Planning Board

1 1 CITY OF UNION CITY HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY 2 PLANNING BOARD 3 : REGULAR MEETING : TRANSCRIPT OF 4 : --------------------: PROCEEDINGS 5 6 Union City High School Media Center 7 2500 Kennedy Boulevard Union City, New Jersey 8 9 Tuesday, March 28, 2023 Commencing at 6:03 p.m. 10 11 M E M B E R S P R E S E N T: 12 ALEJANDRO VELAZQUEZ, Chairperson YDALIA GENAO 13 ALICIA MOREJON FRANKLIN MEDINA 14 JOSE GUARENO, Alternate #1 HECTOR OSEGUERA, Alternate #2 15 M E M B E R S A B S E N T: 16 BRIAN T. STACK, Mayor 17 CELIN J. VALDIVIA, Commissioner CAROLINA FERNANDEZ 18 A L S O P R E S E N T: 19 BRIAN CHEWCASKIE, ESQ. 20 Board Counsel 21 CARLOS VALLEJO, Board Secretary 22 DAVID SPATZ, P.P. 23 24 SUSAN BISCHOFF, CCR, RPR 449 Columbia Blvd., Wood-Ridge, NJ 07075 25 201-933-8220 SBischoffccr@yahoo.com  2 1 A P P E A R A N C E S: 2 J. ALVARO ALONSO, ESQ. Attorney for Applicant, West 13, LLC 3 BIANCA PEREIRAS, ESQ. 4 Attorney for Applicant, 613 39th Street, LLC 5 BIANCA PEREIRAS, ESQ. Attorney for Applicant, Michael Szczesny 6 ADOLFO LOPEZ, ESQ. 7 Attorney for Applicant, 15th Street UC, LLC 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  3 1 I N D E X 2 PAGE 3 CALL TO ORDER 5 4 SALUTE TO FLAG 5 5 ROLL CALL 6 6 ADOPTION OF MINUTES 7 7 HEARINGS/APPLICATIONS/EXTENSION 8/24/28/33 8 ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS 48/51/53/55 9 ADJOURNMENT 57 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  4 1 I N D E X 2 MICHAEL SZCZESNY 3 912 PALISADE AVENUE 4 5 SWORN PAGE 6 MANUEL PEREIRAS 29 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  5 1 MR. VALLEJO: May I have your attention, 2 please? 3 Please take notice that on Tuesday, 4 March 28, 2023, at 6:00 p.m., a regular meeting is 5 scheduled for the City of Union City Planning 6 Board, to be held in Union City High School, 7 located at 2500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Union 8 City, New Jersey. 9 Adequate notice of this meeting has been 10 provided as follows: 11 Notice of this meeting setting forth the 12 time, date, location, to the agenda to the extent 13 known, was forwarded to The Jersey Journal, The 14 Record, and The Hudson Reporter, has been posted 15 on the bulletin board in City Hall, and has been 16 made available to the public in the Office of the 17 Municipal Clerk, also posted on the fronted door 18 of the high school. 19 Before we do roll call for tonight's 20 meeting, can everybody kindly rise to salute the 21 flag, please? 22 23 (Whereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was 24 recited.) 25  6 1 ROLL CALL: 2 3 MR. VALLEJO: Thank you. 4 Roll call for tonight's meeting, Mayor 5 Brian Stack, absent. 6 Chairperson Velazquez. 7 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: Here. 8 MR. VALLEJO: Commissioner Celin 9 Valdivia is absent. 10 Ms. Genao. 11 MS. GENAO: Yes. 12 MR. VALLEJO: Ms. Morejon. 13 MS. MOREJON: Yes. 14 MR. VALLEJO: Ms. Fernandez is absent. 15 Mr. Medina. 16 MR. MEDINA: Here. 17 MR. VALLEJO: Mr. Guareno. 18 MR. GUARENO: Here. 19 MR. VALLEJO: Mr. Oseguera. 20 MR. OSEGUERA: Here. 21 MR. VALLEJO: Let the record indicate 22 there are six present. Those absent tonight are 23 Mayor Stack, Commissioner Valdivia, and Ms. 24 Fernandez. 25 * * * *  7 1 ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 2 3 MR. VALLEJO: We're going to adoption of 4 minutes of the regular meeting held on 5 February 28, 2023. Can I have a motion? 6 MR. GUARENO: Motion. 7 MS. MOREJON: Second. 8 MR. VALLEJO: Motion by Mr. Guareno, 9 seconded by Ms. Morejon. 10 Roll call on the motion. Mr. Velazquez. 11 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: Yes. 12 MR. VALLEJO: Ms. Genao. 13 MS. GENAO: Yes. 14 MR. VALLEJO: Ms. Morejon. 15 MS. MOREJON: Yes. 16 MR. VALLEJO: Mr. Guareno. 17 MR. GUARENO: Yes. 18 MR. VALLEJO: Mr. Oseguera. 19 MR. OSEGUERA: Yes. 20 MR. VALLEJO: Mr. Medina abstains, he 21 was not present at the previous meeting, Right? 22 MR. MEDINA: Yes. 23 MR. VALLEJO: Five in favor, one 24 abstained, motion carries. 25 * * * *  8 1 HEARING: 2 WEST 13, LLC - 3 409 4TH STREET: 4 5 MR. VALLEJO: Item number one, West 13, 6 LLC, 409 4th Street. Mr. Alonso, please. 7 MR. CHEWCASKIE: So I've already looked 8 at that, so you can give it to Carlos. 9 MR. VALLEJO: Thank you. 10 MR. CHEWCASKIE: It was emailed to me by 11 your office. 12 MR. ALONSO: She doesn't tell me 13 everything she does. 14 MR. CHEWCASKIE: If I may, Mr. Alonso, 15 I'll let you speak in a moment, but I just want to 16 bring the Board Members up to date what we're 17 required to do here this evening. 18 So this was a case that was heard by the 19 Board in April 27, 2021. The Board made a 20 decision to deny the application -- actually, this 21 was heard on March 23rd, 2021, and a resolution 22 was adopted on April 27th denying the application. 23 The matter was appealed to the Superior Court. 24 And on February 6, 2023, the Court entered an 25 order requiring the Board to explain with  9 1 specificity its April 27, 2021, decision. 2 There were two aspects in the resolution 3 for the denial. Number one was whether a front 4 yard variance was required. Mr. Valella 5 testified -- I saw him walk in, I couldn't 6 remember his name, I was going to say Mr. 7 Orestes -- Mr. Valella testified that the 8 prevailing setback was 8 feet, but I don't know if 9 that was determined, that's for the Board to make 10 a determination. 11 The other was that there was a 12 predominance of two-family dwellings and that the 13 three-family home would be out of character. The 14 Court, in its decision on page 11, basically made 15 its finding the appropriate action is to remand 16 this matter and to require the Board to make 17 specific findings and conclusions regarding the 18 basis of its decision that the area where the 19 proposed three-family house is located 20 substantially consists of two-family houses that 21 are lower in height and in depth than what is 22 being proposed. So that was the Court's decision. 23 What would be required is for the Board 24 this evening to have further deliberations 25 regarding its reasoning. And then there would be  10 1 a further resolution that would be adopted by this 2 Board. And then Mr. Alonso will have to make a 3 determination with his client as to what further 4 proceedings to undertake. 5 So, Mr. Alonso, I don't know if you 6 wanted to add anything to that, if you can enter 7 your appearance, please? 8 MR. ALONSO: That's correct. Good 9 evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, for 10 the record, Alvaro Alonso on behalf of the 11 applicant. 