The Hoboken Planning Board approved subdivision for 1300 Jefferson St., a part of the Western Edge Redevelopment Zone, on Tuesday that raised some concerns due to an ongoing lawsuit the City of Union City filed objecting to the project in February 2023.
By Daniel Ulloa/Hudson County View
Just Block 112 LLC Attorney Cameron MacLeod noted that, despite the litigation, the Hoboken City Council previously approved the project.
“We’re objecting on notice purposes … We never received any independent notice that this was going forward,” said Chasan Lamparello Mallon & Cappuzzo, PC partner Philip Lamparello, who is representing Union City in the matter.
“The application was put on the city website. It is out there,” Board Chair Frank Magaletta said.
He asked MacLeod if they had provided notice, to which he said he did not since it’s not required.
“Final subdivision approval is more perfunctory,” MacLeod claimed.
Commissioner Jim Doyle, also a councilman-at-large, asked if the notice was explicitly related to the lawsuit.
“We should be provided a copy so we can continue those objections,” Lamparello replied, noting that he therefore did not have ample time to prepare.
“It was an appropriate application to make, but it was denied,” Magaletta said about his objections.
Professional land surveyor Richard Ruchalski said the land was being divided properly.
“The final set of plans needs to be the final set of the plans,” Lamparello said.
MacLeod said the city recently requested the revisions, so they were describing them.
“Why was it not submitted?” Magaletta asked.
“We were worried about the 10-day requirement. We did provide them via email,” MacLeod answered.
Magaletta asked is anything substantive was submitted, to which MacLeod said they did not.
“We don’t know for a fac t… what is being changed. That plan should have been provided to the public in general, the board, and objectors,” Lamparello argued.
Ruchalski said the changes were technical in nature.
“You should have the full plan to review. We should have the report,” Magaletta stated, to which Ruchalski reiterated that the changes were very minor.
MacLeod said he brought a site diagram to demonstrate there was enough room for the project.
“We can submit this as further evidence,” he added.
“Does the subdivision meet the RDA?” Magaletta asked.
“There’s been no change to the subdivision,” MacLeod declared.
He noted that Ruchalski is not a planner but a surveyor and questioned why a planner was not present.
“A planner isn’t necessary,” MacLeod asserted.
“We think a planner is necessary to testify,” Lamparello interjected.
“We can say it’s up to us,” Magaletta determined.
MacLeod asked him if it was consistent with prior approvals and Ruchalski said it was.
“He’s relying on information from professionals who are not present. How is he able to confidently testify at this time?” Lamparello questioned.
“I would have liked to have a professional here,” Magaletta said.
MacLeod continued by asking technical questions about the project, with Ruchalski noting that no setbacks are required.
“I don’t think it’s established he read the redevelopment plan,” Lamparello declared.
“I glanced. The line was set by other professionals. We received PDFs, maps, whatnot,” Ruchalski answered.
“I’m objecting to all these supplemental submissions,” Lamparello added, to which Magaletta said the plan was available to all members of the public.
“We secured preliminary approval three years ago. The board is duty bound… to approve that application,” MacLeod proclaimed.
Lamparello objected, again claiming that expert testimony is required, not attorney testimony.
“We’ll accept your objection,” Magaletta replied.
“We received preliminary approval. We’re trying to finalize this,” Ruchalski repeated, adding that many of these issues were addressed three years ago.
Lamparello asked if they were the final plans and Ruchalski responded that they were not.
“This plan has not altered substantively since it received preliminary approval. We would ask … that the board grant this final approval,” MacLeod pressed forward.
Lamparello noted they did not provide required materials ever since Union City objected.
“We have changes. We have the expert testifying here with respect to conversations with other experts … despite the fact that the chairman requested a planner present. I think that the board should deny the application,” Lamparello noted.
Magaletta explained their approval could be subject to an engineering review and the final plans could be sent to Lamparello to allow them to object if they felt it necessary.
“I’ll give you five days … to submit any kind of objection, and we’ll consider. That solves that issue,” he said.
MacLeod said Ruchalski would send the final plan to the board and Lamparello would get a copy and be given five business days to formally object.
“This is, in essence, is taking a full city block and surveying it into two adjacent parcels … and surveying it,” Doyle noted.
Commissioner Tom Jacobson asked Magaletta why a planner was needed.
“Is it consistent with the redevelopment plan? That’s what I want to make sure,” Magaletta replied.
“Simply adjourn the matter at this time. Allow it at the next hearing,” Lamparello said.
“As a practical matter, we can still vote on this application and respect your rights,” Magaletta asserted.
The Hoboken Planning Board ultimately approved the application unanimously (6-0).
Correction: This story has been updated to reflect that the subdivision hearing was for 1300 Jefferson St.
