1 COUNTY OF HUDSON PLANNING BOARD ______________________________ : TRANSCRIPT MEETING OF THE COUNTY OF : HUDSON PLANNING BOARD : OF : ______________________________: PROCEEDINGS 6:30 p.m. Wednesday, January 16, 2008 567 Pavonia Avenue Jersey City, New Jersey B E F O R E: JUDE FITZGIBBONS, Chairperson MARY E. AVAGLIANO, Vice-Chairperson RUSHABH MEHTA, Secretary DANIEL CHOFFO, Commissioner MICHAEL A. HOLLOWAY, Commissioner BORIVOJ JASEK, PE, Commissioner KENNEDY NG, Commissioner DOREEN DIDOMENICO, Freeholder JOSE MUNOZ, Freeholder A L S O P R E S E N T THOMAS P. CALVANICO, ESQ. Board Attorney STEPHEN MARKS, PP, AICP, Planning Director PROUT & CAMMAROTA, L.L.C. CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS 147 COLUMBIA TURNPIKE FLORHAM PARK, NJ 07932 TEL: (973) 660-0600 FAX: (973) 660-1966 2 1 2 3 CERTIFICATE OF OFFICER 4 5 6 I, ELIZABETH ALVAREZ-HOLM, a 7 Certified Shorthand Reporter and a Notary Public of 8 the State of New Jersey, do hereby certify the 9 following is a true and accurate transcript of the 10 testimony as taken stenographically by and before me 11 at the date, time and place aforementioned. 12 I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that I am 13 neither a relative nor employee, nor attorney or 14 counsel to any parties involved; that I am neither 15 related to nor employed by any such attorney or 16 counsel, and that I am not financially interested in 17 the action. 18 19 20 __________________________________________ A NOTARY PUBLIC OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 21 C.C.R. License No. XI01477. 22 23 24 25 3 1 CHAIRMAN CHOFFO: Good evening. I'd 2 like to call to order the meeting of the Hudson 3 County Planning Board for this evening, January 16th, 4 2008. 5 Counselor, has this meeting been 6 properly advertised? 7 MR. CALVANICO: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The 8 meeting has been properly advertised in accordance 9 with the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act. It's 10 been posted on the bulletin boards of both the board 11 of chosen freeholders and the county clerk. 12 CHAIRMAN CHOFFO: Thank you, Tom. Mr. 13 Secretary, may I have a roll call please? 14 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Avagliano? 15 MS. AVAGLIANO: Here. 16 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Bettinger? 17 Not present. 18 Commissioner Didomenico? Not present. 19 Commissioner Fitzgibbons? 20 MR. FITZGIBBONS: Here. 21 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Jasek? 22 MR. JASEK: Here. 23 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Holloway? 24 MR. HOLLOWAY: Here. 25 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Mehta is 4 1 not present. 2 Commissioner Munoz? 3 MR. MUNOZ: I'm actually Freeholder 4 Munoz. 5 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Ng? 6 MR. NG: Here. 7 THE SECRETARY: Chairman Choffo? 8 CHAIRMAN CHOFFO: Here. 9 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, we have a 10 quorum. 11 CHAIRMAN CHOFFO: Will everyone please 12 rise to salute the flag. 13 (Salute to the flag.) 14 CHAIRMAN CHOFFO: Did all the 15 commissioners receive the minutes from last meeting? 16 Any comments? Can I have a motion? 17 MS. AVAGLIANO: Motion to accept the 18 minutes of the last meeting. 19 MR. HOLLOWAY: I second it. 20 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, on a 21 motion made by Commissioner Avagliano and seconded by 22 Commissioner Holloway, Commissioner Avagliano? 23 MS. AVAGLIANO: Aye. 24 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner 25 Fitzgibbons? 5 1 MR. FITZGIBBONS: Aye. 2 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Holloway? 3 MR. HOLLOWAY: Aye. 4 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Jasek? 5 MR. JASEK: Aye. 6 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Munoz? 7 MR. MUNOZ: Abstain. 8 THE SECRETARY: Abstain. 9 Commissioner Ng? 10 MR. NG: Aye. 11 THE SECRETARY: Chairman Choffo? 12 CHAIRMAN CHOFFO: I vote aye. 13 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, the 14 motion passed. 15 CHAIRMAN CHOFFO: At this time I would 16 like to turn the meeting over to our board counsel, 17 Mr. Tom Calvanico, for our reorganization. 18 MR. CALVANICO: Okay. At this point 19 acting as chairman pro-temp for the time -- 20 temporarily, I'm going to entertain motions for the 21 chairman of the board, board chair. 22 MR. HOLLOWAY: I'd lake to make a 23 motion for Jude Fitzgibbons to be the chairperson. 24 MS. AVAGLIANO: I second it. 25 MR. CALVANICO: Any other nominations? 6 1 MS. AVAGLIANO: I second it. 2 MR. CALVANICO: Move to close the 3 nominations? 4 CHAIRMAN CHOFFO: I'll make a motion to 5 close nominations. 6 MR. HOLLOWAY: I second it. 7 MR. CALVANICO: Call the roll. 8 (Commissioner Mehta present.) 9 THE SECRETARY: Sure. Mr. Chairman, on 10 a motion made by Commissioner Holloway and seconded 11 by Commissioner Avagliano to select Commissioner 12 Fitzgibbons as chair of the Hudson County Planning 13 Board, Commissioner Avagliano? 14 MS. AVAGLIANO: I vote aye. 15 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Choffo? 16 MR. CHOFFO: I vote aye. 17 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner 18 Fitzgibbons? 19 MR. FITZGIBBONS: Abstain. 20 THE SECRETARY: Abstain. 21 Commissioner Holloway? 22 MR. HOLLOWAY: I vote aye. 23 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Jasek? 24 MR. JASEK: Aye. 25 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Mehta? 7 1 MR. MEHTA: Aye. 2 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Munoz? 3 MR. MUNOZ: Aye. 4 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Ng? 5 MR. NG: Aye. 6 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, the 7 motion passes. 8 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Mehta 9 voted, Mr. Chairman. 10 CHAIRMAN CHOFFO: Let's switch seats, 11 sir. 12 (Applause.) 13 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, the next 14 order of business is selection of the board 15 vice-chair. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: I make a motion for Mary 17 to be vice-chair. 18 MR. CHOFFO: I second it. 19 MR. CALVANICO: Any other nominations? 20 Move to close nominations? 21 THE CHAIRMAN: I move to close. 22 MR. HOLLOWAY: I second it. 23 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, on a 24 motion to select Commissioner Avagliano as vice-chair 25 of the Hudson County Planning Board made by 8 1 commissioner -- Chairman Fitzgibbons and seconded by 2 Commissioner Choffo, Commissioner Avagliano? 3 MS. AVAGLIANO: Abstain. 4 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Choffo? 5 MR. CHOFFO: I vote aye. 6 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Holloway? 7 MR. HOLLOWAY: Aye. 8 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Jasek? 9 MR. JASEK: Aye. 10 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Mehta? 11 MR. MEHTA: Aye. 12 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Munoz? 13 MR. MUNOZ: Aye. 14 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Ng? 15 MR. NG: Aye. 16 THE SECRETARY: Chairman Fitzgibbons? 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Aye. 18 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, the 19 motion passed. 20 Mr. Chairman, the next order of 21 business is the selection of the board's secretary. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: I make a motion to vote 23 chairman -- I mean Commissioner Mehta. 24 MS. AVAGLIANO: I second it. 25 MR. CALVANICO: Any other nominations? 9 1 MS. AVAGLIANO: I second it. 2 MR. CALVANICO: Okay. Are there any 3 other nominations? 4 MR. CHOFFO: I move to close. 5 MR. CALVANICO: There are none. A 6 second to the motion to close? 7 THE CHAIRMAN: I second it. 8 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, on a 9 motion to select Commissioner Rushabh Mehta as 10 secretary of the Hudson County Planning Board made by 11 Chairman Fitzgibbons and seconded by Commissioner 12 Avagliano, Commissioner Avagliano? 13 MS. AVAGLIANO: I vote aye. 14 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Choffo? 15 MR. CHOFFO: I vote aye. 16 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Holloway? 17 MR. HOLLOWAY: Aye. 18 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Jasek? 19 MR. JASEK: Aye. 20 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Mehta? 21 MR. MEHTA: Abstain. 22 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Munoz? 23 MR. MUNOZ: Aye. 24 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Ng? 25 MR. NG: Aye. 10 1 THE SECRETARY: Chairman Fitzgibbons? 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Aye. 3 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, the 4 motion passed. 5 Mr. Chairman, the next order of 6 business for the board is the adoption of the board 7 bylaws. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Do we have a motion? 9 MR. CHOFFO: I make a motion. 10 MR. HOLLOWAY: I second. 11 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, on a 12 motion to adopt the board bylaws made by Commissioner 13 Choffo and seconded by Commissioner Holloway, 14 Commissioner Avagliano? 15 MS. AVAGLIANO: I vote aye. 16 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Choffo? 17 MR. CHOFFO: Aye. 18 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Holloway? 19 MR. HOLLOWAY: Aye. 20 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Jasek? 21 MR. JASEK: Aye. 22 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Mehta? 23 MR. MEHTA: Aye. 24 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Munoz? 25 MR. MUNOZ: Aye. 11 1 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Ng? 2 MR. NG: Aye. 3 THE SECRETARY: Chairman Fitzgibbons? 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Aye. 5 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, the 6 motion passed. 7 Mr. Chairman, the next order of 8 business is memorialization of resolutions approved 9 at the last meeting beginning with Application 10 SP-43-07, Avalon-Alfran North Bergen, LLC, located at 11 5601-5607 Kennedy Boulevard, which is Block 195, Lot 12 61 through 67 in the Township of North Bergen, 13 Application SP-59-07, 158 14th Street, LLC, located 14 at 158 14th Street, which is Block 255, Lot 1 in the 15 City of Hoboken, and Application SP-72-07, Mayflower 16 603, LLC, located at 603 Willow Avenue, which is 17 Block 168, Lot 1.2 in the City of Hoboken. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: We have a motion? 19 MS. AVAGLIANO: I make a motion to 20 accept. 21 MR. MEHTA: I second it. 22 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, on a 23 motion to accept made by Commissioner Avagliano and 24 seconded by Commissioner Mehta, Commissioner 25 Avagliano? 12 1 MS. AVAGLIANO: Aye. 2 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Choffo? 3 MR. CHOFFO: Aye. 4 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Holloway? 5 MR. HOLLOWAY: Aye. 6 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Jasek? 7 MR. JASEK: Aye. 8 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Mehta? 