Jersey City Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting - September 12, 2025

This meeting of the Jersey City Zoning Board of Adjustment, held in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, began at approximately 5:00 PM (the exact time was not specified) on September 12, 2025, despite the raw transcript referencing September 11, 2025. The board considered three cases: a one-year extension for a restaurant conversion, an appeal of a zoning officer's approval for a partial demolition and accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 85 Sherman Place, and a carry-over request. The meeting featured extensive testimony from both the appellant and the applicant, public comment, and concluded with the denial of the appeal.

Consent Calendar

• Case Z2025-0054: A third and final one-year extension for a minor site plan with D variance at 230 Fourth Street (conversion of a former tire shop to a restaurant). The applicant cited litigation, partnership issues, and financing delays. The board approved the extension unanimously (7-0 in favor) with the original conditions.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Sasha Greco (125 Sherman Place) spoke emotionally about the historic beauty of Sherman Place and her experience watching a developer destroy a neighboring property. She opposed the project, citing loss of light and historic fabric.
• Catherine Healy (125 Charles Street), a lifelong resident and candidate for Ward D Council, objected strongly, alleging a conflict of interest because Tanya Marion serves as both planning director and acting zoning officer, and that the project "stinks of corruption." She threatened to pass "draconian ordinances" if the appeal was denied.
• Alexandre Ibraken (81 Sherman Place) opposed the project due to the loss of outdoor space, natural light, and concern about construction noise and dust affecting his young children.
• Ivan Garcia (89 Sherman Place) praised the block's character and foot traffic from people admiring the historic homes. He urged the board to preserve the neighborhood.
• Cynthia Scott (63 Sherman Place) noted the property is in a proposed historic district and that the city had been a partner in the designation process. She argued the project should have received more scrutiny.
• Jay (108 Sherman Place) described the rich wildlife in the continuous backyards and worried the ADU and addition would destroy the open space and menagerie.
• Elvin Dominici Incarnacion (activist) appealed to protect the historic district and set a precedent against similar developments.
• Kern Weissman (Riverview Neighbors Association) opposed the precedent of partial demolition for ADUs without proper HPC review, noting that three other lots on the block could replicate the project.
• Colin Egan (35 Sherman Place) stated the RH1 zoning's design standard requiring buildings to relate to existing pattern of development was not met, and asked for the permits to be retracted and sent to HPC.
• Jeanette Pilat (106 Sherman Place) spoke as a French immigrant who chose to stay in Jersey City because of Sherman Place's historic character. She noted her children recognize details and patterns, and feared development would destroy the neighborhood.
• Laura Ford (101 Sherman Place) recounted the community's 17-year effort to restore Sherman Place, partnering with the city. She said the city's stated goal is to protect historic areas, but this project bypasses proper process.
• Anthony Sankamp (91 Bright Street) , a 22-year HPC commissioner, cited a New Jersey appellate court ruling that municipalities cannot delegate HPC powers to other entities. He argued the demolition application should have gone before the HPC.
• Victor Quinones (105 Sherman Place) raised fire safety concerns, recounting a fire in a landlocked building that burned because fire trucks could not access it.
• Deborah Mack Williams (787 Summit Avenue) said she left New York to avoid overdevelopment and pleaded with the board to preserve architectural variety.
• Deborah Di Venezia (72 Bleaker Street) stressed that the decision affects the whole city, not just Sherman Place. She urged thoughtful development.

Discussion Items

• Case Z2025-0056 – 85 Sherman Place Appeal: The appellant, represented by Cynthia Hagianis, challenged the acting zoning officer's (Tanya Marion) approval of a partial demolition and new ADU. Appellant's expert, Jacqueline Poe Duvalon, a historic preservation consultant, testified that the plans omitted critical structural details (no shoring plans, no engineering drawings), would remove the entire rear wall and interior, leaving only two walls standing, and violated the Secretary of the Interior Standards. She argued the design did not comply with RH1 design standards, especially regarding building massing and pattern of development. Fact witness Paul Amatuso, a 20-year resident and former HPC commissioner, described the proposed addition as an 85-foot-long, three-story structure that would block light and air from his property, destroy the view of sunset, and set a harmful precedent. He also noted the city had been a partner in the historic district effort but failed to apply its own demolition regulations.
• Applicant's Case: The applicant's attorney, Charles Harrington, argued the project is “as of right” – complying with all bulk standards and design standards as determined by the zoning officer and historic preservation officer. Architect Jeffrey Lewis testified that the partial demolition is necessary to bring the existing non-conforming structure into compliance with fire safety codes (egress from bedrooms, window setbacks). He stated the ADU is a permitted accessory use under the RH1 zone and that demolition plans are standard for zoning review; structural and shoring plans are submitted later during building permit stage. Planner Samuel Bellamy confirmed no variances are needed except for a brick veneer (which the applicant agreed to change to full brick). He stated that one- and two-family homes are exempt from site plan review per state law, and the ADU does not trigger site plan thresholds.
• City Staff Testimony: Supervising Planner Matt Ward explained the RH1 zone's purpose is to protect large-lot character, not to create historic districts. He stated that the historic preservation officer (HPO) reviewed the partial demolition and recommended approval, and that the project meets all design standards except for the brick veneer (now corrected). He also said the ADU ordinance permits new construction, and the development is compliant with demolition procedures. He identified the brick face as requiring a variance.
• Rebuttal by Appellant's Expert: Jacqueline Poe Duvalon responded that the front facade restoration claimed by the applicant is not evident on the drawings, and the use of Hardy Plank and fiberglass windows is inappropriate for a historic building. She questioned how two remaining walls would be supported during construction without shoring plans.

Key Outcomes

• Vote on Appeal (Z2025-0056): The board voted on a motion to approve the appeal (which would overturn the zoning officer's approval). The motion failed by a vote of 6 in favor of denying the appeal (Commissioners Allen, Burns, Barron, D'Angelo, Shadid, Vice Chair Rule) and 0 in favor of approving the appeal; Chair Coyle abstained. Six members voted “no” on the motion, effectively denying the appeal and affirming the zoning officer's determination. Therefore, the zoning approval stands, and the project may proceed as approved, subject to the brick face correction.
• Carry-Over Requests:
  • Item 11 (Z2024-0076, 30 DuCAB Avenue) carried to October 9, 2025.
  • Item 12 (Z2025-0046, 292 Arlington Avenue) carried to October 23, 2025.
  • 162 Summit Avenue carried to October 23, 2025, with preservation of notice.
• Memorialization of Previous Resolutions: The board unanimously (or with one abstention in certain cases) memorialized the following cases:
  • Z2025-0020 (128 Glenwood) – approved August 7, 2025 (7-0).
  • Z2025-0041 (Hilltop View Holdings, 130 Summit Avenue) – approved July 10, 2025 (6-1, D'Angelo abstained).
  • Z2025-0002 (minor subdivision for Hilltop) – same vote (6-1).
  • Z2025-0004 (final major site plan amendment for Hilltop) – same vote (6-1).
  • Z2025-0025 (DMA 19 LLC, 3411 Kennedy Boulevard) – approved June 5, 2025 (5-0).
  • Z2025-0029 (Oda Bar JC LLC) – approved August 7, 2025 (7-0).
  • Corrective memorialization for a prior case (Z2025-0051) – approved.
• The meeting was adjourned after the resolutions.