12 Basically it's correct what Mr. 13 Chewcaskie just indicated. The Court did find 14 that there was no specific findings with respect 15 to the prevailing setback. Our position is that 16 no variances were required and Mr. Valella did 17 testify as to the prevailing setback, but the 18 ordinance does say you have to go 100 feet on 19 either side. So I have Mr. Valella this evening, 20 who will present some testimony just to complete 21 the record as to what each of the properties are 22 and then the Board can make the findings. 23 As to whether or not the property was 24 congruent with the neighbors. The Court did find 25 that that's not a proper factor for the Board to  11 1 consider. So the only issue here then is whether 2 or not we comply with the prevailing setback 3 requirements as defined in your ordinance. 4 MR. CHEWCASKIE: The one aspect that I 5 disagree with you, Mr. Alonso, is that there was 6 nothing in the Court's decision that indicated 7 that there would be further documentation and 8 testimony. I think the Board is required to 9 either stand or fall on what the previous 10 testimony was. So I don't think it would be 11 appropriate to hear from Mr. Valella and open the 12 record. 13 MR. ALONSO: I'll defer to the Board, 14 we're prepared -- 15 MR. CHEWCASKIE: I mean that's my 16 opinion. You know, we have another one where 17 Judge Turula sent it back and said, look, the 18 record's basically closed. I don't want to go 19 beyond the four corners of the Judge's decision, 20 and they say well you considered something else, 21 why did you do that. So certainly, you know, Mr. 22 Spatz is here to aid the Board. 23 Mr. Chairman, I did obtain the original 24 drawings from Mr. Vallejo, if anyone wanted to 25 look at them. And we do have the ordinance  12 1 requirements for the prevailing setback. Also, 2 Mr. Spatz could probably more eloquently say it 3 than I can, is that if a variance is required, you 4 know, none of these are exceptional situations. 5 So we would consider the variance a flexible 6 variance and that would be is that -- do the 7 benefits basically outweigh the detriments with 8 regard to granting the variance. So that's where 9 the mitigating factors would come in as to the 10 character of the neighborhood or maybe other 11 mitigating factors such as the architecture, the 12 setbacks, et cetera. 13 MR. ALONSO: And with respect to what 14 Mr. Chewcaskie just said, in terms of providing 15 additional testimony, we do stand on Mr. Valella's 16 prior testimony, which was that we do comply with 17 the prevailing setbacks in the neighborhood. The 18 Judge's ruling was that the Board needs to make 19 findings and conclusions to explain with 20 specificity the decision to deny the application 21 because there were no facts identified by the 22 Board in denying the application. 23 MR. CHEWCASKIE: If I may, in that 24 regard, the Court referenced Mr. Valella's 25 testimony, the house is set back 8 feet from the  13 1 property line, the 8 feet seems to be prevailing 2 setback along the streetscape. Later in the 3 hearing, he testified that the front yard would be 4 10 feet or the prevailing setback. And if you 5 recall, I mentioned that we have an 8 foot 6 setback, which seems to be the prevailing setback. 7 So the Board conducted no further 8 discussion regarding the proposed 8 foot setback 9 or whether a variance was required for it, so I 10 stand corrected by Mr. Alonso on the front yard 11 setback. 12 MR. ALONSO: In fact, the Court even 13 said that -- Mr. Chewcaskie did indicate -- the 14 Judge indicates on page 5 of the decision that Mr. 15 Chewcaskie advised the Board that the 16 characteristics of this application that is here 17 is consistent with our ordinance. Consistent with 18 the ordinance means that no variances were 19 required. 20 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: Mr. Spatz, you 21 have anything to add to this? 22 MR. SPATZ: We have not done an 23 additional review of the setbacks, the 24 documentation was provided at the previous 25 hearing. But just to confirm that the setback  14 1 would not be a hardship condition, but would be, 2 as was stated, under the flexible (c)2 standards. 3 Really it's just a calculation as to how it fits 4 in with that, but it isn't a hardship on the 5 property owner. 6 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: This is my first 7 time as Chair, so... 8 I want to let the other Board Members 9 know prevailing setback in order to maintain the 10 character of the established building streetscape 11 in the residential neighborhoods, the average of 12 the front setback of each existing building on the 13 same side of the same street, within the same 14 block, within 100 feet, shall be calculated and 15 those districts noted which require prevailing 16 setback calculation with the zoning schedule at 17 the end of this chapter. The prevailing setback 18 shall be no more than twice the front setback 19 noted within the zoning schedule for said 20 district. 21 Mr. Spatz, can you just break that down 22 a little bit? 23 MR. SPATZ: Again, it's really, you 24 know, just simply sort of a math issue. You take 25 the setbacks of the properties within 100 feet of  15 1 the subject site and what their setbacks are, that 2 average, that's what the setback needs to be at a 3 minimum. They can be certainly set back further, 4 but the idea is to create a consistent streetscape 5 so that they meet that setback, so all the 6 buildings generally lineup. 7 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: You know what it 8 is, I like to go visit the land, I like to go 9 visit some of the sites personally so I get a 10 little bit of a feel for it. And I understand Mr. 11 Alonso's point with, you know, that being the 12 characteristic -- I'm sorry, my opinion, not your 13 opinion -- the characteristics of the whole 14 neighborhood. I look at that house and it looks 15 like, you know, a house that the gingerbread man 16 lives in, it's so small. To see something else go 17 that high up and -- 18 MR. ALONSO: That's not what's before 19 the Board. 20 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: No, that is -- 21 MR. ALONSO: What's not before the Board 22 is with respect to the front yard setback and the 23 Court already ruled on the characteristic issue. 24 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: Yes. 25 MR. ALONSO: That's not a proper factor.  