9 MR. MEHTA: Aye. 10 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Munoz? 11 MR. MUNOZ: Aye. 12 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Ng? 13 MR. NG: Aye. 14 THE SECRETARY: Chairman Fitzgibbons? 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Aye. 16 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, the 17 motion passes. 18 Mr. Chairman, the next section are 19 applications declared exempt. 20 (Commissioner Didomenico present.) 21 THE SECRETARY: Beginning with 22 SP-85-07, 111 Garden Street, LLC, located at 111 23 Garden Street, which is Block 188, Lot 8 in the City 24 of Hoboken, Application SD-86-07, Township of North 25 Bergen is the applicant, located on West Side Avenue, 13 1 which is Block 452.04, Lot 6.01 in the Township of 2 North Bergen, Application SD-87-07, Hudson 3 Developers, LLC, located at 587 and 589 through 593 4 Jersey Avenue, which is Block 315, Lots A and B in 5 the City of Jersey City, and Application SP-89-07, 6 Metro PCS New York, LLC, located at 410 8th Street, 7 which is 801-803 Adams Street in the City of Hoboken 8 located at Block 91, Lot 1.1. 9 MS. AVAGLIANO: Motion to accept. 10 MR. CHOFFO: I'll second it. 11 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, on a 12 motion to accept made by Commissioner Avagliano and 13 seconded by Commissioner Choffo, Commissioner 14 Avagliano? 15 MS. AVAGLIANO: Aye. 16 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Choffo? 17 MR. CHOFFO: Aye. 18 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner 19 Didomenico? 20 MS. DIDOMENICO: Aye. 21 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Holloway? 22 MR. HOLLOWAY: Aye. 23 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Jasek? 24 MR. JASEK: Aye. 25 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Mehta? 14 1 MR. MEHTA: Aye. 2 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Munoz? 3 MR. MUNOZ: Aye. 4 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Ng? 5 MR. NG: Aye. 6 THE SECRETARY: Chairman Fitzgibbons? 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Aye. 8 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, the 9 motion passed. 10 Mr. Chairman, under Section 5D, site 11 plans and subdivisions and other matters scheduled 12 for public hearing, the first application scheduled 13 this evening is SP/SD-78-06, RG Realty Company, 14 located at 1706 Paterson Plank Road, which is Block 15 40, Lot 3C in the Township of North Bergen. 16 MR. FEDER: Good evening. My name is 17 Robert Feder. I'm the attorney for the applicant. I 18 have available the letter that I received from the 19 planning board dated January 8th, 2007 and attached 20 to it the letter from T & M Associates dated January 21 3, 2008 in which specific questions were asked to be 22 addressed. I have the architect present to answer 23 those questions. And for the other one question that 24 was requested, I have another gentleman. May I call 25 my witnesses? 15 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Will you swear in 2 the witness. 3 MR. CALVANICO: Okay. Would you state 4 your name for the record please. 5 MR. VANDERMARK: Anthony C. Vandermark, 6 Jr. 7 MR. FEDER: You're a member of the 8 architectural firm that has been upgrading this 9 entire project? 10 MR. VANDERMARK: That's correct. It's 11 the architectural firm of Minervini & Vandermark. 12 MR. FEDER: Now, have you seen a copy 13 of the January 3rd, 2008 letter from T & M 14 Associates? 15 MR. VANDERMARK: Yes, I have. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Excuse me. Can we swear 17 him in. Let's swear the witness. 18 MR. FEDER: Oh, okay. Sorry. 19 20 A N T H O N Y V A N D E R M A R K, having been duly 21 sworn according to law, testified as follows: 22 23 MR. FEDER: You've seen the letter of 24 January 3rd which asks for commentary tonight about 25 certain questions that have been raised as either not 16 1 addressed or partially addressed? 2 MR. VANDERMARK: Correct, yes. 3 MR. FEDER: Will you please go through 4 that letter and address the questions that have been 5 placed by T & M Associates. 6 MR. VANDERMARK: Okay. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: We want to know your 8 qualifications. 9 MR. VANDERMARK: Certainly. Licensed 10 in the State of New Jersey to practice architecture. 11 License number is 17698. Also a member of the 12 American Institute of Architects. I've been a 13 principal in the architectural firm of Minervini & 14 Vandermark since its inception in 2000. 15 MR. FEDER: You were qualified also 16 before the Township of North Bergen's board of 17 adjustment. Is that correct? 18 MR. VANDERMARK: That's correct. 19 MR. FEDER: And have you appeared 20 before other boards of adjustment in other 21 municipalities? 22 MR. VANDERMARK: Yes, I have, and 23 including this one. 24 MR. FEDER: Have you appeared before 25 this board before? 17 1 MR. VANDERMARK: Yes. 2 MR. FEDER: You have. 3 MR. CALVANICO: Move to accept him? 4 MS. AVAGLIANO: Yes. 5 MR. FEDER: Would you please go through 6 the items that have been set forth in the letter of 7 January 3rd and let's have your comments thereon. 8 MR. VANDERMARK: Certainly. First 9 comment was a simple one. One of the engineering 10 comments was that one of our drawings, particularly 11 the cover page and various site pages, was 12 mislabeled, the direction of traffic flow was 13 reversed. So, you know, we have clearly now 14 delineated on our new sets of plans that are dated 15 January 15th, '08, of course, right-hand turn out of 16 the driveway now is heading north on the right side 17 of the street, and on the left-hand side of the 18 street it would be heading south. Okay? So what 19 we're talking about is these directional arrows here. 20 And then that's also through various site plans Z-1 21 through 4. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Can we mark that as an 23 exhibit? 24 MR. CALVANICO: You can just mark it. 25 Mr. Vandermark, when you refer to the document, just 18 1 please give us which page you're referring to. 2 MR. VANDERMARK: Certainly. 3 THE SECRETARY: And the date of last 4 revision please? 5 MR. VANDERMARK: The date of last 6 revision is January 15th, this year, '08, and we can 7 mark this Exhibit A-1. And the directional arrows 8 have been changed on Sheets T-1 and Z-1 through Z-4, 9 okay, on this final revised drawing package. 10 Our second comment I wanted to address 11 was an issue of both emergency vehicle ingress and 12 egress and also our garbage truck ingress and egress, 13 and what I'm going to do is I'm going to wait for TRC 14 Engineering to be sworn in and they're going to 15 testify to that second issue. 16 Issue 1.5 in T & M Associates' last 17 report dated January 3rd, there was a question 18 whether the certification as to the structural 19 integrity of -- there's an existing stone retaining 20 wall that runs the full length of the property. For 21 those of you who are or are not familiar with this 22 property, this is Paterson Plank Road. There is an 23 existing Kennedy Tile and Marble Warehouse on one 24 side, across the street is the 3-in-1 car wash. 25 Okay? What we're looking at is a vacant piece of 19 1 property right now with various debris that's on the 2 property. The cliffs runs along the back end of our 3 property line. 4 The structural integrity question, 5 we're talking about the existing stone retaining wall 6 that runs full length of our property from north to 7 south. We are penetrating that existing retaining 8 wall in two different locations. We are penetrating 9 it a 20-foot penetration right at mid-property for 10 our grand stair entry to the main lobby of our 11 building. What's going to happen is that all the 12 dirt that that wall is retaining is also coming out, 13 so really therefore we are not really affecting the 14 structural integrity of the wall because the wall 15 section that's being removed, again, is not holding 16 any dirt in its place. And, also, we're removing a 17 small section, 22-foot section to the south end of 18 the property for our driveway and curb access, and, 19 again, all of the dirt that that retaining wall is 20 holding in is being removed. So in that case we 21 don't need either section of the wall. Again, the 22 grand stair entry, we're bracing it with a couple of 23 new retaining walls here and here, so we should have 24 no issue whatsoever. 25 A question -- actually, 1.6 on the 20 1 latest report, we have revised the drawings 2 accordingly for ten inches of Superpave asphalt on 3 the county road, so that's on Drawing Z-5. And what 4 we did was we revised that detail in our plans. 5 We have Question 2.1, grading and 6 drainage issue, which our engineer from TRC 7 Engineering is going to report on, so I'm going to 8 skip that. 9 And, also, one of the engineering 10 comments had asked for elevations on top and bottom 11 of curb. We have now showed both elevations, top and 12 bottom of curb, on Drawing Z-4, so that's taken care 13 of. 14 An additional question at Item 2.4 15 was we had -- on one of our previous details we had a 16 leader pipe or a collection pipe at the bottom or the 17 base of all of our trees and plantings. That pipe 18 has since been removed. It's not required, so 19 therefore the detail is void. So we've removed that 20 portion of the detail, of the tree detail on Page 21 Z-5. 22 The last comment, Item 2.5, was the 23 question of the trench drain at the driveway entry. 24 As you can see here on Page Z-4, we have moved the 25 trench drain now to the property line where it should 21 1 be so that you get proper runoff to this trench 2 drain. 3 MR. FEDER: Now, looking at the -- 4 there's a letter of January 8th -- it's actually 5 2008 -- the letter says 2007 -- from the planning 6 board. There were two issues, Paragraphs 5 and 6, 7 that need to be addressed. 8 MR. VANDERMARK: Give me a second here. 9 MR. FEDER: You can have this one. 10 MR. VANDERMARK: I have it here. 11 MR. FEDER: You got it? 12 MR. VANDERMARK: Yeah. Okay. One of 13 the comments were required is that you were looking 14 for a bicycle rack as part of this project. And what 15 we did here on Page Z-1 is we added a bicycle rack 16 here behind the south stair tower so it's protected 17 from any of the vehicle traffic coming in and out of 18 the property, so that's located here. Okay. 19 And, also, a signature block for, you 20 know, a county planner and county engineer has been 21 added to Page T-1, which would be right here. 22 MR. FEDER: That completes what has 23 been requested by the board and by the engineers. If 24 there are any questions that anyone would like to 25 direct to the witness, this would be the right time 22 1 to do it. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Bob, do we have 3 anything? 4 MR. KLEIN: Good evening. Lee Klein 5 with T & M, K-l-e-i-n. 6 I guess we're going to go back to the 7 issue of the integrity of the structure of the 8 existing wall. You said that you'll be cutting out a 9 section of it and removing the earth from behind it, 10 but what about the rest of the wall when you start to 11 take this apart? 