Meeting record
Zoning Board of Adjustment, August 6, 2026
- Body
- Zoning Board of Adjustment
- Date
- August 6, 2026 (regular meeting)
- Video
- city recording, 1h 14m
- Called to order
- 0:00:02
- Adjourned
- 1:14:19
- Agenda
- data.jerseycitynj.gov
- Memorialized resolutions
- jerseycitynj-energovpub.tylerhost.net
- Votes
- 1 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
8 Z2025-0023 case
7-0 7 ayes, 0 nays, roll call at 0:17:59Roll call read by a speaker who is not named, from 'Commissioner Allen?' (0:17:59, word timing) through 'And acting chair, Araujo. Yes.' (0:18:16); every answer 'Yes' (p 0.90 to 1.00). Acting Chair Araujo addressed the applicant's attorney after answering (0:18:17). 'Motion carries 7-0.' (0:18:36). Mover (0:17:39) and seconder (0:17:56) not named. Second record: the memorialized resolution of Z2025-0023 on EnerGov (date of hearing August 6, 2026; memorialized September 17, 2026; 'VOTE: 7-0', voting in favour Araujo, Shedeed, Allen, Czaplicki, Burns, Patel and DiAngelo, none against or abstaining, p. 15). The resolution's vote table does not list Commissioners Coviello and Coyle; absent as heard on the video. Eligibility: the applicant's attorney asked the board to confirm seven eligible members (0:06:08); an unnamed 'Yes.' (0:06:15) and 'So to confirm, so everybody has read the transcript' (0:06:17). The resolution states that before the vote 'all commissioners present certified that they had either been present at or read the transcripts' of all prior hearings (p. 1), and lists those present at each hearing: Burns and Czaplicki not on June 4, Shedeed not on March 5 or July 9 (its June 4 list names 'Patrick Patel'). Every answer is recorded as given.
- 0:06:08 Attorney: The applicant's attorney asked the board to confirm that seven members eligible to vote were present; a speaker, not named, answered 'Yes.' (0:06:15), followed by 'So to confirm, so everybody has read the transcript', speaker not named (0:06:17).
- 0:06:32 Attorney: The applicant's attorney said no further testimony or public comment was needed, gave a closing on the design changes since the original filing, and asked the board to vote on the application.
- 0:10:35 Attorney: The applicant's attorney said the variances are for density, height, and a rear yard of about 17.5 feet where 19.9 feet is required.
- 0:13:46 Staff: Staff said its revised memo of June 3, 2026 reflects a four-storey, 13-unit building with one affordable unit, 43.5 feet high where 35 feet is permitted, at 120 units per acre where the standard is 42 (0:14:13 to 0:14:41).
- 0:15:41 Staff: Staff said it supports the changes, put the D5 density and D6 height variances before the board, and asked that the applicant agree to the memo's conditions if approved (0:17:07).
Announced as old business at 0:02:41 ('the first case is case Z-2025-0023 ... 12 Harman Street'). Continued from the July 9, 2026 meeting with preservation of notice, testimony taken (agenda); heard on July 9 as item 9 of data/meetings/zoning-2026-07-09.json, and earlier on March 5 and June 4, 2026 (resolution, p. 1). No public portion was held tonight; the public portion was closed on July 9. Board members had no further comments (0:13:08). Motion to approve made at 0:17:39 and seconded at 0:17:56, speakers not named; approved 7-0 by roll call (0:18:36).
10 Z2025-0015 case
1-5 1 aye, 5 nays, roll call at 1:04:45 as heard, unconfirmedMotion to approve the application (1:04:16) and second (1:04:40), speakers not named. The roll-call reader announced that Commissioner Allen had recused (1:04:46); no reason was stated. Commissioners Shedeed (1:05:00), Burns (1:05:05), Czaplicki (1:07:17) and DiAngelo (1:07:36) voted no; Acting Chair Araujo voted yes (1:08:41). Commissioner Patel's answer (1:07:21) is unclear on the automatic transcript and was confirmed as no by listening on 2026-10-18. The motion failed 1-5: announced as 'motion fails, 6-1' (1:08:43), then corrected to 'Sorry, 5-1' (1:08:53). No resolution of this case had been posted as of 2026-10-16. Published on Adam Hanford's decision of 2026-10-18. No memorialized resolution of this hearing yet, so the vote shows as heard, unconfirmed (EDITORIAL.md section 4).
- 0:19:49 Vincent J. La Paglia (Board Attorney): Said the applicant's notices, affidavit and proof of publication had been reviewed and were acceptable; the applicant's attorney answered 'Thank you, Mr. La Paglia' (0:19:58).