16 1 MR. CHEWCASKIE: I don't necessarily 2 agree with that, Mr. Alonso, because on page 11, 3 the Court says that it also wants the Board to -- 4 the basis of the decision that the area where the 5 proposed three-family house is located 6 substantially consists of two-family houses that 7 are lower in height and in depth than what is 8 being proposed. 9 So I look at it twofold. I think number 10 one, the Board has to make a decision whether a 11 variance was required or whether there was 12 sufficient proofs to sustain the prevailing 13 setback at 8 feet; and whether the characteristics 14 of the neighborhood were what the characteristics 15 of the neighborhood were, and, you know, make a 16 determination to either reverse itself or sustain 17 its previous action. 18 MS. MOREJON: If I may, would your 19 client consider a two-family house? 20 MR. ALONSO: No. That was discussed at 21 the last hearing and we would not. It's a 22 permitted use. Just to go to Mr. Chewcaskie's 23 point, the Court did cite case law on page 10 24 which basically prohibits the Board from denying a 25 permitted use simply because they don't feel that  17 1 it's properly zoned. It is zoned for that, it is 2 zoned for the three-family and no variances are 3 required. 4 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: When we're 5 looking at a three-family, are we looking at the 6 three-family with the garage under and three on 7 top? 8 MR. ALONSO: Correct. 9 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: Make it 10 almost like -- 11 MR. ALONSO: Correct. The zone -- the 12 ordinance has changed since then. There's a rule 13 called the time of application rule. So we're 14 still protected under the old ordinance. So it's 15 the old ordinance with the parking layout that was 16 in your master plan. It's consistent with exactly 17 what the City was requiring at that time. 18 MR. CHEWCASKIE: I think perhaps maybe 19 to guide the Board slightly is that what Mr. 20 Alonso said is correct, at the time of application 21 it's the ordinance in effect. At the time, the 22 ordinance in effect permitted three-family 23 dwellings. And as I indicated on the record, this 24 was substantially consistent with that ordinance. 25 The Board made a determination to deny based upon  18 1 two reasons, whether there was sufficient 2 information to determine the prevailing setback, 3 and whether a variance was required because I read 4 it as a default, it's either prevailing or 5 10 feet, and that's what it is. Did I get that 6 right, David? 7 MR. SPATZ: That's correct. 8 MR. CHEWCASKIE: And then the other part 9 of it is is that the Court, whether it did cite 10 certain case law, the Court specifically said, you 11 know, what is the Board's reasoning for saying 12 that this neighborhood consisted substantially of 13 two-family dwellings that were lower in height and 14 less in depth than what was proposed? That's the 15 language the Court used, so that's where we're at 16 today. So, you know, the Court wants to know your 17 reasons. 18 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: So we go back to 19 the prevailing setbacks again with the front yard, 20 correct? 21 MR. CHEWCASKIE: That is correct, that's 22 the first aspect. 23 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: That a variance 24 is required for that? 25 MR. ALONSO: We're saying it's not  19 1 required. So you need to make a finding as to 2 whether or not a variance is required based on the 3 prevailing conditions. If it's not required, then 4 it's a variance-free application. If the Board 5 finds that it is required, then the Board has the 6 option of either granting the variance or denying 7 the variance and then setting forth the reasons 8 with specificity for the denial. 9 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: I think a 10 variance should be required for it. 11 MR. CHEWCASKIE: I mean what the Board 12 found earlier that the construction of the new 13 three-family residence will require a variance for 14 front yard setback, where 10 feet is required, 8 15 feet is proposed. The Court would want to know 16 the reasons why you made that determination, 17 whether there was sufficient proofs or whether 18 that's based upon your knowledge of the area. 19 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: Would that mean 20 visiting and looking at it? I know that whole 21 area -- 22 MR. CHEWCASKIE: If you're not 23 comfortable, we can certainly carry this to our 24 next meeting, which will be scheduled to 25 April 11th to look at it again. And I didn't  20 1 realize Mr. Alonso was prepared to permit 2 testimony, so we may want to have -- I can have a 3 discussion with him if you want to carry this. We 4 have a special meeting April 11th? 5 MR. VALLEJO: Correct, 6:00 p.m. 6 April 11th. 7 MR. CHEWCASKIE: We can do this 8 April 11th, I'm trying to move this along or at 9 the regular meeting. 10 MR. ALONSO: Well, the question them 11 becomes is the Board permitted to do site visits, 12 which that would, in effect, open up the record 13 and allow additional testimony or evidence that 14 was not provided at the last meeting? 15 MR. CHEWCASKIE: I think the Board could 16 go visit the neighborhood just to reacquaint 17 itself with the application, you know, it happens 18 all the time. I know Mr. Velazquez, before every 19 application, looks at the neighborhood. And I 20 believe he indicated he hasn't done that this time 21 with this application. 22 I think in fairness to the applicant and 23 the Board, if any Board Members wants to visit the 24 area, they can visit the area. I will speak to 25 the attorney that handled the matter whether it  21 1 would be appropriate to reopen the record. And 2 then you and I could have a discussion. I mean, 3 you know, we're offering April 11th because we 4 have to have a meeting April 11th. 5 MR. ALONSO: The problem is that the 6 Board already took action on the application. 7 MR. CHEWCASKIE: I understand. 8 MR. ALONSO: And the Court is asking for 9 specificity as to the action that was taken in 10 2021, not based on new inspections -- 11 MR. CHEWCASKIE: I don't think -- 12 MR. ALONSO: -- which would supplement 13 the record. 14 MR. CHEWCASKIE: I don't think a new 15 inspection would supplement the record, I think 16 it's a refreshment of recollections. Sort of 17 like, here's the resolution, take a look at it. 18 I'm not asking them to consider new testimony, I'm 19 not asking them to consider anything else but 20 these are the characteristics that existed in 2021 21 or whenever it was and these are the 22 characteristics that still exist today. 23 MR. ALONSO: I'll just state my 24 objection for the record and we'll take it from 25 there.  