The Jersey City Planning Board reviewed a plan for a 56-story building proposed for 2966 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, owned by a controversial developer, which includes 10 percent affordable housing.
By Daniel Ulloa/Hudson County View
Kuldeep “Sunny” Kumar of Journal Square Tower LLC and Euro Concrete, also the former construction board of appeals chair, is the official owner of the property and he sat in the audience of the public hearing, which was well attended by LIUNA union members.
Earlier this month, and Euro Concrete employees protested in light of a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) complaint alleging union busting tactics by Kumar’s company, as HCV first reported.
“It’s the old Pep Boys site,” noted applicant attorney Chuck Harrington, who said the the project was initially approved at 35 stories.
“When the amendments to the Journal Square Redevelopment Plan were adopted in August … he put some breaks on it.”
A LIUNA worker in attendance, who spoke under the condition of anonymity, said that there were labor law violations enforced by OSHA that stopped construction at the site last summer.
Nonetheless, Harrington said Kumar wants to take advantage of the new law, which requires 10 percent affordable housing and allows developers to create skyscrapers.
“The prior application had zero affordable [housing]. It didn’t require any,” he argued, indicating they would be seeking an additional 20 stories, explaining that rooftop level with amenities counts as the 56th floor and 63 affordable units – which is 11.6 percent.
Architect Anthony C. Vandermark, Jr. said it’s about half an acre on a corner lot and they are seeking to build 542 units – 154 which will be hotel rooms – 295 bikes parking spaces inside and eight outside – which will also have EV charging stations.
He also said there would be a dog daycare, a restaurant, and a banquet hall.
“Do you have a civil engineer?” board attorney Santo Alampi asked, noting he was concerned about the ground floor details.
Harrington argued they are following the previously approved plans and he thought the architect could handle civil engineer issues that arose at the hearing, but Board Chair Christopher Langston noted it was an issue.
“Greedy developer!” someone in the crowd yelled in the middle of technical deliberation.
Alampi also noted they did not see the proper civil engineering plans in the online portal system available to the public.
“We go by public information. We should be viewing exactly what the public can see: Nothing more, nothing less,” Langston said.
“It’s a glitch we’re not responsible for. I just wanted to let the public know that,” Harrington replied.
“Were civil engineering studies done? Obviously, there’s a lot more weight,” Langston questioned.
“Yes,” Harrington said.
He said their engineer was present, but he did not prepare a report to submit.
“Planning did not receive a report,” Planner Matthew da Silva said and he thought their intent was for the civil engineer to provide testimony.
Harrington said they thought a letter was sufficient, which they provided.
“The board is considering this as a new application. So, we can’t go off of an existing engineering report,” Langston noted.
Alampi was concerned about documents not being publicly available as required by law.
“Are engineering reports required for a building of this size and scope?” Langston questioned.
“Generally, that’s not in our jurisdiction. The structural soundness of the building is determined by staff in the building department,” da Silva replied.
“If the board wants us to provide a more formal report, that’s something we can provide,” Harrington said.
“The chair’s comment is how do I know that podium can support a much larger tower,” Alampi noted.
Commissioner Steve Lipski asked if this was a moot point if the engineering report is not required.
“If the board feels it’s necessary, the board has the absolute right to ask for it. It’s not a checklist item,” Alampi added.
“We’re willing to do it … It is a unique situation,” Harrington said, noting they had a structural engineer in the audience to advise.
“The civil plan is in the portal and not made publicly available were from the earlier edition of the project,” da Silva noted.
“There’s a base there already … We’re going to target if it’s structurally sound if you can just add 20 stories to it,” Langston said.
“21,” someone called out.
“Right … I don’t think we’re out of line,” Langston added.
“Planning can’t deny the public a document that is part of the application,” Alampi noted.
Da Silva later said that civil engineering plans are a standard requirement versus a report.
“I get no joy in asking you to carry,” Langston said, before the board decided to carry the application until May 6th.
To many apartment building. What about the Senior Citizens we can not afford those big building. We need small building.
A Controversial Developer is one that Mayor Fulop has not approved.
Zero Affordable housing had always been the rule as Fulop’s NEWPort development skyscraper plan yet now as he tries to be Governor his ads tout how he says he is pushing for it.
This project stopped last year.