The Jersey City Planning Board carried the application for 152 Ogden Ave. in the Heights on the Palisades due to concerns about the building’s foundation at last night’s virtual meeting.
By Daniel Ulloa/Hudson County View
The developer, PF Associates, LLC, is proposing to construct an 85-foot building and attorney Cynthia Hadjiyannis was called in to represent the Riverview Neighborhood Association.
“Ms. Hadjiyannis had filed an appeal of the administrative officers’ decision with respect to whether or not a variance was needed from the cliff side setback,” board attorney Santo Alampi noted.
“The case was heard before the zoning board, which determined that the administrative officers’ decision should be upheld. That is binding upon this body. We are not the appeal board of the zoning board.”
He added that an appeal to the superior court court had been filed, however, the applicant still had the right to be heard.
“If that decision by the zoning is appealed and is overturned, any approval or denial that his board makes tonight would be invalid, correct?” Board Chair Christopher Langston asked.
“The determination of the zoning board is currently being appealed in the superior court. It is possible that Ms. Hadjiyannis’ win in the Superior Court would affect whatever happens this evening,” Alampi clarified.
Hadjiyannis said the future is uncertain with the case still pending, while project attorney Chuck Harrington, a partner at Connell Foley, said it’s still an as of right project in their eyes, and that the appeal is about Palisades Preservation Overlay District (PPOD) protections.
“I am not handling the superior court action. Although the zoning board’s resolution was uploaded to the online portal … and precedential in a way they interpreted the PPOD,” Hadjiyannis added.
“That was a different hearing with different witnesses. That was based on that presentation that day. The zoning board’s decision only upheld the zoning officer’s determination. Any further action doesn’t affect our hearing tonight.”
Harrington said they were seeking approval for an eight-story building with 14 units and 14 parking spaces.
“It’s an irregularly shaped lot. It’s about .9 acres,” engineer Brian Liebskind said, also explaining the site is very nuanced.
Hadjiyannis noted that the PPOD makes the site unique since it is protected by special regulations due to concerns about the soil and rocks.
She also expressed concerns over the building’s weight on “unstable soil” and the uncertain nature of how deep stable bedrock was.
Hadjiyannis severely criticized Liebskind’s answer regarding the nature of their study of the site’s soil and rocks.
“I am giving you a ton of leeway. If this witness is not the appropriate witness, he can’t answer the question,” Alampi said.
Hadjiyannis questioned Liebskind on the nature of the site and the bedrock and was unhappy with his answers, which she believed reflected a lack of intense study of the issue.
“Ms. Hadjiyannis, we are well outside the scope of direct testimony,” Alampi interrupted.
“Anything that was uploaded … is something I can ask questions about,” Hadjiyannis replied.
“I’ve given you a lot of liberty to let you go far afield. Let’s move to the next question,” Alampi stated.
Langston said more drilling is needed to understand the type of rock at the site.
“Can you show me where’s the bedrock?” he asked, to which Liebskind said the report spelled it out.
“It doesn’t conclude that is bedrock,” Langston asserted, voicing concerns that the site may not be stable.
“You’re on top of the Palisades rock formation,” geotechnical engineer Nejm Jundi said about the project.
He also noted he has worked on similar projects on the Palisades, Jundi said they can take a range of precautions to secure the building.
Nevertheless, Langston still had lingering concerns.
“We adhere to the letter of the law. I don’t see anything in the report that says that’s bedrock. Your testimony is you haven’t been on-site,” he noted.
Jundi remained steadfast that the state should be fine.
“We should have that information before we talk about putting an eight-story building there,” Langston said.
Harrington said the analysis is done further down the road for permitting.
“Most of the time, the geotechnical engineer is hired after the site has been approved from a zoning perspective,” Jundi explained. “
“On the same condition were putting a 56-story building on Summit Avenue. Same condition, same rock.”
Langston argued that project is considerably different before cutting cut off by Alampi.
“We’re not going to argue with the witness. Is there something you want to see?” Alampi asked.
“The testimony was from Mr. Liebskind there’s bedrock there. I think we should have that information prior to any action from this board. This is a very different application than we’re used to seeing,” Langston said.
“There’s a million ways to support a building,” Jundi interjected.
He further explained that several mechanisms to support the building, depending on the nature of what they find regarding the site’s soil and rock in the future.
“We have a building design without the necessary data. The applicant is asking for an approval without knowing there’s a problem,” state Alampi.
He noted that a PPOD issue, specifically related to the depth of the rockm was part of the problem.
“That’s my concern. It’s in question whether this site can support a building,” Langston stated.
Alampi said they wanted to know how far down the stable bedrock was and have the project designed with that in mind.
“It’s unbelievably important,” Langston added.
“I hear what you’re saying. It’s a little unique with the PPOD being part of this,” Harrington admitted before agreeing to carry the project until January.
The measure was carried unanimously (7-0).