22 1 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: Mr. Alonso, that 2 property is still the same, like vacant and 3 everything, right? 4 MR. ALONSO: I don't know if it's vacant 5 or not, it's still standing, hasn't been 6 demolished. 7 MR. CHEWCASKIE: All right. When would 8 you like to come back, April 11th or that would be 9 the 25th? 10 MR. ALONSO: 11th, I'm not available. 11 The 25th, I'm available the 25th. 12 MR. CHEWCASKIE: Okay. So would you 13 like to carry it to the 25th? 14 MR. ALONSO: I would like to take action 15 tonight, but if the Board needs time, then I'll 16 carry it to the 25th. 17 MR. CHEWCASKIE: So if there's a motion 18 to carry it to the 25th without further notice. 19 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: I make a motion. 20 MS. MOREJON: Second. 21 MR. VALLEJO: Motion by Mr. Velazquez, 22 seconded by Ms. Morejon that this application be 23 carried for April 25, 2023, same place, same 24 location. 25 Roll call on the motion. Mr. Velazquez.  23 1 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: Yes. 2 MR. VALLEJO: Ms. Genao. 3 MS. GENAO: Yes. 4 MR. VALLEJO: Ms. Morejon. 5 MS. MOREJON: Yes. 6 MR. VALLEJO: Mr. Medina. 7 MR. MEDINA: Yes. 8 MR. VALLEJO: Mr. Guareno. 9 MR. GUARENO: Yes. 10 MR. VALLEJO: Mr. Oseguera. 11 MR. OSEGUERA: Yes. 12 MR. VALLEJO: Six in favor, motion 13 carries. No new notice required. 14 MR. ALONSO: Thank you. 15 * * * * 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  24 1 HEARING: 2 613 39TH STREET, LLC - 3 613 39TH STREET: 4 5 MR. VALLEJO: We are going to move on to 6 item number two, 613 39th Street, LLC. Ms. 7 Pereiras, please. 8 MS. PEREIRAS: Good evening, Counsel, 9 Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, may it please 10 the Board, Bianca Pereiras on behalf of the 11 applicant for 613 39th Street. 12 The Board may recall we were in front of 13 you back in January of 2020, at which time we 14 sought approval for a subdivision to create two 15 lots and to construct a three-family on one of 16 those lots. This Board approved that application. 17 Unfortunately, due to several circumstances which 18 I'll list as briefly as I can, we have not been 19 able to secure permits. 20 So we are in front of this Board today 21 seeking a second one-year extension. The 22 applicant has taken significant steps to obtain 23 permits. In fact, following approval by this 24 Board, we went in front of the Board of Adjustment 25 because the other created lot was technically in  25 1 two separate lots, so the Board of Adjustment had 2 jurisdiction on that matter. And they also 3 approved a three-family to be constructed. The 4 applicant has secured permits on that building. 5 The applicant has demolished what was 6 existing at the time of this application. And 7 there is some significant topography to the site, 8 some very hard rocks, so that process has taken a 9 little longer than anticipated. And then add in 10 there COVID-19 and all the delays that were caused 11 by that. So we are respectfully requesting a 12 one-year extension to this matter. 13 MR. CHEWCASKIE: So in that regard, I 14 guess, there was a resolution that was adopted in 15 May of '21 and there was an initial -- was there 16 an extension? 17 MS. PEREIRAS: There was one extension 18 granted by this Board. 19 MR. CHEWCASKIE: And that would expire, 20 I guess, May of '23, May 25, 2023. So how much 21 time are you asking for? 22 MS. PEREIRAS: We are requesting a year 23 again. We think we've made already significant 24 efforts towards obtaining those permits. So we 25 don't think it will take as long, but just for  26 1 some little comfort zone, we are requesting a 2 year. 3 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: If the Board 4 sees fit for this request, can I have it that that 5 property doesn't have to be called on every 6 three weeks, especially with the weeds growing 7 over the summer? That this is taken care like 8 clockwork? 9 MS. PEREIRAS: This is a very good 10 client, he owns several other properties in town, 11 actually lives in town. So I will make sure he 12 maintains that property, absolutely. 13 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: I make a motion 14 to grant the extension. 15 MR. VALLEJO: Motion on the table to 16 grant the extension by Mr. Velazquez. 17 MS. GENAO: I second. 18 MR. VALLEJO: Seconded by Ms. Genao. 19 Roll call on the motion. Mr. Velazquez. 20 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: Yes. 21 MR. VALLEJO: Ms. Genao. 22 MS. GENAO: Yes. 23 MR. VALLEJO: Ms. Morejon. 24 MS. MOREJON: Yes. 25 MR. VALLEJO: Mr. Medina.  27 1 MR. MEDINA: Yes. 2 MR. VALLEJO: Mr. Guareno. 3 MR. GUARENO: Yes. 4 MR. VALLEJO: Mr. Oseguera. 5 MR. OSEGUERA: Yes. 6 MR. VALLEJO: Six in favor, motion 7 carries. 8 MS. PEREIRAS: Thank you all very much. 9 MR. CHEWCASKIE: Ms. Pereiras, that will 10 be in accordance with the prior resolutions, the 11 conditions, and the condition that the Chairman 12 just indicated, that the property will be 13 maintained consistently? 14 MS. PEREIRAS: Absolutely. Thank you, 15 Counsel. 16 * * * * 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  28 1 HEARING: 2 MICHAEL SZCZESNY - 3 912 PALISADE AVENUE: 4 5 MR. VALLEJO: We're moving now to item 6 number three, Michael Szczesny, Ms. Pereiras, 7 please. 8 MS. PEREIRAS: Again, Bianca Pereiras on 9 behalf of Michael Szczesny for property at 912 10 Palisade Avenue. This application was heard by 11 this Board back in May of 2021. This will expire 12 in May of this year. Unfortunately, we have not 13 been able to secure permits. As you know, 14 Palisade Avenue has significant slope issues and 15 rocks. And they've been in the process of 16 coordinating with the engineer as well as our 17 proximity to the Union City Pool, there's been a 18 lot of coordination with the town to make sure 19 that all work is done accordingly to protect all 20 City property as well. 21 So we are seeking respectfully a 22 one-year extension so we that can obtain those 23 approvals and construct. 24 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: How far along is 25 it, like, really?  29 1 MS. PEREIRAS: Let's check with our 2 architect who is here this evening and he's the 3 one preparing the construction documents and I can 4 confirm exactly where it is. 5 6 M A N U E L P E R E I R A S, after having been 7 duly sworn or affirmed, did testify as follows: 8 9 MR. PEREIRAS: Manny Pereiras, 10 P-E-R-E-I-R-A-S, with Pereiras Architects 11 Ubiquitous, 1116 Summit Avenue, Union City. 12 So the plans have been complete. What 13 we're waiting for right now is approval from north 14 Hudson Sewer for the sewer connection. It's also 15 been a little complicated because we're right next 16 to the pool and so we've been coordinating with 17 the Mayor's office, with the engineering office, 18 so that when we do demolition and construction, 19 we're not in any way obstructing passage to the 20 pool or creating any dust for the pool. 21 So all these negotiations and 22 conversations have been delaying the process a 23 little bit. However, we're all ready and as long 24 as that coordination comes through, we'll be able 25 to build.  