12 MR. VANDERMARK: Well, certainly. As 13 mentioned, at mid-wall we're going to be removing 20 14 feet approximately, and what we're going to be doing 15 is we're going to be pinning that wall back to new 16 retaining walls back to the building here. We're 17 going to have -- here is we're going to have two 18 brace walls, which will also retain here in this 19 section, so that's what's going to be bracing the 20 edge of those retaining walls with that new opening 21 to this part of the property. The retaining wall is 22 already low; it's approximately two feet high. We're 23 removing that section of the retaining wall for our 24 new curb cut. Okay? So really what you're looking 25 at is right here. 23 1 MR. KLEIN: Can you talk a little bit 2 about the integrity of the rest of the wall that's 3 going to remain. You are going to be doing some 4 disturbance behind that wall. 5 MR. VANDERMARK: Certainly. The wall 6 is structurally stable. I mean, it's been there for 7 many years. It's a pretty substantial stone wall. 8 Okay? Great caution will be taken obviously to the 9 excavation of this property, but we have 10 approximately a 25-foot setback that we're even 11 working west of -- excuse me -- east of the wall, so 12 really we're not going to be affecting any of the 13 integrity of this wall. We'll be providing a new 14 sidewalk here along the street line, but other than 15 these two small penetrations here, we're not going to 16 be working close to the wall, so there shouldn't be 17 an issue of damaging the integrity of the wall. 18 MR. KLEIN: But you're going to be 19 planting trees, you're going to be excavating behind 20 the wall and moving soil. 21 MR. VANDERMARK: Certainly. Minor 22 excavation we're talking about, you know, pits for 23 trees and plantings. 24 MR. KLEIN: I mean, I think we need to 25 see some sort of certification, some kind of an 24 1 analysis of the wall. 2 MR. VANDERMARK: That certainly isn't a 3 problem. 4 MR. KLEIN: Just because it's been 5 there for 100 years doesn't mean when you start 6 excavating it's not going to fall down. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: On one of these pictures 8 I seen there's some patch work that was on that wall, 9 patch work on that wall. 10 MR. TRIDENTE: Mario Tridente, Hudson 11 County Improvement Authority. 12 I was at the site. I was able to pull 13 out two small pieces of stone from that wall. In 14 light of the recent wall collapse that we had on 15 Manhattan Avenue that also was a very, supposedly, 16 structurally sound wall, and we lost it back in May, 17 there should be some sort of shoring or maybe some 18 additional concrete work or something just to fill in 19 the gaps. I mean, as you look at it, you're going to 20 physically put your hand into the wall. I mean -- 21 MR. VANDERMARK: Okay. Well, in that 22 case we will have a structural engineer provide a 23 report as to it. That's no problem. 24 MR. KLEIN: That's what we're looking 25 for. 25 1 MR. VANDERMARK: Certainly. 2 MR. TRIDENTE: Also, the rear retaining 3 wall in the rear of the parking lot where the parking 4 lot is adjacent to the Kennedy Boulevard housing 5 complex, what type of work is going to be done on 6 that retaining wall back there? 7 MR. VANDERMARK: Well, again, if 8 required, we will provide a structural engineering 9 report as to the integrity, as to, you know, remedy 10 any defects that might be in that wall. 11 MR. TRIDENTE: And then there's also a 12 third retaining wall in the middle of the property. 13 What's going to be done with that; it's going to be 14 removed? 15 MR. VANDERMARK: That's going to be 16 removed, correct. 17 MR. TRIDENTE: Okay. 18 MR. HOLLOWAY: Mr. Chairman, I have a 19 question. Since you're building below a cliff, is 20 there any problems with drainage, additional drainage 21 unusual that you have to worry about drainage from 22 the top? 23 MR. VANDERMARK: No, because really the 24 draining situation, you know, doesn't change from 25 preexisting to this project. If anything, we're 26 1 actually helping the draining situation, and our 2 engineer will testify to that. 3 MR. KLEIN: My comment on 1.6 is about 4 coordinating with the county. The county is going to 5 be paving that section of Paterson Plank Road this 6 spring. I think there's going to be some utility 7 disturbance to the road and you're going to be 8 cutting up the road. I think you need to coordinate 9 that with the county engineer. 10 MR. VANDERMARK: Certainly. 11 MR. KLEIN: Thank you. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: This has been approved 13 by the Township of North Bergen? 14 MR. FEDER: Yes, it has. 15 MR. CHOFFO: I have a question, Mr. 16 Chairman. When did you actually receive your 17 approval from North Bergen? 18 MR. FEDER: From the municipality? 19 MR. CHOFFO: Yes. 20 MR. FEDER: It was in the Summer of 21 '06. 22 MR. CHOFFO: All right. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other commissioners 24 have questions? Bob, do you have a question? 25 MR. JASEK: Mr. Chairman, I had some 27 1 questions which were already answered. I'm familiar 2 with this property. I remember when the wall was 3 built by Mr. Petrillo in early seventies, and at that 4 time there was no loading on that wall. How far is 5 the building from that wall? 6 MR. VANDERMARK: Twenty-five feet. 7 MR. JASEK: Twenty-five feet. Okay. 8 So that should be all right. Do we have any basement 9 underneath of that wall? 10 MR. VANDERMARK: There's no basement. 11 MR. JASEK: Okay. Thank you, Mr. 12 Chairman. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Do we have a motion? 14 MR. FEDER: I have one further witness, 15 Mr. Chairman, just briefly. There's one other item 16 that had to be addressed. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. What is it? 18 MR. FEDER: May I call the other 19 witness? 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 21 MR. FEDER: Thank you. 22 Sir, would you state your name for the 23 record please. 24 MR. SANTONOCITO: Yes. Giuseppe 25 Santonocito. 28 1 MR. FEDER: And will you tell us with 2 whom you are associated. 3 MR. SANTONOCITO: Yeah, with TRC. 4 MR. FEDER: And did TRC serve as the 5 engineers on this project? 6 MR. SANTONOCITO: Yes, precisely. 7 MR. FEDER: Would you tell us your 8 qualifications and experience to testify before this 9 board today. 10 MR. SANTONOCITO: Yes. I have a Ph.D 11 in civil engineering and 15 years of experience. 12 MR. FEDER: How long have you been with 13 TRC? 14 MR. SANTONOCITO: Six years. 15 MR. FEDER: Were you directly involved 16 in the work on this project? 17 MR. SANTONOCITO: Yes, I do. 18 MR. FEDER: Now, there was one open 19 issue for your engineering term. I know you 20 submitted a lot of stuff to this board in November, 21 but there was one question that was still raised as 22 only partially addressed, and that concerns a change 23 with regard to the one-year storms where you 24 originally used the figure of 7.5 inches and you were 25 asked to change it to 8.5 inches. Have you done so? 29 1 MR. SANTONOCITO: Yes, I do. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Swear him in. 3 MR. CALVANICO: Before we get into the 4 substance, we have to swear him in. 5 6 G I U S E P P E S A N T O N O C I T O, having been 7 duly sworn according to law, testified as 8 follows: 9 10 MR. FEDER: Continue. 11 MR. SANTONOCITO: Yes, I can answer the 12 question. Yes. I have here three copies, and I send 13 on November 19 a copy to the director of planning 14 pretty much the issue of the truck movement and the 15 drainage problem. 16 MR. FEDER: So you have made the 17 calculation in accordance with -- 18 MR. SANTONOCITO: Yes. 19 MR. FEDER: -- what Mr. Klein's company 20 had asked. Is that correct? 21 MR. SANTONOCITO: Yes. 22 MR. FEDER: Have you seen that? 23 MR. KLEIN: No. 24 MR. FEDER: Would you like to take a 25 look at it. 30 1 MR. CALVANICO: While we're waiting, 2 can you please spell your last name for the record. 3 MR. SANTONOCITO: Yes. 4 S-a-n-t-o-n-o-c-i-t-o. 5 MR. KLEIN: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to 6 have to take this back and just take a look at it in 7 the office, so if we can make it part of the 8 resolution of approval contingent upon reviewing this 9 and coming back with a favorable result of my review. 10 MR. CALVANICO: Perfectly satisfactory 11 with us. That's the extent of the requested 12 information I believe. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: You accept -- 14 MR. FEDER: A condition, absolutely. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: -- a condition? 16 MR. FEDER: Absolutely. Proper 17 condition. 18 MR. KLEIN: I have another question. 19 Is this the engineer that's going to certify the 20 integrity of the wall -- 21 MR. SANTONOCITO: No. 22 MR. KLEIN: -- and design of the wall? 23 MR. SANTONOCITO: No, not tonight. 24 MR. TRIDENTE: They're probably going 25 to get a geotechnical engineer. 31 1 MR. KLEIN: So that will be a 2 conditioned resolution as well. 3 MR. FEDER: That's fine. We accept 4 that condition as well. 5 MR. CHOFFO: Could the board just see 6 the rendering that's on the floor so we can get a 7 sense of what the building looks like. 8 MR. SANTONOCITO: Yes, precisely. This 9 one is the other issue regarding the garbage truck 10 and the fire truck forward movement, and those two 11 show a typical fire truck going in and out, and also 12 this was part of the comment on -- 13 MR. FEDER: 1.2. 14 MR. SANTONOCITO: -- 1.2. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: So the North Hudson 16 Regional Fire Department approved that? 17 MR. FEDER: North Bergen would have run 18 that through their people, and they did approve it. 19 They had no further conditions on that aspect of the 20 matter. In fact, they did cause a revision of the 21 plan at that time concerning the garbage truck to 22 what you now see there. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah, but there will be 24 fire lanes there? 25 MR. FEDER: As you see on there, 32 1 through the driveway, and movement around the back. 2 MR. KLEIN: The fire truck, you show it 3 pulling in forward and then backing out, but then 4 somehow it turns around 'cause it's facing -- oh, no. 5 I'm sorry. It's backing all the way out into the 6 street. Okay. 7 MR. SANTONOCITO: You've got to look at 8 the path. 9 MR. KLEIN: Right, the tires. And then 10 what type -- so this would be a garbage collection 11 vehicle, the top one? 12 MR. SANTONOCITO: Yes, precisely. 13 MR. KLEIN: And where is your dumpster 14 located or garbage collection? 15 MR. FEDER: It is right in here. It's 16 all the way -- right here. I only showed it as if 17 it's coming up and turning around, but what's really 18 the logical thing that's going to happen is the truck 19 is going to come in here and load the dumpster here 20 and probably back out. 21 MR. KLEIN: Or back in. 22 MR. FEDER: Or back out, whatever 23 they're comfortable with. But we were asked -- that 24 was one of the things North Bergen asked us, was to 25 put the dumpsters here so they're as close to the 33 1 street as possible. 