- 0:22:00 Attorney: The applicant's attorney said the Historic Preservation Commission approved a certificate of appropriateness for a building 43 feet 3.5 inches high, 5-4 (0:23:36), and asked that the HPC staff comments in the zoning staff report not be considered.
- 0:29:03 Applicant: The applicant's architect said the proposal is a four-storey, two-family building on a vacant lot, needing variances for building coverage, a height of 43 feet 3.5 inches, and a rear yard of 10 feet where 30 feet is required (0:29:53).
- 0:43:37 Applicant: The applicant's planner said the height variance is for 3 feet 3.5 inches above the 40 feet permitted, related to the design flood elevation, and that coverage is 72.2% where 60% is permitted (0:49:35).
- 0:56:42 Staff: Staff said it sees no detriment in the coverage and rear yard variances, sees substantial detriment in the height variance (0:59:17), and does not support it (1:01:24); a speaker for the applicant, not named, agreed to the report's conditions (1:01:45).
Announced as new business at 0:18:45 ('Case Z-2025-0015, it's 84 Coal Street'). The agenda describes a four-storey building with two dwelling units and no off-street parking; the applicant's attorney gave the lot as 30 by 50 feet, 1,500 square feet (0:21:34). Exhibits A2 (a letter dated August 6 to the board attorney on the staff report, 0:20:10) and A3 (the applicant's attorney's opening statement with HPC documents, 0:20:35) were marked. The applicant's architect was sworn at 0:28:02 and the applicant's planner at 0:40:46. Asked whether members of the public wished to speak (0:54:13), the answer was no (0:54:20); no question from a board member was heard when asked (0:54:22). Staff testified from 0:54:47; the applicant's attorney closed at 1:02:09. The motion to approve failed by roll call; the announced count was corrected from 6-1 to 5-1 (1:08:53). Action recorded as Denied (the board's words: 'motion fails').
11.1 Z2025-0094 case
Voice vote, no roll call at 1:10:19No member's answer is recorded for a voice vote.
The one resolution read for memorialization under agenda item 11 ('we have one resolution to memorialize and that was case Z-2025-0094', 1:09:10). The agenda lists no individual resolutions; 11.1 is this record's numbering, and the case number and title are as read on the video. The reader is not named. As read: the amendment gives the applicant the option to keep or remove the outdoor seating deck (1:09:36), was approved seven in favour and none opposed, and was heard on July 9 with Acting Chair Araujo and Commissioners Burns, Coviello, DeAngelo, Patel, Czaplicki (read 'Zablicki') and Allen present (1:10:01). The hearing is item 10 of data/meetings/zoning-2026-07-09.json. Memorialized by voice vote: 'So all in favor of memorializing that.' followed by one unnamed 'Hi' (1:10:19); no roll call, so no by-member vote is recorded. The memorialized resolution of Z2025-0094 on EnerGov (https://jerseycitynj-energovpub.tylerhost.net/apps/selfservice#/plan/e9806f2a-9a41-49bc-a2c8-951f29c8b9ee?tab=attachments) gives date of hearing July 9, 2026 and date of memorialization August 6, 2026 (p. 10); its vote table is the July 9 hearing's roll call, not this one.
motion-in-person motion
Motion to resume in-person meetings
Voice vote, no roll call at 1:11:55 as heard, unconfirmedNo member's answer is recorded for a voice vote.
Not an agenda item. A speaker who is not named said the board had discussed before the meeting whether to continue virtually or return in person, and that a resolution would be drafted for the next meeting (1:10:19). After comments from members not named, the speaker asked 'would it be fair to say that there's a motion on the floor to resume in person?' (1:11:46); 'Yes' (1:11:54); 'Are we all in favor of that?' (1:11:55) and three unnamed 'Yes' answers (1:11:59 to 1:12:01); 'Okie dokie, I'll write it' (1:12:02). Voice vote only: no mover or seconder named, no roll call, so no by-member vote is recorded. The next meeting dates given were September 17 (1:12:55) and October 1 (1:12:59).
13 motion
Adjournment
Agenda item 13. 'Shall we close this meeting?' (1:14:10); 'Can I have a motion to adjourn?' (1:14:13); 'All in favor?' (1:14:18); one unnamed 'Yes.' (1:14:19); then 'Joe, you can stop the recording.' (1:14:23). Voice vote only; no mover or seconder named, no roll call. Executive session (agenda item 12) was not called on the video. The adjournment vote is not on the video; the record keeps the time of the motion (1:14:19).
Record drafted 2026-10-16, checked 2026-10-16, reviewed by Adam Hanford 2026-10-18.