30 1 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: This is not 2 going to look like the lot next door? 3 MR. PEREIRAS: Just so you feel 4 comfortable also, the owner of the lot next door 5 fired that contractor, he was a mess and a very 6 difficult person to run with. He actually hired a 7 contractor that did a very nice job on Pleasant 8 Avenue and he's going to be running both of those 9 jobs. So both jobs will be running 10 simultaneously, being built, and that way there's 11 less impact on the pool and the rest of the 12 neighborhood. So we really want these to grow 13 together at the same time. And I think they're 14 going to be twin buildings, it's going to be 15 really beautiful for the block. I think it's 16 going to make a big difference for Union City. 17 All that said, there might not be enough 18 time to get everything in and that's why they're 19 requesting the extension. 20 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: For the sake of 21 this application, just in case, if we approve this 22 request, this is going to be the last one, 23 especially in that area there. 24 MR. PEREIRAS: I understand. 25 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: That's, you  31 1 know, it will be all around next year -- 2 MS. PEREIRAS: We have an applicant 3 that's ready to proceed. 4 MR. PEREIRAS: Yes. 5 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: I make a motion. 6 MR. OSEGUERA: Second. 7 MR. VALLEJO: Motion to? 8 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: To grant the 9 extension. 10 MR. VALLEJO: Motion to grant the 11 extension by Mr. Velazquez. 12 MR. OSEGUERA: Second. 13 MR. VALLEJO: Seconded by Mr. Oseguera. 14 Roll call on the motion. Mr. Velazquez. 15 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: Yes. 16 MR. VALLEJO: Ms. Genao. 17 MS. GENAO: Yes. 18 MR. VALLEJO: Ms. Morejon. 19 MS. MOREJON: Yes. 20 MR. VALLEJO: Mr. Medina. 21 MR. MEDINA: Yes. 22 MR. VALLEJO: Mr. Guareno. 23 MR. GUARENO: Yes. 24 MR. VALLEJO: Mr. Oseguera. 25 MR. OSEGUERA: Yes.  32 1 MR. VALLEJO: Six in favor, motion 2 carries. 3 MS. PEREIRAS: Thank you all very much. 4 MR. CHEWCASKIE: Don't leave because I 5 made a mistake on the earlier application. So 6 just so that the record is clear, on 613 39th 7 Street, the resolutions were memorialized in 8 January of 2020 and therefore the one year 9 extension would expire I believe it would be 10 January 28, 2024, I just want to make that clear 11 that it's not May. I had the wrong application in 12 front of me. 13 MS. PEREIRAS: Understood. 14 MR. CHEWCASKIE: So was there any issue 15 with that with the Board? 16 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: No. 17 MR. CHEWCASKIE: Ms. Pereiras, any issue? 18 MS. PEREIRAS: Not at all. 19 MR. CHEWCASKIE: So the one-year 20 extension corresponds to the earlier resolution. 21 MS. PEREIRAS: Yes. Thank you very 22 much, Counsel. 23 MR. CHEWCASKIE: Thank you. 24 MS. PEREIRAS: Thank you all. 25 * * * *  33 1 15TH STREET UC, LLC - 2 814 15TH STREET: 3 4 MR. VALLEJO: All right. We're going to 5 move now to item number four, 15th Street UC, LLC, 6 814 15th Street. Mr. Lopez, please. 7 MR. CHEWCASKIE: Adolfo, if you want to 8 put your appearance on the record, please? 9 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, 10 Counselor, Adolfo Lopez appearing on behalf of the 11 applicant, 15th Street UC, LLC, and this relates 12 to a property at 814 15th Street in the City. 13 MR. CHEWCASKIE: So this is the second 14 time that this is back before the Board. Judge 15 Turula's issued a second order for remand on March 16 3th and required this matter be heard within 17 30 days. And Judge Turula was very clear, sole 18 purpose of deliberating in furtherance of 19 reconsideration of its prior resolution and to 20 make specific factual findings and conclusions of 21 law in support of its decision. No further 22 testimony shall be taken nor shall additional 23 documents be marked into evidence. 24 So what transpired, I guess, there was 25 an action that was taken on this application,  34 1 which there was a denial on September 22, 2020. 2 That was appealed to the Court, remanded to this 3 Board pursuant to an order from Judge Turula 4 August 2021. A resolution was prepared and 5 adopted at that time, but the Judge wanted to hear 6 from the Board's own words the reasons for the 7 denial. Similar to the prior application, we had 8 Mr. Spatz's report; Mr. Charles Heydt, a planner, 9 did testify that there were variances required for 10 lot area, lot width, and lot depth; that those 11 variances were de minimus because of the exact 12 standards Mr. Spatz put in his report. There was 13 a shortage in the lot area of 10 feet and some 14 shortages in lot width and lot depth. And also 15 the Board found that those variances were 16 required. Although Mr. Heydt testified that the 17 three-family house would not have an impact on the 18 neighborhood, the Board made a conclusion that the 19 neighborhood consisted of two-family two-story 20 dwellings. 21 So the Judge wanted to hear and we have 22 to do this evening as to what the Board's 23 reconsideration of its prior actions were. And, 24 again, whether it is going to reconsider and make 25 a different decision or find that there are  35 1 sufficient factors to support its prior decision. 2 So that's where we are this evening. I 3 don't know if you wanted to add anything, Mr. 4 Lopez? 5 MR. LOPEZ: The only thing, just as in 6 the prior application by Mr. Alonso, this 7 application was filed at the time that the 8 ordinance permitted this type of structure. So 9 it's a permitted use in the zone. And, again, 10 just to point out the prior testimony, the problem 11 with this lot is that it's 24.77 feet wide rather 12 than 25. So it's missing two-and-three-quarters 13 of an inch. And the depth is 99.97 feet, which 14 equals to 99 and 11 five-eighths inches, so it's 15 three quarters of an inch less than the standard 16 size. So it's really, really de minimus. And 17 that's -- those are the only variances. 