The Jersey City Planning Board approved amendments to the Journal Square 2060 Redevelopment Plan regarding parking, affordable housing, and preservation at last night’s meeting.
By Daniel Ulloa/Hudson County View
Supervising Planner Matt Ward explained the amendments to the Journal Square 2060 plan, which include floor amendments for incentives to renovate the “Loew’s Art Walk,” would would require affordable housing and permit an additional five stories.
Ward further explained that Ward C Councilman Rich Boggiano has been working with them on this and they wanted to incentivize the creation of more parking and increasing building heights.
“We don’t know where this bonus will be utilized,” Ward noted, reiterating that one goal is to create more parking garages, affordable housing, and taller buildings.
Planner Matthew da Silva noted that there are certain affordable housing changes where more stories are permitted. However, they want to put a height limit on those stories.
Da Silva added that Boggiano expressed concerns about the demolition of rent-controlled units in the area.
“For each unit demolished, the developer has to provide a unit affordable to low-income households. This ensures the adequate replacement of housing,” he explained, also noting that they want to preserve historic housing in the area.
For example, a range of mixed-use buildings would be protected due to historical heritage.
On another note, Da Silva indicated that state law needs to be accommodated as well, therefore more retail will be allowed in Journal Square. The plan would also now incorporate the nearby St John’s Episcopal Church.
He noted that, overall, their goal is to make Journal Square competitive with downtown as an economic center.
“That was a great presentation, thank you,” acting Board Chair Dr. Orlando Gonzalez said.
Commissioner Steve Lipski noted a car went through a parking garage at 3000 John F. Kennedy Blvd. and crashed to the street below.
“Is this particular parcel looking to expand its parking?” he asked.
“ … There might be a need to redevelop an already redeveloped site. It’s one of the oldest in the city,” Ward replied.
He said updates in the plan could help address such an unexpected and unfortunate situation.
During public comment, attorney Chuck Harrington said he represented 52 Cottage St., which owned several blocks in the area. He wanted them to change the plan to benefit his client and brought a presentation.
“My client supports the amendments … The planning [department] has different ideas whether this is appropriate,” Harrington added.
Furthermore, he wanted the blocks between Van Reipen Avenue and Cottage Street to go from Zone 4 to Zone 3 between Summit Avenue and John F. Kennedy Boulevard.
“What you’re talking about … has no connection to any of the things we heard from planning staff …,” Board attorney Santo Alampi explained.
Harrington claimed it would allow for more affordable housing to be built, adding that his client, Sunny Kumar, is looking to build more by buying adjoining parcels in the future. Kumar then approached the podium to speak about their vision.
“I don’t think it’s worthwhile to look at this … We’re unsure this is compliant,” Ward argued.
He explained that Journal Square redevelopment has been an ongoing process involving local community groups that Boggiano has been working with for about a year and some disagreements over possible changes occurred.
Ward said that while Harrington claimed Boggiano supported him, he said Boggiano also supported their proposal – which are two different things.
“We don’t believe we should move forward with this at this time,” Ward declared.
“So, this is inconsistent with the Master Plan?” Alampi asked.
“Yes,” Ward said.
“Do you know the lot size?” Commissioner Vidya Gangadin asked, to which Harrington responded that it’s over 9,000 square ft.
“What’s the requirement on lot size?” Gangadin asked and Ward said there was confusion as to the answer on that. He noted the desire by many to maintain smaller homes instead of larger buildings.
“The intent would be to … open the door to permit that,” Harrington said.
Ultimately, Gangadin made a motion to approve the planning staff’s plan with Harrington’s amendments.
“They’re in opposition. It would have to be one or the other,” Lipski noted.
Gangadin still wanted to vote on Harrington’s plan. However, there was no second to her motion, so it was not considered.
Shortly thereafter, the board approved the planning department’s proposal unanimously (7-0).