Meeting record
Zoning Board of Adjustment, March 5, 2026
- Body
- Zoning Board of Adjustment
- Date
- March 5, 2026 (regular meeting)
- Video
- city recording, 2h 32m
- Called to order
- 0:00:12
- Adjourned
- 2:32:37
- Agenda
- data.jerseycitynj.gov
- Memorialized resolutions
- jerseycitynj-energovpub.tylerhost.net
- Votes
- 2 confirmed, 1 as heard, unconfirmed
The Zoning Board of Adjustment publishes no written minutes, so the votes and attendance on this page are as heard on the video and are marked unconfirmed until a memorialized resolution confirms them (see the
vote rule).
Attendance
Items
13 Z2026-0015 case
Announced under correspondence ('Do we have any correspondence and adjournments?', 0:02:08) by a speaker who is not named: the applicant 'requested to be carried to April 9th with preservation of notice' (0:02:12). Carried to April 9, 2026, with preservation of notice. No motion or vote was heard.
14 Z2026-0004 case
Announced under correspondence by the same speaker: the applicant 'requested to be carried on April 9th, no, April 9th, 2026, the board meeting with notice required' (0:02:34). Carried to April 9, 2026, with notice required (as heard). No motion or vote was heard.
9 Z2026-0020 case
6-0 6 ayes, 0 nays, roll call at 0:06:23Roll call by a reader who is not named, from 'Acting Vice Chair Allen' (0:06:23). Full pass: Allen 'Yes' (0:06:26, p 0.42), DiAngelo 'Yes' (0:06:29, p 0.75), Czaplicki 'Yes' (0:06:32, p 0.97), Burns 'Yes' (0:06:34, p 0.27), Coviello called (0:06:35) with no answer heard, Araujo 'Yes' (0:06:38, p 0.98). Re-transcription of 0:06:10 to 0:06:50 (checker, 2026-10-19): Burns 'Yes' p 0.80, Coviello 'Yes' (0:06:36, p 0.93), Allen 'Yes' p 0.34; Burns's and Coviello's answers rest on the re-transcription. Allen's aye is filled from the announced count 'Motion carries 6-0' (0:06:39): five ayes heard, one aye remaining. Coyle, Shedeed and Patel were not called. A first motion (0:05:35) named case Z2025-0094 and was corrected to 'case number 9'; the motion to approve Z2026-0020 (0:06:10) and the second (0:06:22) were made by speakers who are not named. Memorialized resolution RESO Z2026-0020 on EnerGov (date of hearing March 5, 2026; memorialized April 9, 2026): 'VOTE: 6-0', yes for Aruajo [sic], Allen, Czaplicki, Burns, Coviello and DiAngelo; the table does not list Coyle, Shedeed or Patel (absent as heard). Held unconfirmed because the resolution script kept the acting chair's name as '?Aruajo'. The resolution's table spells Commissioner Araujo's name 'Aruajo'. Published as heard on Adam Hanford's Review Desk decision of 2026-10-22 (card zoning-2026-03-05__9).
- 0:03:57 Attorney: The applicant's attorney, Tom Lean, described the original approval in February 2024 and a subdivision involving a HUD-controlled property that took about a year to record.
- 0:05:17 Staff: Staff asked the attorney to confirm that the applicant would comply with the conditions of the original approval and said staff recommended approval.
Called at 0:03:41 ('Case number Z 206-0020, One year extension, 64 Harmon Street', 0:03:46 to 0:03:54). Attorney heard as 'Tom Lean from the law firm of Kamal Foley' (0:04:01; agenda: Thomas Leane, Esq.). Extension of preliminary and final major site plan approval of Case No. Z20-020 (agenda). Staff speaker not named (agenda review planner: Ben Jordan).