18 MR. CHEWCASKIE: So, Mr. Spatz, I guess 19 you identified those. There are still, I guess, 20 variances required, the Board would have to do 21 that balancing test, you know, under -- I don't 22 believe there's a hardship here -- 23 MR. LOPEZ: It is. 24 MR. CHEWCASKIE: -- no exceptional 25 difficulties, but -- well, I shouldn't say that.  36 1 MR. SPATZ: Yeah, I mean it is a 2 hardship. What would need to be documented would 3 be that there was an attempt to acquire other 4 property to bring it up to conformity and that was 5 unsuccessful. 6 MR. CHEWCASKIE: But I think we could 7 safely assume that the area is developed around 8 there? 9 MR. SPATZ: Correct. 10 MR. CHEWCASKIE: So you could either say 11 that that's an exceptional circumstance and 12 whether the benefits outweigh the detriment on a 13 flexible C, you know. You could look at it from 14 either standard. 15 MR. SPATZ: Correct. It's a hardship 16 that potentially could be corrected, but, you 17 know, obviously they have to negotiate with the 18 property owner next door and take some property 19 without making that property nonconforming. I'm 20 not sure that that's possible. 21 The second phase would be to look at 22 whether because the property is minimally short of 23 what would be required that it can no longer 24 support the three-family house. It's the decision 25 the Board needs to make.  37 1 MR. CHEWCASKIE: I would say looking at 2 the aerial on the drawings at the time that it was 3 fully developed. 4 MR. SPATZ: Yes, I don't dispute that. 5 MR. CHEWCASKIE: I just wanted to make 6 sure. 7 MR. SPATZ: Right. 8 MR. CHEWCASKIE: I don't want to go down 9 a path that doesn't seem appropriate. 10 MR. SPATZ: Right. I don't disagree, I 11 think the Board could take notice of the fact that 12 the properties surrounding it are fully developed 13 and would be made nonconforming if they sold 14 property to this lot to make it conforming. And 15 that's obviously a circumstance that the Board 16 would not do. So the lot is as it is and that's 17 what you need to consider. 18 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: Any Board 19 Members have any questions? 20 MR. CHEWCASKIE: So as I indicated, the 21 issue is that, you know, there are variances 22 required, you know, they're all bulk variances. 23 And I do apologize because I believe Mr. Heydt 24 indicated it was a hardship variance at the time 25 of his testimony. So that's the planning  38 1 testimony that you heard, I believe Mr. Spatz 2 confirmed that. 3 So the question becomes there are two 4 parts to a variance test. Do you find there's a 5 hardship and the size of the lot is constrained 6 slightly, as a result. But you also have the 7 second aspect of variance relief for both (c) and 8 (d) variances, you know, is whether the benefits 9 of granting the variance outweigh the detriments. 10 And also whether there would be an impact on the 11 neighborhood. There's always some impact, but, 12 you know, the Board finds there's substantial 13 impact. 14 The Board made findings that the 15 neighborhood was substantially two-family homes of 16 two stories, that's what the Board said in its 17 resolution. I don't know if anyone wants to 18 comment on what both myself and Mr. Spatz stated? 19 MR. LOPEZ: I would only add one thing 20 to that. The testimony of the planner at the time 21 was that the footprint of the building was reduced 22 in order to make it conforming, where no variances 23 would be required as to setbacks and size. So 24 because they had a very slightly smaller lot, the 25 building was adapted so there would be no  39 1 additional variances created. 2 MR. CHEWCASKIE: Do you have the 3 drawings for this one, Carlos. This was 912 4 Palisade. 5 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: This property 6 right in the middle? 7 MR. LOPEZ: Yes, it's not 912. 8 MR. CHEWCASKIE: I have it here. The 9 Chairman had them, I wanted to lay it out for the 10 Chairman. 11 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: I guess 12 sometimes, in my opinion, Mr. Lopez, maybe the 13 judges don't look at that as being a resident of 14 the City and seeing that whole characteristic of 15 that whole neighborhood changing. What happens 16 is, that I've noticed here, and I've seen it, is 17 that these threes with the one underneath, just 18 becomes doormat and you got transient, it just 19 keeps on going, shuffling, and it kills the whole 20 characteristic of the whole neighborhood. I 21 understand -- 22 MR. LOPEZ: Those are no longer 23 permitted. 24 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: Yes, I know. 25 MR. LOPEZ: And the other thing that was  40 1 pointed out by the planner is the block is not -- 2 and again it's not new testimony, I'm just 3 pointing out what was testified to. It's not 4 exclusively two-families. There are -- he 5 testified there were four large multiple dwellings 6 on that block. There are two on Kerrigan, one on 7 Summit on the corner, and another one in the 8 middle of the block on the opposite side. 9 So it's not -- the testimony at that 10 time was not that it was exclusively two-families, 11 there are large buildings in the area. 12 MS. MOREJON: You're talking about 13 Summit Avenue and 15th Street? 14 MR. LOPEZ: Yes. 15 MS. MOREJON: That block most of it is 16 two- and one-family houses. 17 MR. LOPEZ: But on -- it's between 18 Summit and Kerrigan. 19 MS. MOREJON: I'm talking about 15th 20 Street. 21 MR. LOPEZ: Yes. On 15th Street, the 22 testimony of the planner was that there's a 23 building on the corner of 15th and Summit and 24 there are -- 25 MS. MOREJON: Summit, we're talking  41 1 about 15th -- 2 MR. LOPEZ: On 15th Street. 3 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: I know what 4 you're saying, 825 on 15th Street and -- 5 MS. MOREJON: -- one- and two-family 6 houses. 7 MR. LOPEZ: Again, on both corners of 8 Kerrigan is also two large buildings. 9 MR. CHEWCASKIE: You know, the architect 10 did a good job with this visual, so you do see 11 some multifamily dwellings, you see the location 12 of this property, and you see the properties 13 adjacent to the applicant's property in both 14 directions. 15 So you do have a good view on the 16 drawings of exactly what there is. There's no 17 doubt about it, with the testimony, and as, you 18 know, Mr. Velazquez indicated, and Ms. Morejon, 19 that there certainly are those characteristics 20 that exist. There are certain two-families and 21 one-families also and multifamilies. 22 MS. MOREJON: It's a beautiful block, a 23 beautiful block. 