2 MR. KLEIN: Okay. And there won't be 3 any delivery vehicles or anything to the back? 4 Deliveries would probably park on the street, the 5 Fed-Exes, UPS's and things like that? 6 MR. FEDER: I don't think delivery is 7 going to be a big issue here. 8 MR. KLEIN: Right. 9 MR. FEDER: I have nothing further, 10 sir. 11 MR. CHOFFO: Could we take a peak at 12 the color rendering also. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Nice-looking building. 14 MR. VANDERMARK: And just to give you a 15 brief overview, it's a 30-unit building, it's four 16 stories tall, one level of parking with three 17 residential floors above. There's 15 one-bedroom and 18 15 two-bedrooms as far as this proposal with 57 19 parking spaces, an abundance of parking spaces, and 20 we were thinking, you know, a very -- it's a 21 contemporary style building obviously with, you know, 22 very sharp cast-in-place concrete balconies and 23 either a stone or metal panel system in the drawings. 24 MR. CHOFFO: Elevator in the building? 25 MR. VANDERMARK: Yes, there is. 34 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. It all looks 2 good. I like it in pictures. 3 MR. MEHTA: One question. Can you show 4 us the parking area. The parking, you are saying 5 that it's coming from the side street, right? 6 MR. FEDER: Coming from here. 7 MR. VANDERMARK: Parking is coming in 8 from the south corner of the property, ingress and 9 egress. 10 MR. MEHTA: Okay. And on top of your 11 drawing there is like a row for cars? 12 MR. VANDERMARK: Yes, there is, these 13 two rows here within the building footprints. Okay? 14 We have 38 parking spaces already for the principal 15 residents that occupy the building. We also have 16 additional, you know, all the way up to 56, 57 for 17 visitors and also for some of the larger units that 18 may have some cars. 19 MR. MEHTA: So how they are going to 20 access outside the parking? 21 MR. VANDERMARK: You come through the 22 lobby here and you have access points here and here 23 that access the back row of parking, which is 24 exterior. 25 MR. MEHTA: Yeah, but exterior parking, 35 1 my point is how they are going to drive there? 2 MR. VANDERMARK: They come in the drive 3 aisle and they just circulate through the back of the 4 property. 5 MR. KLEIN: It's up a hill. 6 MR. VANDERMARK: Yeah. They're coming 7 up around. There's a general change in grade that 8 runs from the street all the way up to the back end 9 of the property, and they park back here. The garage 10 entry for the building is at this point here. 11 MR. MEHTA: So in the front from the 12 Paterson Plank Road there is just an entrance; there 13 is not a car drive coming out in the middle of the 14 building? 15 MR. VANDERMARK: It's here. 16 MR. MEHTA: No, no, no. I'm talking -- 17 yeah, that one. 18 MR. VANDERMARK: That's just a 19 pedestrian residential entry. 20 MR. MEHTA: Okay. So in other words, 21 you are not removing any parking space from the 22 Paterson Plank Road? 23 MR. VANDERMARK: Correction. We're 24 removing one space to create this new curb cut. All 25 the other preexisting parking on the street is going 36 1 to remain unchanged. 2 MR. MEHTA: That's all. 3 MR. MUNOZ: How many fire exits? 4 MR. VANDERMARK: Two. 5 MR. MUNOZ: How many residents you're 6 expecting to have in there? 7 MR. VANDERMARK: We're expecting 8 approximately 45 to 60. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: You know that when you 10 remove a parking spot that you have to get the 11 approval from the county freeholders? 12 MR. VANDERMARK: And we have 13 permission? 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Not from me. You're in 15 the wrong place. I mean, you have to go before them. 16 MR. MUNOZ: Now, if the fire trucks -- 17 let's say there is a fire in the building. If a fire 18 truck wants to get through there, those are the right 19 measurements? 20 MR. VANDERMARK: Correct, yes. As 21 studied by our engineering group, yes. They have 22 full access all the way around the building here. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: That would have to be 24 also approved by North Hudson Regional Fire 25 Department for those fire lanes. 37 1 MR. MUNOZ: Now, what does the 2 regulation say about fire exits, how many by law you 3 have to have? 4 MR. VANDERMARK: Up to 500 people 5 requires two. Anything greater than that is a third 6 fire exit. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm sure it's going to 8 be all sprinkled. 9 MR. VANDERMARK: Absolutely. 10 MR. CHOFFO: I have one last question. 11 Is this an apartment building or condominium complex? 12 MR. VANDERMARK: I don't think they 13 made that decision. 14 MR. FEDER: This will be condos. 15 MR. NG: How many handicap parking 16 spaces do you have? 17 MR. VANDERMARK: We have two. 18 MR. NG: All the parking spaces have 19 the same sizes or you have -- 20 MR. VANDERMARK: The handicap parking 21 stalls are standard nine feet in width, and also they 22 have to provide for handicap van you have an 23 eight-foot drop-off zone right here. Okay? So the 24 majority of the stalls are standard size of 25 eight-foot-six by 18 feet in depth. Okay? We have 38 1 several areas here in between these columns that you 2 have a few compact spaces, but the majority -- we're 3 talking about three compact spaces out of 57, so the 4 majority of them are standard spaces, and North 5 Bergen wasn't letting us off, you know, with a 6 greater compact ratio. 7 MR. MUNOZ: It is accessible from the 8 front, like it's wheelchair accessible from the 9 front? 10 MR. VANDERMARK: It certainly is. 11 There's a ramp here that accesses the building. 12 MR. MUNOZ: Okay. 13 MR. VANDERMARK: So yes. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Do we have a motion to 15 move this on the record? 16 MR. TRIDENTE: One other question. In 17 front of the staircase are you going to have a 18 designated no parking zone in front of there? You 19 say you're taking out 20 feet for the staircase. 20 MR. VANDERMARK: We weren't going to do 21 that 'cause we're not planning on doing a drop-off in 22 the front, no. 23 MR. TRIDENTE: So you're only losing 24 one parking space? 25 MR. VANDERMARK: Yes. 39 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Isn't that two parking 2 spaces? Two, right? 3 MR. VANDERMARK: We were not going to 4 remove the space here. We're going to leave the 5 space there. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: You're going to leave it 7 there? 8 MR. VANDERMARK: Yes. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. 10 MR. VANDERMARK: Just one here. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. You still 12 have to go before the county freeholder board to get 13 that approved. 14 MR. VANDERMARK: Okay. 15 MR. FEDER: To eliminate the one 16 parking space, yeah. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah. Anybody else with 18 questions? 19 MR. CHOFFO: I would like to make a 20 motion to approve this contingent upon Mr. Klein's 21 recommendations and the drainage report that was just 22 submitted tonight. 23 MR. MEHTA: I second it. 24 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, on a 25 motion to conditionally approve SP/SD-78-06 made by 40 1 Commissioner Choffo and seconded by Commissioner 2 Mehta, Commissioner Avagliano? 3 MS. AVAGLIANO: I vote aye. 4 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Choffo? 5 MR. CHOFFO: Aye. 6 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner 7 Didomenico? 8 MS. DIDOMENICO: Aye. 9 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Holloway? 10 MS. AVAGLIANO: He went out for a 11 minute. 12 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, 13 Commissioner Holloway's not present. 14 Mr. Jasek? 15 MR. JASEK: Aye. 16 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Mehta? 17 MR. MEHTA: Aye. 18 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Munoz? 19 MR. MUNOZ: Aye. 20 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Ng? 21 MR. NG: Aye. 22 THE SECRETARY: Chairman Fitzgibbons? 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Aye. 24 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, the 25 motion passes. 41 1 MR. VANDERMARK: Thank you very much. 2 MR. FEDER: Thank you very much for 3 your attention. 4 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, the next 5 application scheduled for public hearing is SD-49-07, 6 Brian Battaglia, applicant, located at 1414-1416 7 Willow Avenue, which is Block 123, Lot 15 in the City 8 of Hoboken. 9 MR. MATULE: Good evening, board 10 members. Robert Matule, M-a-t-u-l-e, appearing on 11 behalf of the applicant, Brian Battaglia. This is an 12 application for site plan approval with respect to 13 the renovation of an existing commercial space at the 14 property at 1414 Willow Avenue. I have the 15 applicant's architect, Peter Johnston, here who can 16 go over the plan for you. We can have him sworn. 17 I'll have qualified. 18 MR. CALVANICO: Please state your name, 19 spell your last name for the record. 20 MR. JOHNSTON: Peter Johnston, 21 J-o-h-n-s-t-o-n. 22 23 P E T E R J O H N S T O N, having been duly sworn 24 according to law, testified as follows: 25 42 1 MR. MATULE: Mr. Johnston, would you 2 give the board the benefit of your educational 3 background, your professional licensing, your work 4 experience. 5 MR. JOHNSTON: I am a licensed 6 architect in the State of New Jersey. I possess a 7 master's degree from UCLA in architecture and a 8 bachelor's degree from Arizona State University in 9 design. I have been licensed for approximately 15 10 years, and I am the owner of a firm, Peter Johnston, 11 Architect, PC, which has been in existence for twelve 12 years. I've also testified before various boards in 13 the State of New Jersey. 14 MR. MATULE: You never testified before 15 the Hudson County Planning Board. Correct? 16 MR. JOHNSTON: Not this particular 17 board, no. 18 MR. MATULE: You've been before the 19 board in Hoboken? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 21 MR. MATULE: Other cities? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: Other cities, yes. 23 MR. MATULE: I would ask that you 24 accept Mr. Johnston as an expert in the field of 25 architecture. 43 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 2 MR. MATULE: Mr. Johnston, could you 3 just briefly go over for the board members what the 4 renovation of the subject property has consisted of, 5 and then we can -- after you do that, we'll discuss 6 the letters from the planner. 7 MR. JOHNSTON: The renovation consisted 8 of renovating an existing hardware and building 9 supply store which had an existing mezzanine. The 10 new store is going to be a housewares and furniture 11 store. And we are proposing the first floor of 12 retail with some storage area in the rear, the front 13 entry is along Willow Avenue, and then we had a 14 second story mezzanine which we're proposing. There 15 was an existing mezzanine there. We are also 16 replacing part of the sidewalk along Willow Avenue. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Can we identify the 18 drawing. 19 MR. CALVANICO: Can you just identify 20 the drawings and the revision dates for us. 21 MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. These are 22 Drawings A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 dated 12/17/2006 with 23 a revision date of 1/7/2008. 24 MR. CALVANICO: Okay. 25 MR. MATULE: You mentioned that the 44 1 sidewalk is being replaced. Is the entire sidewalk 2 in front of the premises being replaced? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. The entire 4 sidewalk is being replaced. 5 MR. MATULE: And the curb also? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 7 MR. MATULE: And have you received the 8 letters from Medina Consultants dated January 4th, 9 2008 and from the county planning department dated 10 January 8th, 2008 -- I believe it's 2008, but I guess 11 we should say sic; it says 2007. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. I am in receipt of 13 both letters. 14 MR. MATULE: And as far as the plan 15 revisions that have been requested, have you made 16 those plan revisions? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. We have made the 18 plan revisions as stated per the January 4th letter, 19 first Revision 1.1, which had to do with the 20 replacement of the sidewalk and curb consistently on 21 all drawings, and also the south end of the new 22 sidewalk and curb shall meet the highest elevation of 23 the adjacent sidewalk and curb. We have adjusted the 24 drawings on A-1 to show a little bit more removal 25 area so that we do meet the highest elevation of the 45 1 sidewalk. We have also coordinated that on Drawing 2 A-2, and also have shown the replacement on Drawing 3 A-3. 4 MR. MATULE: Thank you. Now, one of 5 the -- I believe it was Condition Number 6 in the 6 letter of January 8th requested a street tree in 7 front of the property. In fact is there a street 8 tree right in front of the property now? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, there is a street 10 tree in front of the property right now. In fact, 11 the trees are spaced approximately 40 feet apart, so 12 there is a nice ribbon along Willow Avenue. 13 MR. MATULE: All right. They're not 14 actually shown on your plans though, are they? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: No, they are not. 16 MR. MATULE: Okay. For the board I 17 have a series of photographs here that has been taken 18 by Mr. Battaglia at various times which show the 19 existing tree as well as the trees on either edge of 20 the property. They're spaced evenly spaced on the 21 street as I understand it approximately 40 feet 22 apart. I don't know if that satisfies the condition 23 or not, whether you want more trees. As I understand 24 it that tree is right smack in the middle of the 25 property, so I'll have to leave that up to the board 46 1 or to the board engineer to advise us. 2 Okay. In the Medina letter, Point 1.2, 3 you want to comment on that? 4 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. I'd like to also 5 comment -- I previously commented on 1.1, but we also 6 have satisfied the condition of 1.2 of the January 7 4th letter on Drawing A-4, and we have revised the 8 curb as per NJ DOT standard details for a curb height 9 of 1.1 foot six. We have also stated bituminous 10 pavement of a height of ten inches and should be 11 annotated as Superpaved. So we have satisfied those 12 conditions and revised the drawing accordingly. 13 MR. MATULE: I have no further 14 questions of Mr. Johnston unless any board members or 15 anybody from the planning department does. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Medina, do you have 17 some questions? 18 MR. REIMON: Edwin Reimon from Medina 19 Consultants. What is the date of the latest revision 20 on the plans please? 21 MR. JOHNSTON: The latest revision date 22 is 1/7/2008. 23 MR. REIMON: The applicant has 24 addressed the comments regarding the replacement of 25 the sidewalk, but I would like to point out that when 47 1 they are replacing the sidewalk and curb they have to 2 be aware of the pitch of the sidewalk has to go from 3 the building toward the street. It's going to be a 4 hazardous condition if you put the sidewalk in a way 5 that the pitch is against the street. I visited the 6 site several times, especially one day when it was 7 raining, and the existing pitch of the sidewalk is 8 actually fairly flat. It's still pitching towards 9 the street. But please be aware that when you are 10 replacing the sidewalk and the curb you may not be 11 able to get the six inches revealed that is shown on 12 the detail as per NJ DOT because of the height of 13 first floor elevation of the building. Now, beyond 14 that entrance to the building you're going to be able 15 to get the six inches since you are going to be away 16 from the entrance to the building, and that's why I 17 made the comment that you should match the highest 18 elevation on the north and on the south. 19 MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. We appreciate 20 that comment, and that is actually true that with the 21 pitch that we may not get that six inches, but we are 22 concerned with, as you are, with the water problem 23 there of actually, you know, pitching away from the 24 building because we do have a water issue. 25 MR. REIMON: All right. I also noticed 48 1 that there is a tree already there. One thing is 2 that the tree has to be taken care of during the 3 spring and the summer just so that the tree doesn't 4 die. 5 MR. JOHNSTON: I think we could address 6 that. Mr. Battaglia I'm sure wants to keep his store 7 looking good, and I'm sure he'll take care of the 8 trees in the front. 9 MR. REIMON: Okay. I don't know if Mr. 10 Jasek has any additional comments. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jasek, do you have 12 any comments? 13 MR. JASEK: Well, Mr. Chairman, knowing 14 Hoboken, there is none of the curbs six inches high 15 because the original curb was built low and the 16 streets were paved several times, so we have 17 throughout Hoboken a curb between two and five 18 inches. I understand that the entrance of the 19 building is directly from the sidewalk without a step 20 up. 21 MR. JOHNSTON: Correct. 22 MR. JASEK: So I don't know how you 23 will manage to have a pitch which is by the building 24 code four inch a foot away from the building and 25 still have a six-inch curb. It cannot be done. 49 1 MR. JOHNSTON: Correct. 2 MR. JASEK: So what do you propose to 3 do? 4 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, I think Mr. Reimon 5 had just mentioned that in that particular portion 6 with him going to the site that we couldn't actually 7 achieve the DOT standard and that we would be less in 8 order to pitch away from the building, so we're going 9 to take the site condition and address it, you know, 10 per the elevation to get rid of the water. 11 MR. JASEK: I would like to see a 12 sketch with elevations showing the elevation of the 13 entrance to the building, because that will guide 14 your sidewalk. Then you calculate a pitch over the 15 length of the sidewalk and you give me the elevation 16 of the proposed curb and elevation of the sidewalk, 17 because we don't want to end up with puddling problem 18 and some other problems. 19 MR. JOHNSTON: With puddling problems 20 did you say? 21 MR. JASEK: Yes. 22 MR. JOHNSTON: We actually were just 23 speaking about that with the owner, because one of 24 the issues of the way the sidewalk was done was to 25 channel the water away from the existing site. 50 1 There's a parking lot next to it, and the owner gets 2 quite a bit of runoff from that. So that's what we 3 were trying to address since he did have his 4 entrance, you know, on grade there. 5 MR. JASEK: We don't want to end up 6 with half -- one-and-a-half-inch or two-inch curb, 7 all right, so we will need some kind of proof from 8 your surveyor how it's going to work. 9 MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. 10 MR. JASEK: 'Cause right now I 11 understand that there is practically no curb left, 12 and unless you are a magician, I don't know how you 13 can improve it. But we need to have some positive 14 proof on that with the elevations. 15 MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. 16 MR. JASEK: You cannot raise the 17 elevation in the building? 18 MR. JOHNSTON: No, we cannot raise the 19 elevation in the building, and there's actually a 20 good reason for that, because we want to be in 21 accordance with the ADA so we have a very accessible 22 building off the sidewalk there. 23 MR. JASEK: Well, it would be ADA if 24 the floor is two inches higher and the sidewalk is 25 two inches higher. 51 1 MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. With the existing 2 -- and I actually had surveyed this as did Mr. 3 Reimon. With the existing condition, with the high 4 point, to come and match it up, I'm not really sure 5 you're going to get that curb, but we will, you know, 6 give you those elevations and, you know, work towards 7 what you want to do. 8 MR. JASEK: Well, we need to look into 9 the adjoining properties too. We don't want any 10 abrupt change on the sidewalk. That's why I want 11 these elevations to be taken and recommended. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, really the 13 adjoining property is, quite frankly, causing a lot 14 of the runoff, so I don't see how they can be impeded 15 upon, because they're actually higher at that 16 particular end. 17 MR. JASEK: I see. 18 MR. JOHNSTON: And the reason why we 19 addressed it in this particular fashion was to take 20 care of that runoff so that we wouldn't have it 21 coming into the building. 22 MR. JASEK: Mr. Chairman, I would like 23 to have it as a condition that the applicant provides 24 the survey with the elevations of the critical points 25 to show how the water will be channeled from the 52 1 building to the street and still have a decent height 2 of the curb. 3 MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. 4 MR. JASEK: Thank you. 5 MR. TRIDENTE: Mario Tridente from the 6 improvement authority. You made a statement before 7 that there was an existing mezzanine. What was the 8 square feet of the existing mezzanine? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think I have 10 that. I do not have that. 11 MR. TRIDENTE: 'Cause I was on the site 12 before you put in the piles, the footings for the 13 structural beams for the mezzanine, and there was no 14 mezzanine. 15 MR. JOHNSTON: There was a mezzanine in 16 the front. I testified to that. 17 MR. TRIDENTE: Can you show me where it 18 is on there? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, this photograph is 20 after that mezzanine was taken out, but there was a 21 mezzanine in the back of the space which I can show 22 you on the drawings. Existing mezzanine and column 23 to be removed. All of this here was mezzanine, and, 24 in fact, even including this area, so a good part of 25 the front and part of the back had a mezzanine in it. 53 1 MR. TRIDENTE: This the front? 