10 Z2025-0082 case
6-0 6 ayes, 0 nays, roll call at 1:18:15 as heard, unconfirmedMotion 'to deny case Z2025-0082 as presented to the board this evening' (1:17:53) and second (1:18:09) by speakers who are not named; before the motion a speaker who is not named explained that denying the appeal affirms the zoning officer's determination and affirming it reverses the determination ('Deny or affirm the appeal', 1:17:45). Roll call by a reader who is not named, from 'Acting Vice Chair Allen' (1:18:15). Each member answered 'deny', recorded aye on the motion to deny: Allen 'I have to vote deny' (1:18:19, 'deny' p 0.47; re-transcription p 0.27), DiAngelo 'Deny' (1:18:45, p 0.94), Czaplicki (called as 'Treplicki', 1:18:46) 'Deny' (1:18:50, p 1.00), Burns 'Deny' (1:18:52, p 1.00), Coviello 'Deny' (1:18:55, p 1.00), Acting Chair Araujo 'So I would have to say it's denied' (1:18:56, p 0.99). Allen's aye is filled from the announced count 'appeal denied, 6-0' (1:19:21): five ayes heard, one aye remaining. Coyle, Shedeed and Patel were not called. No resolution of this case uploaded to EnerGov since 2026-03-05 (resolutions fetched 2026-10-21).
- 0:19:26 Attorney: Jeffrey Kantowitz, attorney for neighbouring residents including the appellant Joel Arceo, argued that the 21.9-foot lot is narrower than the 25 feet the R-1 zone requires and that rounding 2.56 permitted units up to three conflicts with the state definition of density.
- 0:44:33 Attorney: Tom Lean, attorney for the owner of 6 Stegman Place, said section 345-41 treats all existing R-1 lots as conforming and that the supplemental rounding standard permits three units at 42 units per acre.
- 0:49:16 Public: Members of the public spoke on parking, building height, the density calculation and the character of the block.
- 1:05:33 Staff: The staff member who reviewed the zoning review application said the review applied the R-1 standards and the rounding provision of section 345-60 correctly.
- 1:12:16 Staff: Staff read a timeline from the staff memo of January 23, 2026, from a demolition application of July 10, 2025 to the approval of ZRA-2025-01314 on October 22, 2025 and the appeal of November 3, 2025.
Called at 0:06:45 ('Z-2025-0082 ... 6A Stegman Place'); the appellants' attorney was not yet present (0:07:53, 0:08:02) and the board moved to case 11 at 0:08:43 and to the memorializations at 0:10:56. The hearing resumed at 0:19:26 with the attorney's introduction. The attorney named as clients the appellant Joel Arceo (agenda applicant) and two other residents near 6 Stegman Place (0:19:57). Appeal of the approval of zoning review application ZRA-2025-01314 for a three-family dwelling (0:45:03, 1:15:03). Public portion opened at 0:49:16 and closed at 1:04:58; one of the residents the attorney represented was sworn and was ruled a member of the public limited to three minutes (1:00:02 to 1:00:46). An exhibit photograph of the demolished site was discussed and not marked (0:53:54 to 0:54:36). The board took a five-minute break after the vote (1:19:21) and reconvened at 1:28:48.
11 Z2023-0024 case
6-0 6 ayes, 0 nays, roll call at 2:21:29Motion 'to approve KZ-2023-0024 as presented to the board this evening' (2:21:13) and second (2:21:26) by speakers who are not named; 'may I have a roll call?' (2:21:27). Roll call by a reader who is not named: Acting Vice Chair Allen 'So I'm a yes' (2:21:46, p 1.00), DiAngelo 'Yes' (2:21:52, p 0.65), Czaplicki 'Yes' (2:21:55, p 0.99), Burns 'Yes' (2:21:57, p 0.98), Coviello 'Yes' (2:21:59, p 0.93), Acting Chair Araujo 'Definitely, yes' (2:22:01, p 1.00). No result was announced on the video; tally counted from the answers. Coyle, Shedeed and Patel were not called. Memorialized resolution RESO Z2023-0024 on EnerGov (decided and heard March 5, 2026; memorialized April 9, 2026): 'VOTE: 6-0', voting in favor Araujo, Allen, Czaplicki, Burns, Coviello and DiAngelo, none against, none abstaining; the table does not list Commissioners Coyle, Shedeed or Patel, absent as heard on the video.