24 MR. CHEWCASKIE: So that's where we're 25 at. The Board has to make a determination as to  42 1 whether to grant the variances and if they're 2 going to grant the variances, that a finding is 3 required that there would not be substantial 4 impact to the neighborhood. That's for the Board 5 to decide. 6 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: Well -- 7 MR. CHEWCASKIE: Maybe you should state 8 what you want to say, Mr. Velazquez, and, you 9 know, we can have further discussion with the 10 Board. 11 MR. OSEGUERA: Can the Board deliberate 12 on this for a moment? 13 MR. CHEWCASKIE: Yes. We're required to 14 deliberate. The Chairman indicated he's not 15 comfortable granting the variances. You know, 16 other Board Members should chime in as they feel. 17 MR. LOPEZ: Is this an off the record 18 discussion? 19 MR. CHEWCASKIE: I'm going to ask Mr. 20 Oseguera to look at the drawings because he wanted 21 to see the character. This is just -- so the 22 record is clear, Mr. Oseguera, currently existing 23 on the drawings, it is dashed lines around the 24 property. You can see in each direction, the 25 multifamily that was referred to.  43 1 MR. OSEGUERA: I'm just thinking aloud. 2 Looking at the building as it exists now and what 3 it would become after, I'm thinking about the 4 resources that the neighborhood would need 5 accommodating the new building as one of the 6 reasons that the Board might not feel comfortable 7 granting the variance that's been requested. And 8 that's me thinking aloud, looking at the drawing 9 as it exists, going back to the character of the 10 neighborhood mostly being two or one-family or 11 having a predominance of those sorts of houses and 12 changing to a building that would be three with 13 one would bring a substantial change. And even an 14 accommodation of different resources to that block 15 that might make this, at this point, as a 16 statement of belief, why we might feel 17 uncomfortable with the variance that's being 18 requested. 19 MR. LOPEZ: But what you seem to be 20 saying is not really a factor because what's being 21 proposed is a permitted use. You're making it 22 sound like we're going for a use variance, we 23 don't need a use variance, it's a permitted use. 24 MR. CHEWCASKIE: I don't think that 25 that's what Mr. Oseguera said. It's just that,  44 1 you know, what the neighborhood consists of. 2 You know, I agree, Mr. Lopez, and so 3 does the board planner, is that there are no bulk 4 variances requested here, but for the lot 5 dimensions. 6 MR. LOPEZ: Correct. 7 MR. CHEWCASKIE: There's no disagreement 8 here. But I also believe the Board rightfully can 9 consider what the impact of the lot size is and 10 with the impact on the neighborhood. We may not 11 agree on that, but if the Board finds that the 12 character is different, you know, from what 13 currently exists, that's a factor to be 14 considered. Whether they're right or wrong might 15 be for the Court to consider, but that's up to the 16 Board. 17 I ask the Board just -- I asked Mr. 18 Velazquez to ask the Board Members their opinions. 19 MR. OSEGUERA: I'm granting my statement 20 on the request for the variance. 21 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: Anybody else? 22 Like I said, at the end of the day -- at 23 the end of the day, I know the courts make their 24 decision and it's been sent back to us twice 25 already for this matter. This is going to change  45 1 the whole characteristic of that neighborhood 2 and -- 3 MR. CHEWCASKIE: Just so that it's clear 4 then, is that what I would suggest, if that's how 5 you feel, Mr. Velazquez, you can make a motion to 6 deny the variance relief based upon your 7 statements. If there's a second, we can ask for 8 further discussion and then we can take a roll 9 call. 10 MR. LOPEZ: Before you take a vote, can 11 I have an off the record discussion? 12 13 (Discussion held off the record.) 14 15 MR. CHEWCASKIE: You would need to make 16 a motion, Chairman. 17 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: I make a motion 18 to deny the application. 19 MS. MOREJON: Second. 20 MR. VALLEJO: Motion to deny by Mr. 21 Velazquez, seconded by Ms. Morejon. 22 MR. CHEWCASKIE: Before there's a vote 23 on the motion, did anyone else have any further 24 discussion or comments with regard to the motion 25 that was made? If not, then a roll call would be  46 1 appropriate. 2 MR. VALLEJO: Roll call on the motion to 3 deny. Mr. Velazquez. 4 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: Yes. 5 MR. VALLEJO: Ms. Genao. 6 MS. GENAO: Yes. 7 MR. VALLEJO: Ms. Morejon. 8 MS. MOREJON: Yes. 9 MR. LOPEZ: I'm going to object to Ms. 10 Morejon voting on this, she was not an original 11 member and heard no testimony relating to this 12 application. 13 MR. CHEWCASKIE: The objection is noted 14 based upon what you indicated and you could -- 15 MR. VALLEJO: Mr. Medina. 16 MR. MEDINA: Yes. 17 MR. LOPEZ: I'm going to object to Mr. 18 Medina voting on this, he never heard the 19 application and would not be eligible to vote. 20 MR. VALLEJO: Mr. Guareno. 21 MR. GUARENO: Yes. 22 MR. VALLEJO: Mr. Oseguera. 23 MR. OSEGUERA: Yes. 24 MR. LOPEZ: And I would object to Mr. 25 Oseguera voting for the same reasons.  47 1 MR. VALLEJO: Six in favor, motion 2 carries. 3 MR. CHEWCASKIE: So the objections are 4 noted. We do have a special meeting April 11th in 5 order to adopt the resolution. We have no other 6 business, so you don't need to be here. So if you 7 wish to be here, if not, I will send you the 8 resolution in advance. 9 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you. 10 MR. CHEWCASKIE: Thank you, Mr. Lopez. 11 * * * * 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  48 1 ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS: 2 1. 208 18th Street, LLC, 206-208 18th Street. 3 Applicant proposes (2) new three family houses. On 4 September 28, 2021, the Board voted to deny the 5 application; and on October 26, 2021 the Board 6 adopted a resolution denying the Application: 7 Amended application to build one (1) three-story, 8 two-family dwelling. Approved. Revised drawings 9 received on 03-07-2023 10 11 MR. VALLEJO: All right. Moving now to 12 resolutions we have four resolutions on tonight's 13 agenda. 14 MR. SPATZ: Before we get to the 15 resolutions, I want to note that the first one, 16 208 18th Street and number three, Lidia Nova, 17 704-706 New York Avenue, the applicant had to 18 provide revised plans. They have, we've reviewed 19 the plans. And on both of those applications, the 20 revised plans addressed the concerns that the 21 Board had and meet the resolutions. So the 22 applicant has done what they've needed to do on 23 those two applications. 