For more information on this project, please attend the Planning Board meeting:

Date: August 21, 2008
Location: 30 Montgomery St, 14th floor
Time: 6:00pm

Please see below for a Statement of Principle Points, provided by the developer.

A computer rendering of a new project being proposed for the corner of Seventh and Division Streets. The rendering is not final, as color and material choices are still being designed. According to the developers, there will also be more greenery in front.

Statement of Principal Points
25 – 27 Division Street
Block 448- Lot 7 B

The subject site consists of one lot fronting on Division Street in Jersey City, New Jersey. The lot is located on Block 448 on the northwest corner of the intersection of Division and 7th Streets. The total parcel size is 3,682.5 square feet with a width of 50 feet and a depth of 73.65 feet. The lot currently contains an older vacant 4 story multi-family structure on the corner, as well as a one story auto garage fronting on Division Street. The site is located in a flood hazard area forcing the first floor of any proposed development to be raised out of the floodplain.

The applicant is seeking to construct a 5-story, 15 unit residential building on the site. The first floor will contain an entry vestibule, mechanical room, and 3 – one bedroom units. The second through fifth floors will each contain 2 – two bedroom units and 1 – one bedroom unit. All units will have access to a common roof deck and a green roof is proposed.

Both “c” and “d” variances will be required for the proposed development. A “c” variance will be required to deviate from the rear yard requirement. The proposed development will also require a “d” variance for height pursuant to 40:55D-70d(6).

The Neighborhood Commercial district typically permits residential apartments above the ground floor, but not on the ground or first floor. However, the zoning ordinance was recently amended to allow for residential uses on the first floor in this particular area recognizing the unique characteristics of the area. Therefore, the proposed project is a permitted use within this particular NC zoning district. Conversely, the present automotive garage is not a permitted use and is inconsistent with the intent of the zone plan, as well as the residential neighborhood to the east. The proposed project will in fact be more consistent with the zone district and the residential character of the neighborhood to the east.

The subject area is characterized by an eclectic mix of varied land-uses including an auto-repair shop, fitness facility, residential uses, the elevated New Jersey Turnpike extension, a park located north of the subject property at the end of Division Street and vacant land in close proximity to the proposed development. Ultimately, the subject property as well as the immediate surrounding area, with its inconsistent land uses, represents an area that does not reflect the uses found in a typical Neighborhood Commercial District, nor is the area comparable to any of the typical residential districts found in Jersey City. This area is not suited to typical neighborhood commercial development since it is not located along a major thoroughfare; nor is it suited any longer for industrial development because of its proximity to a residential neighborhood to the east. This area is most suitable for a residential development, although as previously mentioned, the area is not typical of lower density residential districts found in the surrounding area.

The proposed development requires a height variance. The maximum building height in the Neighborhood Commercial district is 4 stories, where parking is not required and 5 stories where on-site parking is required. Parking is only required on lots greater than 50 feet in width. Therefore, as the subject site is only 50 feet wide, no parking is required and the permitted height is 4 stories. The height of the proposed building is 5 stories, thereby necessitating the height variance.

The proposed height is warranted in this location and can be accommodated on this site without adversely affecting the surrounding area or properties. This is in part due to the additional width of the subject site, being 50 feet wide rather than 25 feet wide; but also because the site is a corner property. It is good urban design to place taller more prominent buildings at corner locations. The larger buildings at corners help to define the visual terminus of a block. Corner locations can also accommodate a taller building because the adjoining streets on two sides afford greater accessibility to the building and greater air and light. In addition, as previously mentioned the area is not typical of either a neighborhood commercial district or the lower density residential districts. Furthermore, the extreme height of the Turnpike to the west of the proposed development allows the site to accommodate a taller building without impinging upon the surrounding area. This area is more of a transitional type, where heights similar to an R-3 Mid-rise district are more appropriate. Therefore, a 5 story building is appropriate in this location.

The proposed development also requires a rear yard variance as the proposed rear yard is 5’ – 1”, and a 15 foot minimum rear yard is required in the Neighborhood Commercial district. Presently, 50% of the site has no rear yard (the area behind the automotive garage). This proposed project will in fact create a better situation by creating a continuous rear setback area along the entire rear property line; thereby bringing the property into greater conformity with the intent of the zone plan in this regard. Therefore, the benefits of granting the rear yard variance outweigh any detriment because this project presents an improvement to the area by providing a continuous rear yard setback.

The variances can be granted as both the positive and negative criteria have been met. In terms of the positive criteria, a d(6) height variance is not held to the same level of proof as a d(1) use variance. A d(6) variance does not require a proof of particular suitability, nor does it require the enhanced level of proof (i.e. Medici). In Grasso v. Boro of Spring Lake Heights, the court suggested that, “to the extent that a particular style of house could promote a harmonious consistent visual environment, that might be considered as a special reason for the grant of a d(6) variance”.

In the subject case, the applicant is proposing a residential structure that is consistent with the intent of the zone plan, and is in part replacing a non-conforming one-story automotive garage structure. The proposed structure is a multi-story residential structure in a district permitting multi-story residential structures, and in an area that is transitional and can accommodate a 5-story structure. Therefore, the proposed building creates a more harmonious and consistent development with the surrounding area and zone plan.

In addition, the granting of the d variance will advance several of the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law. The granting of the variances will guide the appropriate use and development of this site in a manner that will promote the general welfare consistent with NJSA 40:55D-2a. The removal of a non-conforming use, replacing it with a residential use is more consistent with the intent and purpose of the zone district, thereby promoting the general welfare.

The proposed project is also consistent with the purposes of NJSA 40:55D-2g, in that the site provides sufficient space in an appropriate location for the proposed use. The configuration of the project is consistent with the pattern in the neighborhood.

The project will also promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement by removing an older vacant and deteriorated building and a one story non-conforming automotive garage structure; and replacing these with a modern attractive residential structure; consistent with 40:55D-2i.

In terms of the negative criteria, the granting of the variances will not result in a substantial detriment to the public good. The public good should actually be advanced by the development of this project in that the residential use is consistent with the primarily residential character of the area, and the scale of the neighborhood.

The granting of the variances will also be more consistent with the intent and purpose of the zone plan. The proposed property will remove a non-conforming use (auto garage) and provide for a residential use in a district that permits residential uses.

Therefore, the requested variances can be granted in that the positive and negative criteria have been met and the site is particularly well suited for the proposed use. Further, the benefits of granting the requested rear yard variance would substantially outweigh any detriment relative to any adjustments or deviations from the applicable criteria.