrado, yes; Mr. Perry, no; Mr. Ponjoan, yes; Ms. Camporeale, yes; Mr. Monaco, yes; Mr. Crimmins, no. 2, 4, 6 PATERSON STREET: Preliminary Site Plan No minutes on above address. 62 MADISON STREET: Preliminary Site Plan, C & D variances Attorney Leibman stated that the above address is a three family residential house being converted over to a five story structure with four residences and variances requested are for height and density. Attorney Leibman went on to state that the only condition of this resolution is that the applicant complies with the recommendations of the Zoning Board Planner in her letter dated August 5, 2005. Mr. Fusco made a motion to approve. Mr. Ponjoan seconded the motion. Roll Call: Unanimous vote of yes.

MISCELLANEOUS Zoning Board Planner Elizabeth Vandor gave an overview of actions taken by the City Council at their meeting the previous evening. Ms. Vandor stated that there were three separate ordinances introduced and they all pertained to the same area around Castle Point Terrace, Hudson Street and coming off of 10th Street. Ms. Vandor stated that the first ordinance was actually a correction to the zoning map. The second ordinance was a proposal to designate the new Castle Point Historic district. The third ordinance pertains to the creation of a new zoning subdistrict which will be called The Castle Point Subdistrict. PUBLIC PORTION Leah Healey, private citizen, requested a courtesy copy of the application regarding 900 Monroe Street to certain individuals so they don’t have to follow it in the newspaper. Ms. Healy also -14-

spoke about the 158 14th Street application. She stated that she was not at the meeting and wanted to know specifically what the application was for and if the Zoning Board acted on that yet. Ms. Vandor responded that the applicant was proposing a vegetated green roof. The Zoning Board made some stipulations and the applicant is attempting to comply. Ms. Vandor also stated that the applicant will ask for an additional variance at the time of the final site plan. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to attend to, this meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, AudioEdge Transcription Matthew D. Hoffman Manager of AudioEdge MDH/ryn

-15-