24 MR. CHEWCASKIE: So just for the Board, 25 with your permission, Mr. Vallejo, number one was  49 1 208 18th Street, that was a settlement that was 2 approved by the Board. The Board granted the 3 application and approved the settlement agreement 4 for the subdivision and the two-family house that 5 is going to be provided for with the standard 6 conditions. So we would need a motion on that. 7 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: I make a motion. 8 MR. VALLEJO: Motion by Mr. Velazquez. 9 MR. GUARENO: Second. 10 MR. VALLEJO: Second by Mr. Guareno. 11 Roll call on the motion to adopt the 12 resolution. 13 MR. CHEWCASKIE: Mr. Vallejo, if I may, 14 we had a vote of 5-0 on that, so I don't know 15 who's eligible to vote. 16 MR. VALLEJO: Members present was Mr. 17 Velazquez, Ms. Genao, Ms. Morejon, Mr. Guareno, 18 and Mr. Oseguera. Mr. Medina was absent. 19 MR. CHEWCASKIE: So everyone but Mr. 20 Medina can vote on these resolutions. 21 MR. VALLEJO: Roll call on the motion. 22 Mr. Velazquez. 23 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: Yes. 24 MR. VALLEJO: Ms. Genao. 25 MS. GENAO: Yes.  50 1 MR. VALLEJO: Ms. Morejon. 2 MS. MOREJON: Yes. 3 MR. VALLEJO: Mr. Guareno. 4 MR. GUARENO: Yes. 5 MR. VALLEJO: Mr. Oseguera. 6 MR. OSEGUERA: Yes. 7 MR. VALLEJO: Five in favor, motion 8 carries. 9 * * * * 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  51 1 ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS: 2 2. 2712 NY LLC, 2712 New York Avenue. Block 141: 3 Lot: 7 Applicant proposes the construction of a 4 new three family house. Seeking for 1 year 5 extension. The approval resolution was 6 memorialized on July 28, 2020. Approved 7 8 MR. CHEWCASKIE: Next resolution was 9 2712 NY, LLC, for 2712 New York Avenue. This was 10 a request for extension, the extension be limited 11 to one year period commencing on July 28, 2022, 12 expiring July 28, 2023, subject to all conditions 13 in the prior resolution. 14 MR. VALLEJO: Can I have a motion? 15 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: I make a motion. 16 MR. VALLEJO: Motion by Mr. Velazquez. 17 Any second? 18 MR. OSEGUERA: Second. 19 MR. VALLEJO: Seconded by Mr. Oseguera. 20 Roll call on the motion. Mr. Velazquez. 21 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: Yes. 22 MR. VALLEJO: Ms. Genao. 23 MS. GENAO: Yes. 24 MR. VALLEJO: Ms. Morejon. 25 MS. MOREJON: Yes.  52 1 MR. VALLEJO: Mr. Guareno. 2 MR. GUARENO: Yes. 3 MR. VALLEJO: Mr. Oseguera. 4 MR. OSEGUERA: Yes. 5 MR. VALLEJO: Five in favor, motion 6 carries. 7 * * * * 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  53 1 ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS: 2 3. Lidia Nova 704-706 New York Ave Block: 37 Lot: 3 17 Applicant proposes conversion of a commercial 4 space into two apartments. Approved. Revised 5 drawings received on 03-07-2023 6 7 MR. CHEWCASKIE: The next resolution is 8 Lidia Nova, 704 to 706 New York Avenue. This was 9 to convert the second and third floors to 10 residential use with an existing commercial 11 structure, which was a bakery. We have the 12 standard conditions and also that the revised 13 plans be submitted to Mr. Spatz, which he just 14 indicated he did receive. 15 MR. VALLEJO: Can I have a motion to 16 adopt the resolution. 17 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: I make a motion. 18 MR. GUARENO: Second. 19 MR. VALLEJO: Motion by Mr. Velazquez, 20 seconded by Mr. Guareno. 21 Roll call on the motion. Mr. Velazquez. 22 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: Yes. 23 MR. VALLEJO: Ms. Genao. 24 MS. GENAO: Yes. 25 MR. VALLEJO: Ms. Morejon.  54 1 MS. MOREJON: Yes. 2 MR. VALLEJO: Mr. Guareno. 3 MR. GUARENO: Yes. 4 MR. VALLEJO: Mr. Oseguera. 5 MR. OSEGUERA: Yes. 6 MR. CHEWCASKIE: Five in favor, motion 7 carries. 8 * * * * 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  55 1 ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS: 2 CORRECTED RESOLUTION: 3 4. Jing Zhang. 1012 Palisade Ave. Block: 186 Lot: 4 42. Applicant proposes the legalization of a 5 ground floor apartment to convert them from a two 6 family to three families. Applicant also proposes 7 the addition of a stair bulkhead. The approval 8 resolution was memorialized on 10-25-2018. 9 10 MR. CHEWCASKIE: The last resolution is 11 Jing Zhang, 1012 Palisade Avenue. We did an 12 amended resolution for the building department 13 awhile ago regarding a rooftop deck on the garage. 14 Apparently, there was also on the drawings, a 15 rooftop deck of 710.92 square feet above the main 16 building. The building department wanted that 17 specifically in the resolution, so we did a 18 revised resolution for the Board to consider. 19 I requested the drawings. The approved 20 drawings depict both rooftop decks, so I'm 21 requesting the Board to adopt this amended 22 resolution. 23 MR. VALLEJO: Can I have a motion to 24 adopt the resolution? 25 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: I make a motion.  56 1 MR. VALLEJO: Motion by Mr. Velazquez. 2 MR. GUARENO: Second. 3 MR. VALLEJO: Seconded by Mr. Guareno. 4 Roll call on the motion. Mr. Velazquez. 5 CHAIRPERSON VELAZQUEZ: Yes. 6 MR. VALLEJO: Ms. Genao. 7 MS. GENAO: Yes. 8 MR. VALLEJO: Ms. Morejon. 9 MS. MOREJON: Yes. 10 MR. VALLEJO: Mr. Guareno. 11 MR. GUARENO: Yes. 12 MR. VALLEJO: Mr. Oseguera. 13 MR. OSEGUERA: Yes. 14 MR. VALLEJO: Five in favor, motion 15 carries. 16 * * * * 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  57 1 ADJOURNMENT: 2 3 MR. CHEWCASKIE: So before the 4 adjournment, I will be preparing and circulating a 5 resolution for the action on April 11th. We had 6 to do that for Mr. Lopez'S case on 15th Street. 7 MR. VALLEJO: Okay. There being no 8 other applications on tonight's, can I get a 9 motion to close? 10 MR. OSEGUERA: Motion. 11 MR. VALLEJO: Motion by Mr. Oseguera. 12 MR. GUARENO: Second. 13 MR. VALLEJO: Seconded by Mr. Guareno. 14 All in favor? 15 16 (Whereupon, all Board Members indicate 17 in the affirmative.) 18 19 MR. VALLEJO: The ayes have it. Six in 20 favor. Let the record indicate that the meeting 21 has ended. Thank you and good night, everyone. 22 23 24 (Whereupon the meeting was adjourned at 25 7:06 p.m.)  58 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 4 5 6 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a 7 true and accurate transcript of the testimony and 8 proceedings as taken stenographically by me at the 9 time, place, and on the date hereinbefore set 10 forth. 11 12 13 14 SUSAN BISCHOFF, CCR, RPR LICENSE NO. 30XI00233700 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25