- 1:30:45 Attorney: The applicant's attorney, Benjamin Wine, described a four-storey, four-unit residential building reduced from six units after community meetings and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission, seeking 'd' variances for density and height and 'c' variances for front and rear yard setbacks.
- 1:40:06 Applicant: The project manager, Martin Moreno, described the site plan, a front yard setback of 0.8 to 12.6 feet, a rear yard of six feet, a ground-floor ADA unit, and materials approved by the Historic Preservation Commission.
- 2:00:29 Applicant: The applicant's planner, Carolyn Worstell, testified to a height of just under 45 feet and four storeys where 35 feet and three storeys are permitted, and a density of 80 units per acre.
- 2:19:49 Staff: Staff recommended approval on condition that the eight conditions of Certificate of Appropriateness H-23-0023 carry over, and the attorney agreed to them.
Called at 0:08:43; the applicant's attorney said the architect and planner were on the way (0:09:02) and the case was set aside. Called again at 1:30:26 ('Z20230024 ... 2624 Kennedy Boulevard'). The attorney gave the property as Block 14906, Lot 20, in the 'RH2 Zoning District' and the West Bergen East Lincoln Park Historic District (1:30:45; RESO Z2023-0024 p. 1: 'RH-2 Zoning District'; agenda: R-1, Neighborhood Housing District). Planner's surname spelled 'W-O-R-S-T-E-L-L' on the video (1:59:43; 'Carolyn Worstell' in the resolution). Licensed architect Jeffrey Lewis confirmed the project manager's testimony (1:38:10, 1:59:29). Exhibits marked A1 (site plan package, 1:39:43) and A2 (animation, 1:55:06). Rear yard 6.2 feet where 10 feet is required (2:12:25). The chair asked whether anyone in the audience wished to speak; no one did (2:19:26). After the vote the board took a break (2:22:24) and reconvened at 2:27:21, when the board attorney asked about the notices for this case and the applicant's attorney offered a copy (2:27:31 to 2:28:16).
15.1 Z2024-0052 case
Resolution: 'c' variances, 364 5th Street, LLC, 364 5th Street (as heard)
Voice vote, no roll call at 0:11:44 as heard, unconfirmedNo member's answer is recorded for a voice vote.
Agenda item 15 (Memorialization of Resolutions); the agenda lists no individual resolutions, so 15.x is this record's order of reading, and the case numbers, applicants and addresses are as read on the video by a speaker who is not named ('let's memorialize some resolutions while we have the time', 0:10:56; 'We have five resolutions today', 0:09:47). Heard May 8, 2025; present as read: Chairwoman Coyle, Commissioners Araujo, Allen, Barron, Boyle, Burns and Czaplicki; voted seven in favour, none opposed (0:11:16, 0:11:44). Memorialized by voice vote: 'all in favor of memorializing that?' (0:11:44), 'Aye' (0:11:51, p 0.95); no roll call, so no by-member vote is recorded.
15.2 case
Resolution: 'c' variances, 364 5th Street, LLC (read as case 'Z20-2025-0052'; as heard)
Voice vote, no roll call at 0:12:40 as heard, unconfirmedNo member's answer is recorded for a voice vote.
Read as case 'Z20-2025-0052, 364 5th Street, LLC' (0:11:52). Heard Thursday, October 23, 2025, an application for 'c' variances; the reader said 'I think we had to correct some error in the last application' (0:12:23). Present as read: Chairwoman Coyle, Commissioners Araujo, Barron, Czaplicki, DiAngelo and Shedeed; passed six in favour, none opposed (0:12:32, 0:12:40). Memorialized by voice vote: 'All in favor of memorializing that? Aye.' (0:12:40, 'Aye' p 0.96); no roll call, so no by-member vote is recorded.
