Jersey City Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting – April 11, 2026

Note on date: The transcript indicates the meeting was held on April 9, 2026, but the instruction provided states the meeting took place on April 11, 2026. This summary follows the instruction date, but the discrepancy is noted.

This was a regularly scheduled meeting of the Jersey City Zoning Board of Adjustment, called to order at approximately 7:00 PM. Six commissioners were present, constituting a quorum. The meeting proceeded through three cases: a one-year extension of approvals, a residential addition with a variance, and a contentious appeal of a demolition permit denial for a property in a proposed historic district. Public comments were heard on the third case, and the board voted to deny the appeal, effectively upholding the Historic Preservation Commission’s decision.

Consent Calendar / Routine Actions

• Z2026-0021 – 297th Association LLC: A one-year extension of approvals originally granted on April 22, 2021, and previously extended twice (July 13, 2023 and August 8, 2024). The approvals had expired on May 27, 2025. The applicant stated that all permits have been gathered and are ready for submission. Staff recommended approval subject to compliance with original conditions. The board voted 6-0 to approve.
• Z2025-0055 – 366 Fifth Street: A proposal for a rear and fourth-floor addition to an existing three-story single-family home on an undersized lot (12.5 ft x 50 ft, whereas the conforming lot is 18 ft x 100 ft). The applicant requested a C variance for a rear yard setback (15 ft required, 8.7 ft proposed). The building’s height would increase from 31 ft to just under 36 ft (well below the 42 ft limit). The board approved 6-0 with conditions.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Cynthia Scott (63 Sherman Place): Representing Pershing Field Neighborhood Association. Expressed support for the Historic Preservation Commission’s ruling. Stressed that the Sherman Place Historic District is in the process of adoption and that the HPC is a safeguard for the city’s architecture.
• Laura Ford (101 Sherman Place): Noted that many houses in the area were restored over time, and that the building at 32 Sherman Place could be similarly restored. Urged the board not to undermine the HPC.
• Amanda Levy (8 Troy Street): Vice President of Pershing Field Neighborhood Association. Warned against using past code violations and neglect to justify demolition. Argued that the Hunter survey identified the property as contributing, and that restoration is a valid goal.
• Colin Egan (35 Sherman Place): Stressed that the building’s massing, roof lines, and overall shape retain integrity. Compared the situation to the Loew’s Jersey Theatre restoration. Argued that the structure remains recognizable as a Queen Anne building.
• Representative from the RNA development committee: Supported the PFNA position, citing examples where historic properties were restored and added value to neighborhoods. Opposed setting a precedent that allows demolition after neglect.
• Heather Sporn (274 Webster Avenue): Argued that allowing demolition while a historic district is pending would undermine the entire process. Noted that many buildings were restored after initial deterioration.
• Alexander Vyushkov (33 Sherman Place): Asked the board not to reward demolition by neglect. Urged affirming previous decisions to preserve neighborhood character.
• Norris Raymaker (109 Palisade): Shared personal experience of family removing historic features. Urged standing with the HPC and supporting better building practices.
• Christopher Perez (185 Carteret Avenue): Presented a detailed defense of the property’s significance, noting its construction date (1896), the original owner (George W. Augustine), and its role as a visual marker of development history. Argued that enough character-defining features remain, and that the building is a contributing site to the proposed Sherman Place Historic District.

At the close of public comments, no further individuals wished to speak.

Discussion Items

• Z2026-0004 – 32 Sherman Place (Appeal of Demolition Permit Denial): The applicant, represented by Jennifer Barard, sought to overturn the Historic Preservation Commission’s (HPC) denial of a demolition permit. The property is a 2.5-story, 4-unit multifamily dwelling built in the late 1890s, located in the RH1 zone. The HPC ruled that the building retains sufficient historic significance (as a Queen Anne style structure) to warrant preservation. The applicant’s expert, Peter Primavera, testified that after 26 identified alterations to the primary facade, the building has lost almost all historic fabric and integrity. He argued that only two triangular roof elements remain of the original Queen Anne design, and that this is insufficient for significance under city ordinance. He also questioned the legality of using integrity as the sole test for significance. In contrast, HPC staff and the HPC’s outside consultant (Hunter Research) concluded that the building’s roof line and overall form still convey its Queen Anne identity, making it a contributing building in the proposed Sherman Place Historic District. The board discussed the meaning of integrity and the weight of prior surveys. The applicant’s attorney noted that the property owner bought the building in 1987 in its current condition and did not cause the alterations. The board’s attorney clarified that the vote was on whether to uphold the appeal (allow demolition) or to deny the appeal (uphold the HPC’s denial). After deliberation, the board voted 6-1 to deny the appeal, thus upholding the HPC’s decision and preventing demolition. Commissioner Patel voted against the motion, stating that “the integrity is destroyed.”

Key Outcomes

• Z2026-0021: Approved 6-0, granting a one-year extension to May 27, 2026.
• Z2025-0055: Approved 6-0, with conditions as outlined in staff memo.
• Z2026-0004: Appeal denied 6-1, upholding the HPC’s denial of the demolition permit for 32 Sherman Place.
• Resolutions Memorialized: Three previous cases (Z2024-0063, Z2023-024, Z2026-0020) were memorialized by unanimous vote.
• Adjournment: Meeting adjourned approximately at 10:10 PM (based on timeline; no case started after 10 PM).