2 MR. JOHNSTON: That's the front. And, 3 in fact, there were stairs going up to that 4 mezzanine, one in the rear here and one in the front. 5 MR. TRIDENTE: Could you tell the board 6 how much of an expansion of that mezzanine there was. 7 Did it exceed 1,000 square feet? 8 MR. JOHNSTON: The expansion itself? 9 I'm not sure, because we removed it in the front and 10 made up for it in the rear, so I don't know. 11 MR. TRIDENTE: You're not sure. All 12 right. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Munoz, you 14 had something. 15 MR. MUNOZ: Yes. What did you say 16 again this was going to be used for? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: What's that? 18 MR. MUNOZ: The building was going to 19 be used for. 20 MR. JOHNSTON: Housewares and 21 furniture. 22 MR. MUNOZ: Like a retail store? 23 MR. JOHNSTON: Retail, yes. 24 MR. MUNOZ: Is it permitted for retail? 25 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 54 1 MR. MATULE: Yes. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Actually, it was a 3 hardware store. 4 MR. JOHNSTON: A hardware store. In 5 fact, it even says it on here, supplies. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: I know on that site 7 before it was a hardware store -- 8 MR. MATULE: It was a tire place. 9 MR. TRIDENTE: There was a conditioned 10 use. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Actually -- 12 MR. MATULE: The owner was 13 unfortunately crushed by a car there. 14 MR. HOLLOWAY: I have a question, Mr. 15 Chairman. 16 MR. TRIDENTE: In your packets, 17 Commissioner, I submitted a memorandum from Liz 18 VanDoerr, which is the city planner for the City of 19 Hoboken, and she explains the ordinance as it 20 pertains to this project. The property was a 21 conditional use, and, just for the record, although 22 we don't have jurisdiction in municipal issues, I 23 thought that it would be relevant to explain to the 24 commissioners that this project as it stands has a 25 discrepancy as it pertains to the local zoning 55 1 ordinances that a variance should have been sought 2 for an expansion of a nonconforming use in this zone. 3 This is just for the record. 4 MR. HOLLOWAY: Mr. Chairman, I have a 5 question. Has this been approved by Hoboken zoning? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, it has, and we do 7 have a letter of approval for the zoning. I was not 8 aware of anything like Mr. Tridente has stated. We 9 do have a zoning approval for this. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: When was that approved? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: Oh -- 12 MR. TRIDENTE: I have it here. 13 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, Mr. 14 Johnston, that was a zoning certificate, not an 15 approval or a variance by the board of adjustment. 16 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. We have a zoning 17 certificate, which I deem as an approval since it was 18 submitted to the zoning officer. 19 MR. MATULE: Zoning certificate of 20 compliance. 21 MR. JOHNSTON: Compliance, yes. 22 MR. MATULE: Which is issued by the 23 zoning officer as a prerequisite to getting any 24 building permits. 25 MR. JOHNSTON: If we didn't have zoning 56 1 approval, we wouldn't be able to get any building 2 permits, so we did have that compliance letter. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: When was that approved? 4 MR. MATULE: The first certificate of 5 zoning compliance was issued on September 18th, 2006. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: By who? 7 MR. MATULE: Virginia Buonfilio, acting 8 zoning officer of the City of Hoboken. It was for 9 the renovation of the existing commercial space to be 10 a housewares and furniture store with construction of 11 a second level for retail as per blueprints dated 12 9/13/06, P. Johnston Architect. 13 MR. HOLLOWAY: Mr. Chairman, we have a 14 letter here from the Hoboken city planner that says 15 not permitted -- retail or restaurant use are not 16 permitted. 17 MR. MATULE: Well, I don't know what 18 context that letter was written in. I know when 19 George's Hardware went in there, the prior use, they 20 had to go before the board and get -- I don't know 21 whether they got variances. I believe they had to 22 get variances because it was in a I1 district. But 23 the zoning officer -- and I can't speak for her -- 24 apparently because of the fact that it was being used 25 as a commercial operation felt it was of just a like 57 1 kind trade-off, but she's the gatekeeper. 2 MR. MATULE: Mr. Chairman, I understand 3 that this is not really in our jurisdiction, but I 4 know this board in the past, and I'm sure in the 5 future, has always approved applicants based on city 6 approvals for zoning or otherwise. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't know about -- 8 she's the city planner, but the zoning officer 9 approved this. 10 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: She's the one who 12 approved it, not -- this is her version why it 13 shouldn't be. I don't know if that holds any weight. 14 A zoning officer would hold more weight. She's the 15 one who said it was proper to have that type of 16 retail store in there, and that's the way I look at 17 it. I mean, this is her -- this Elizabeth VanDoerr, 18 this is her opinion. That's all this seems to me. 19 It's her opinion. I don't know legally what she has. 20 I mean, she's a city planner. She's hired by the 21 city as a consultant, whereas a zoning officer is a 22 certified New Jersey state, I guess, agent when she 23 signs for this. 24 MR. MATULE: If I may state for the 25 record, this is one of the matters that was in court 58 1 with the county and the City of Hoboken when stop 2 work orders were put on the job in, I believe it was 3 December. And we tried to coming back here for the 4 January meeting, and at that time the city was a 5 party to that litigation, Mr. Rezzo personally and 6 the City of Hoboken, and at no time was any issue 7 ever raised in that litigation regarding the 8 propriety of the city approvals. The issue was the 9 fact that the sidewalk in front of the building was 10 disturbed and consequently triggered the need to come 11 before the county. 12 I appreciate the concern. I question 13 the relevance at this point. The settlement that was 14 put on the record before Judge Gallipoli at that time 15 was that we would file an application with this 16 board, that we had to have a hearing within 35 days, 17 and that, assuming the application was approved 18 tonight, we're supposed to get a letter to bring back 19 to the construction official indicating that the stop 20 work order can be lifted. In light of all that, I 21 don't know what more we can do at this point to 22 support the fact that we have city approval since we 23 have the first certificate of zoning compliance and 24 have been working at the site for over a year before 25 we got stopped because of this. 59 1 MR. JOHNSTON: We were cited for the 2 sidewalk. 3 MR. HOLLOWAY: You represent the 4 applicant? 5 MR. MATULE: Yes. 6 MR. HOLLOWAY: You've been in front of 7 this county board before? 8 MR. MATULE: I have, yes. 9 MR. HOLLOWAY: And you know that if 10 you're dealing with anything on a county road you 11 have to come before this board, and -- correct me if 12 I'm wrong -- the reason why you're in front of us is 13 because we caught you doing something without coming 14 in front of us. You changed the -- 15 MR. MATULE: It is my understanding the 16 reason why we're before this board is because they 17 redid the sidewalk in front of the building. 18 MR. HOLLOWAY: I understand that. 19 That's a county -- you're on county property. You 20 know that. I'm just saying you represent them, so if 21 you had represented them the correct way they 22 wouldn't be in front of us dealing with this right 23 now. 24 MR. MATULE: Perhaps if they consulted 25 with me before the contractor chose to replace the 60 1 sidewalk I would have given them better advice. I 2 just want the record straight. I just want the full 3 board to understand what's going on here. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Did you obtain a permit 5 from the construction official for that sidewalk? 6 MR. MATULE: I can't answer that 7 question. I don't know if Mr. Battaglia can answer 8 that question, because he's not the contractor for 9 the job. I assume as -- my understanding is if 10 you're repairing a sidewalk -- I don't know. The 11 answer -- my answer to the question is I don't know. 12 I wasn't involved in the project. I only got 13 involved when it became a litigation matter. 14 MR. JOHNSTON: The contractor was 15 required to go and update his permit. I can't answer 16 to that. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Mehta. 18 MR. MEHTA: Chairman, my question is 19 just a simple technical question that as per the 20 applicant's attorney they got the stop order from 21 Hoboken because of this litigation, but before that 22 day they had a construction permit, but before 23 acquiring the construction permit did you apply or 24 did you go for any variance in front of the planning 25 board or the board of adjustment? 61 1 MR. MATULE: No, not for this 2 application. The way the process works is that the 3 zoning officer, the acting zoning officer, Miss 4 Buonfilio, she's the gatekeeper. When the architect 5 goes and files the application with her and gives her 6 the plans and tells her what it is they want to do, 7 she either says, fine, you're within the parameters 8 of the ordinance, here is your first certificate of 9 zoning, or she gives you a denial and says I'm 10 denying your request for a first certificate of 11 zoning compliance because and whatever the reason is, 12 it's an undersized lot, you need a height variance, 13 whatever the specifics may be, and that you have to 14 go to the board or that you need site plan approval. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: But she said that the 16 use is the same use and it don't have to go before 17 the board. That's what she said? 18 MR. MATULE: Her position was that it 19 was an existing commercial use and a new commercial 20 use was -- you know, the best analogy I can draw is 21 if it was a shoe store and now you want to put in a 22 hat store. It's a like kind, if you will, change. 23 It's not like it was a manufacturing facility and now 24 you want to make it a retail facility. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: A little history. That 62 1 was -- before it was the tire repair shop, it was 2 something else, I forgot what it was, but then it was 3 a tire repair shop and, you know, new tires, stuff 4 like that. Then they converted it to a -- 5 MR. MATULE: A hardware supply. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: -- hardware supply, and 7 now it's another commercial use. 8 MR. MATULE: Right. And at the time it 9 was converted to a hardware supply it is my 10 recollection -- unfortunately, I never received a 11 copy of Miss VanDoerr's memo or I perhaps would have 12 been in a better position to address it this evening. 13 My recollection is that when George's Hardware went 14 in there and made it the hardware supply place he did 15 go before the board and he did receive zoning 16 approval to do that, because I believe I represented 17 him many, many years ago when that was done. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: It was 1996. 19 MR. MEHTA: Chairman, just another 20 question. If you are saying that the zoning officer 21 allowed you to get the permit but before that if it 22 was like a shoe store or a hat store I understand. 23 But if you are going to do any modification, if you 24 are going to alter any footprint of the store, isn't 25 it required that any type of variance you have to 63 1 have the appearance in front of the board? 2 MR. MATULE: As long as you're only 3 working within the existing volume of the building, 4 no, and that's all that's been done here. The 5 exterior -- other than replacing windows -- 6 MR. MEHTA: Yes. You are not changing 7 the four walls, but you are changing the footprint 8 inside the building. 9 MR. MATULE: Doesn't make any 10 difference as long as it's retail to retail. 11 MR. JOHNSTON: You still have the same 12 envelope of the building. 13 MR. MATULE: It's the same use group, 14 it's the same building envelope, and because you're 15 not making it any bigger, you're not triggering any 16 need to do anything. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: This all came about 18 because somebody screwed up here. It was a county 19 road. Somebody should have told you before you even 20 started anything in Hoboken, and they knew about it. 21 I think they personally knew about it. I don't know 22 if the zoning board knew about it, but somebody had 23 to know that you had to come up here to obtain 24 approval. 25 Now, you are not the only person that 64 1 fell into this. There are a couple in Hoboken that 2 had to come before us, okay, and I hope this never 3 happens again, believe me, because, you know, we 4 notified all construction officials and all city 5 agencies involved in this, planning, zoning, the law 6 department. For years we've been after them -- and, 7 Bob, you can say it -- for years we have been after 8 them to come up here. 9 In Bayonne, we had a problem in Bayonne 10 and a couple other towns, Kearny. But it seems to me 11 that somebody knew that they should have came up here 12 and didn't, and that's where the problem -- that's 13 where the problem lies. This probably -- if it was 14 done the right way, you wouldn't be in this position. 15 MR. MEHTA: Chairman, another thing, a 16 legal issue, a legal question to our attorney. In 17 this case as per the applicant's statement they don't 18 need to go for any variance in front of any board, 19 and because of this issue they are to come in front 20 of our board, and the litigation matter. What is 21 your opinion? 22 MR. CALVANICO: The issue of the use is 23 it's a fact based issue, so it depends on what was 24 determined by whoever that fact finder has to be, if 25 it's the zoning officer or the planning board. They 65 1 have to decide whether the change in use is 2 significant enough to trigger an application to the 3 planning board or board of adjustment. 4 The applicant's position of course is 5 that it's not significant enough, and he has 6 apparently gotten -- you know, the zoning officer or 7 the acting zoning officer at the time agreed with 8 that saying that it wasn't an expansion of the use 9 such that it would require that application. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think that we 11 have -- I mean, I don't know that we can overturn the 12 decision of the zoning officer. I don't believe we 13 have that authority. 14 MR. HOLLOWAY: No. I don't think 15 that's what we're doing. I think we're putting it on 16 record that we understand where this is going. 17 MR. MEHTA: No. Like Mr. Calvanico 18 said, every time an application or a board approval 19 is always subject to the approval of the local board 20 and local government, because we have definitely 21 limited jurisdiction. But in that case every 22 approval you can say deny this application. Do they 23 have to go in front of Hoboken board or not? 24 MR. CALVANICO: No, not based upon what 25 -- if the zoning officer approves it, they don't, and 66 1 that's what happened here. 2 MR. JASEK: Mr. Chairman, I just want 3 to make it clear in my mind. If I vote on this 4 application, I want to be absolutely certain. The 5 way I read this approval from 1996 there's not 6 supposed to be retail hardware store. The memo from 7 Elizabeth VanDoerr says the same thing, retail or 8 restaurant use is not permitted. So I understand 9 that there is no retail store, there is a supply 10 store, and it doesn't list not permitted samples of 11 this. It doesn't include a supplies store, only 12 retail store. So I think that's the crux of this 13 case, that the supply store is permitted and a zoning 14 officer had no issue with that even if they are 15 remodeling and they are staying with a supply store. 16 That's my understanding of that. 17 MR. MEHTA: Supply means you are trying 18 to sell -- it's like a type of warehouse. 19 MR. JASEK: It's not retail. You don't 20 have -- 21 MR. MEHTA: Okay. So a customer is not 22 coming in or customer is not going out. It is just a 23 distribution. 24 MR. JASEK: It's a supply store for 25 commercial accounts. That's my understanding. 67 1 MR. MATULE: But that's not what the 2 zoning certificate that was issued in 2006 says. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have a copy of 4 that? 5 MR. MATULE: Yes, I do. I'll be happy 6 to mark it into the record, but it states "for the 7 renovation of existing commercial space to be a 8 housewares and furniture store". 9 THE CHAIRMAN: When was that dated? 10 MR. MATULE: 9/18/06. If I may, can I? 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Give it to the lawyer. 12 MR. MATULE: I would also like to state 13 for the record that Mr. Battaglia's been a 14 businessman in Hoboken and operated several retail 15 stores for many years. He's a long-time resident of 16 the town. And, frankly, if the zoning officer said 17 we had to go to the board, we would have gone to the 18 board. You know, to a certain degree we rely on 19 them. When I say we, I mean a layperson. They have 20 their architect or their contractor go in and file 21 for the paperwork, and whatever they're told they 22 have to do they do. So, I mean, I don't want this to 23 somehow reflect negatively on Mr. Battaglia that he 24 tried to cut a corner or pull a fast one or pull the 25 wool over somebody's eyes, because that's not the 68 1 case. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm sure that if the 3 zoning officer said that this was a legal use, all 4 right, she put her job on the line when she said 5 that. That's a legal use. That's what I'm going on. 6 She approved it. 7 MR. MATULE: Well, I'm sure -- 8 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think this -- 9 I'm saying as a planning board we've got to walk a 10 little bit, you know, slowly here, but, you know, 11 they got the approval from the zoning officer giving 12 them the right to do what they want, and that is not 13 our jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction is to make sure 14 that they provide to the county's rules and 15 regulations on whether it be drainage or parking or 16 sidewalks and stuff like that. I think -- is that 17 right, Bob? Am I right? 18 MR. JASEK: That's absolutely correct. 19 I made a comment just that we don't approve something 20 which might not be correct even if it is in our 21 jurisdiction. So if we approve it, we should make it 22 clear in the resolution that it was presented to us 23 that all the municipal approval from the planning or 24 zoning are in place and we depend on these documents. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Director. 69 1 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, just for 2 the record and to I guess address some of the issues 3 that came up, Mr. Matule says that this issue and 4 this application was about sidewalks, and I 5 respectfully disagree with Mr. Matule. The Hudson 6 County site plan and subdivision review resolution 7 states that any time there's a commercial or 8 industrial use along a county road or impacting 9 county drainage facilities that is redeveloped or 10 rehabilitated or has a change in use, it should, 11 must, shall come before the Hudson County Planning 12 Board for your approval. That's your jurisdiction. 13 That's your prerogative to hear the case. The 14 applications shall be filed, and you shall review, 15 and if they're in accordance with the county 16 standards, then they're approved. So it's not just 17 about the sidewalks. 18 With regard to the zoning certificate, 19 that is a -- and again I respectfully disagree with 20 Mr. Matule -- it's a municipal matter. Okay? The 21 municipality has sole jurisdiction over land use, 22 over zoning within their municipality. They 23 determine the administrative processes for approval, 24 whether it's by a zoning officer or a board of 25 adjustment or a planning board. That's their 70 1 prerogative. 2 However, that being said, the change of 3 use from the first use to this proposed use was 4 enough of a trigger to have -- and Judge D'Italia 5 agreed with it in court on December 7th of 2007 -- to 6 have the -- and basically put forth that the property 7 owner/developer put forth an application before this 8 board and seek approval. So it's not just about 9 sidewalks. It's a change of use which the county 10 planning board has jurisdiction over. The Hudson 11 County Board of Chosen Freeholders in drafting and 12 approving the site plan subdivision resolution 13 recognized that changes of uses. 14 And it's not as simple as changing from 15 a shoe store to a hat store, because what happens 16 down the road in six months when somebody is changing 17 from a gas station to some other use that's going to 18 generate a lot more either pedestrian traffic or 19 automobile traffic or potentially have a negative 20 drainage impact on county drainage facilities? So I 21 respectfully disagree. It's not about sidewalks. 22 It's not about zoning. However, it is solely -- not 23 solely -- but it is totally within this board's 24 jurisdiction to hear the application and either 25 conditionally approve it, approve it or deny it based 71 1 on whether they meet the county standards. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah, but the zoning 3 officer approved the use of that building. 4 THE SECRETARY: Right, correct. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: All right? Am I right? 6 THE SECRETARY: You are correct. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: So they went on the 8 Hoboken zoning officer about the use. The zoning 9 officer felt that there was no change. 