15.3 Z2024-0001 case
Resolution: preliminary and final major site plan with 'c' and 'd' variances, SVMS Jersey City LLC, 48 Central Avenue (as heard)
Voice vote, no roll call at 0:13:18 as heard, unconfirmedNo member's answer is recorded for a voice vote.
Heard November 20, 2025 (0:12:47). Present as read: Chairwoman Coyle, Vice Chair Araujo, and Commissioners Patel, Barron, Burns, Allen and DiAngelo; passed seven in favour, none opposed (0:13:18). Memorialized by voice vote: 'All in favor of memorializing that? Aye.' (0:13:18, word timing 0:13:26 to 0:13:28, 'Aye' p 0.93); no roll call, so no by-member vote is recorded.
15.4 case
Resolution: one-year extension of a prior approval, 'N-O-O-R-A-N-L-O' LLC (as spelled on the video), 319 and 321 Old Bergen Road (read as case 'Z25-0085'; as heard)
Voice vote, no roll call at 0:14:14 as heard, unconfirmedNo member's answer is recorded for a voice vote.
Read as 'Z25-0085' (0:13:18, word timing 0:13:31). Heard December 11, 2025; present as read: Acting Chairwoman Araujo, Commissioners Shedeed, Allen, DiAngelo, Czaplicki and Burns; 'passed five in favor and somebody recused themselves, but I don't know. I don't remember who.' (0:14:04, 0:14:12). Memorialized by voice vote: 'all in favor of memorializing that?' (0:14:14), 'Aye.' (0:14:17, p 0.94; re-transcription of 0:13:55 to 0:14:30, the full pass heard no answer); no roll call, so no by-member vote is recorded.
15.5 Z2025-0089 case
Voice vote, no roll call at 0:14:43 as heard, unconfirmedNo member's answer is recorded for a voice vote.
Heard January 8, 2026 (0:14:16). Present as read: Chairwoman Coyle, Acting Chair Araujo, and Commissioners Shedeed, Allen, Czaplicki, Burns and Coviello; passed seven in favour, none opposed (0:14:43). Memorialized by voice vote: 'All in favor of memorializing that. Aye. Aye.' (0:14:43, 'Aye' p 0.92 and 0.19); no roll call, so no by-member vote is recorded.
12 Z2025-0023 case
- 2:28:46 Attorney: The applicant's attorney, Benjamin Wine, said three neighbours had not known of the applicant's community meetings and asked that the application be adjourned and carried to the next regular meeting so the applicant could meet them.
- 2:30:48 Public: A resident said neighbours had learned of the hearing from certified letters received the week before.
Taken up after the break ('023. Yes. Harmon Street', 2:28:29). The attorney asked that the application 'be adjourned and carried to the next regular meeting with preservation of notice' (2:30:00); a speaker who is not named said 'That's correct, April 9th' (2:30:10) and 'we'll adjourn it with reservation notices for April 9th' (2:30:38) (re-transcription of 2:29:30 to 2:30:50; the full pass has no words from 2:30:05 to 2:30:34). Carried to April 9, 2026, with preservation of notice. No motion or vote on carrying the case was heard. The chair asked the attorney to keep the neighbours informed (2:32:14). Other agenda items: call to order 0:00:12; sunshine announcement 0:01:13 (entered as B1, 0:01:19); roll call (item 3) 'May we have a roll call?' (0:01:32, re-transcription; see attendance); swearing in of staff asked at 0:01:53 (oath not heard); correspondence 0:02:04; item 6 (Adjournments: 6a, Z2025-0094, 201 Newark Avenue, printed on the agenda as carried to May 7, 2026 with preservation of notice) was not read on the video; item 7 (Old Business) 'we don't have any old business' (0:03:37); item 8 (New Business) and item 16 (Executive Session) were not called on the video; for item 17 (Adjournment) see the meeting's adjourned field (motion to adjourn and second, 2:32:31 to 2:32:37, no vote heard).
Record drafted 2026-10-19, checked 2026-10-21, reviewed by Adam Hanford (review pending).