10 THE SECRETARY: Correct. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Am I right? 12 THE SECRETARY: Under Hoboken's zoning 13 ordinance -- 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah. What's the 15 difference between a commercial piece of property 16 that was a tire place, a hardware store and now a 17 supply store, whatever it is? 18 MR. MATULE: Furniture. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: A furniture store. 20 THE SECRETARY: What many 21 municipalities do in their zoning map and their 22 zoning ordinance is either -- 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Is that zoned for -- is 24 that zoned for a commercial use? 25 THE SECRETARY: I can't speak to that. 72 1 However, I can say -- 2 THE CHAIRMAN: No. I mean, you're 3 saying that the county has jurisdiction, but does the 4 county know if that's zoned for commercial use? 5 THE SECRETARY: Even if it did change 6 from a hat store to a shoe store, the change in use 7 would require them to come before the county planning 8 board for approval. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: I think anybody that 10 does something like that has to come before the 11 county board. We know that. 12 THE SECRETARY: But Hoboken's internal 13 administrative functions and how they determine 14 whether, you know, a particular change in use 15 requires the approval of the zoning officer or the 16 board of adjustment, that is determined by their 17 zoning ordinance. That's not something that this 18 board has jurisdiction over. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah, but we usually as 20 a board upon the recommendation of the zoning officer 21 or planner of a municipality or township, we usually 22 approve what they want as long as they provide -- do 23 what we say that the county wants to be done on that 24 property, so we could approve this with conditions. 25 THE SECRETARY: Correct. 73 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Am I right? 2 THE SECRETARY: You are correct. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: And you had conditions. 4 Right, Bob? 5 MR. JASEK: That's correct, Mr. 6 Chairman, yes. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: What were the 8 conditions? 9 MR. JASEK: I presented two conditions. 10 One would be to deliver to this board or to the 11 planning department a survey which will show the 12 elevation of the floor, proposed elevation of the 13 curb, the pavement and the contours of the sidewalk. 14 The second condition would be that this board relies 15 on all the approvals of the zoning officer or the 16 board of -- zoning board of adjustment that this use 17 is permitted. 18 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, may I 19 interject? 20 MR. REIMON: Mr. Chairman, in reference 21 to the conditions Mr. Jasek just made reference to 22 proposed elevations, maybe -- are we making 23 references to the as-built elevations, that's what 24 you want to do, or you want to do just one? 25 MR. JASEK: Well, I understand that 74 1 what has been built has to be removed. 2 MR. REIMON: That's what I mean. 3 MR. JASEK: Then I want the proposed 4 elevation. 5 MR. REIMON: On the as-built 6 elevations? 7 MR. JASEK: So we have something to 8 review, and then we can check if they build it as the 9 proposed plan, yes. 10 MR. REIMON: Then you need the 11 as-builts to have it approved that they built it as 12 they proposed, or you just happy with the proposed 13 elevations? 14 MR. JASEK: No. The proposed elevation 15 at this point is enough, because the as-built we 16 wouldn't see for a year later, and we don't want to 17 carry it that long. My inspector would be able to 18 determine if it is correct. 19 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, if I 20 could just suggest the condition be that the curbs 21 and sidewalks be replaced to the satisfaction of the 22 county engineer. 23 MR. JASEK: Yes. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Not only that. Well, 25 I'll talk to you after this. This property, it's all 75 1 commercial property along that whole area. There's a 2 for rent sign on an old Hersh building, and I'm sure 3 there's going to be modifications if somebody comes 4 into that area, so we're going to have a problem down 5 the line on another building in there. That was all 6 commercial, so -- 7 MR. MATULE: If I might, just to be 8 clear, as I understand it a portion of the sidewalk 9 has already been redone here. Is that correct, Mr. 10 Johnston? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: That is correct. 12 MR. MATULE: So is this board now 13 asking us to rip that all out -- 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 15 MR. MATULE: -- and replace it? 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. According to the 17 county engineer, yes. 18 THE SECRETARY: And, Mr. Chairman, 19 according to Mr. Tridente's findings the sidewalks 20 that had been put down by the applicant, the 21 developer, were not to county standards. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: We just -- I just told 23 them that they had to consult with the county 24 engineer and they may -- if that sidewalk does not 25 fit the specs, then they may -- they have to comply 76 1 with the engineer. 2 MR. REIMON: I think that we need to 3 clarify the issue about the elevations of the 4 sidewalk. The first step is to take spot elevations 5 along the existing curb on sidewalk in front of 6 entire property regardless if it's a sidewalk and 7 curb that has been replaced recently or if it's an 8 old sidewalk and curb on the north and south side. 9 That's what Mr. Jasek is talking about. He wants to 10 see what is there and he wants to see the proposed 11 elevations that they meet the county standards. So 12 there are two things that needs to be done here to 13 satisfy the conditions that Mr. Jasek is proposing. 14 Am I correct? 15 MR. JASEK: It's correct. We need a 16 regular site plan with elevations, with existing and 17 the proposed, and the elevation of the floor so it 18 can be matched with the first floor of the building 19 which can be matched with the sidewalk. 20 MR. MATULE: Thank you for clarifying 21 that. 22 MR. MUNOZ: Let me understand this. 23 The sidewalk was -- this is a new sidewalk? 24 MR. MATULE: Yes, a large portion of it 25 it's my understanding based on the photographs I've 77 1 seen. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner, you know 3 what happened here is that they went ahead without 4 county planning board approval and did work there, 5 and they shouldn't have went ahead and did it. We 6 don't know if that meets the specs of the county. 7 That's why we're going forward, you know, with what 8 Commissioner Jasek said. He's the engineer. So they 9 have to meet the specs with the county engineer. 10 MR. MUNOZ: Okay. You're asking them 11 to rip up the whole thing? 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, you know, what's 13 to be is to be. 14 MR. JASEK: Mr. Chairman, in our 15 package is the memo from the county construction 16 inspector, Louie D'Amico, and he says in his report 17 that inspection of the curbing and sidewalk do not 18 meet the county specifications. 19 MR. MATULE: I don't think the 20 applicant has any problem with having elevations of 21 the current situation done, and then we can consult 22 with the county engineer's consultants and determine 23 what's the best way to deal with getting it as close 24 as we can get it to the county standards considering 25 the conditions that exist on the ground with the 78 1 surrounding buildings and the existing buildings. We 2 don't have any -- you know, I think we understand 3 what it is that you're asking us to do, and we don't 4 have a problem with that. I mean, obviously at some 5 point our architect and your engineer are going to 6 have to come to some meeting of the minds as to 7 what's the appropriate way of dealing with the 8 physical conditions that exist there to the county's 9 satisfaction, and we're okay with that. 10 MR. JASEK: Yes, Mr. Chairman. They 11 applied for the permits for a sidewalk and curb 12 construction. We will give them written regulations 13 and the rules how it's got to be done, and they have 14 to follow up on that. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Do we have a 16 motion? 17 MR. CHOFFO: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to 18 make a motion to approve Application SP-49-07 with 19 Commissioner Jasek's recommendations regarding the 20 elevation of the sidewalk, the floor and the curb and 21 also all local approvals. 22 MR. CALVANICO: Mr. Chairman, if I 23 might, I have the document that Mr. Battaglia -- I'd 24 like to have it marked into evidence. 25 (First certificate of zoning compliance 79 1 marked Exhibit 1A for identification.) 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Do we have a second on 3 the motion? 4 MR. JASEK: I second the motion. 5 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, on a 6 motion to conditionally approve Application SP-49-07 7 made by Commissioner Choffo and seconded by 8 Commissioner Jasek, Commissioner Avagliano? 9 MS. AVAGLIANO: I vote aye with the 10 conditions mentioned by Commissioner Choffo. 11 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Choffo? 12 MR. CHOFFO: I vote aye. 13 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner 14 Didomenico? 15 MS. DIDOMENICO: Aye. 16 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Holloway? 17 MR. HOLLOWAY: Abstain. 18 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Jasek? 19 MR. JASEK: Aye. 20 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Mehta? 21 MR. MEHTA: I still don't follow 22 entirely validity of this project, so I will abstain. 23 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Munoz? 24 MR. MUNOZ: Abstain. 25 THE SECRETARY: Commissioner Ng? 80 1 MR. NG: Abstain. 2 THE SECRETARY: Chairman Fitzgibbons? 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Aye. 4 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, I have 5 five votes in the affirmative and four abstentions. 6 The motion passed. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Work with the engineer. 8 MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. 9 MR. MATULE: Thank you. 10 MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. 11 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, the next 12 matter scheduled for this evening is 5E on the 13 agenda, applications to be dismissed. Application 14 SP/SD-93-06, Roseland/Port Imperial, LLC, located at 15 Port Imperial Section of the CWDD zone in the Town of 16 West New York, which is Block 168.01, Lots 7.02 and 17 8, Mr. Chairman, this application was received by the 18 county actually in the calendar year 2006. It was 19 scheduled originally for public hearing in February 20 of 2007. It was requested by the attorneys Weiner 21 Lesniak, Joe Daly specifically from Weiner Le