The Jersey City Planning Board approved the controversial Porte Liberte Pulte Homes development and redevelopment, as well as Master Plan amendments, at last night’s marathon meeting that went for six hours.
Photo via the Jersey City Planning Board.
By Daniel Ulloa/Hudson County View
Commissioner Patrick Stamato recused himself before the Pulte Homes hearing began again and the meeting commenced with public comment since expert testimony was heard last time, as only HCV reported.
Michelle Byrd said that significant storms are more common now and make the area more dangerous, with several Port Liberte residents coming out against the application.
“The traffic experts said there would be no impact … If there is one single road in and out … how is the addition of 416 cars not going to cause a problem?!?” Diana Singer exclaimed.
Singer said Pulte Homes is one of the largest developers in the United States and also pointed out that founder Bill Pulte is now the director of U.S. Federal Housing for the President Donald Trump (R) administration.
“30 percent of the time someone is double-parked: You either have to wait … or go out into the other lane into oncoming traffic and go around,” expressed David Rosenberg.
Ed Wiegner, also of Port Liberte, explained that his neighborhood is already a busy area with a banquet hall, a sports complex, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on their Peninsula.
Further, Bess Morrison noted that Hurricane Irene forced her to get all new floors, with Barbara Glassman declaring that raw sewage has come into her garage seven times, which she blamed on the overburdened infrastructure in the area.
Around that time, Board Chair Vidya Gangadin had Pulte project attorney James McCann make a closing statement.
“The Pulte project will not aggravate any of the issues … There is nothing we can do about emergency access except to say this was how this community was originally designed. There will be no blockage of the public right of way,” McCann asserted.
“As far as the waterfront walkway goes, the developer… is not required to contribute to the maintenance of the waterfront walkway. There’s no document anywhere in existence… that requires this developer to contribute to the waterfront walkway! There’s less units than could be on this site than what could be approved.”
He added that he understood many residents in the area are opposed the project, but said Pulte has considered all of their concerns, also pointing out that they would pay for infrastructure upgrades, which should help with some plumbing issues.
Board attorney Santo Alampi said the second related case addresses redevelopment plan concerns. He allowed the opposing attorneys to make closing statements as well.
“Their own note 13 … states the property is subject to the waterfront development permit,” said Port Liberte Condo Association I attorney Cynthia Hadjiyannis.
“I would like to move on to the Master Plan amendments,” Gangadin said.
Alampi then asked McCann to explain the need for these amendments.
“We’re not asking to increase the density … We’re asking you to amend the Master Plan to cover the reduced site. If you do not approve the site plan, you do not have to approve this amendment to the Master Plan,” he expressed.
Planner Sean Moronski further explained that the Master Plan reduces the area’s density.
“That parcel of land was supposed to contribute… That has not changed!” Diana Canellis declared during the subsequent public comment period.
She also criticized Alampi for saying the courts would decide about the walkway issue.
“Are you willing to have Jersey City be on the hook … for a flood? If there’s a catastrophe, a lot of us could go into bankruptcy. What are the property values going to be?” Aparna Srinivasan questioned.
In her closing remarks, Hadjiyannis emphasized how costly boardwalk maintenance is for the HOA, also claiming that the old plan from the 1980s was short-sighted.
“This board does have the authority to request a better Master Plan,” she also emphasized.
Port Liberte Homeowners Association Inc. attorney Martin Cabalar said the board could deny the application, noting that an easement is required and they do not have one.
He continued that Pulte cited a document for claiming an easement, yet still claiming not to be bound by it, because then they would have to help pay for the boardwalk.
McCann once again claimed they have no obligation to pay for the walkway, adding that the planning board was not in a position to deny them here.
“The community really wants nothing to be built there. But my client has the right to build there!” McCann exclaimed.
He said that an easement is not a requirement for approval. Nonetheless, they had one.
“Staff will ask the applicant to agree to conditions,” Senior Planner Sophia Pereira said.
“The applicant does agree to conditions,” McCann replied.
Alampi maintained that only the court can decide if Pulte Homes is mandated to help pay for the waterfront boardwalk.
“I understand everybody is upset,” he acknowledged.
Commissioner Andy Kaplan, also the city’s Department of Infrastructure director, asked if they could mandate that Pulte help pay for the walkway as an approval condition.
“You can make it a condition that the application fulfill all DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) requirements,” Alampi answered and the board agreed to the added condition.
“I’m very empathetic with the public, but with the jurisdiction of this board … I’m going to vote aye,” Vice Chair Elizabeth Wick said.
Commissioner Bhavin Patel stated he felt it was a good project, while Commissioner Irene Barnaby indicated she didn’t think the developer was doing enough, therefore she would not support the proposals.
Additionally, Commissioner Eleana Little, also the Ward E councilwoman, said that while she had her concerns, she was going to vote aye based on Alampi’s legal advice, which Kaplan agreed with.
“I’m happy we’re able to include that as part of a condition,” Gangadin said about the walkway issue before voting yes.
Ultimately, around 11:30 p.m., the planning board approved the site proposal 5-1, with Barnaby voting no.
They then voted on the Master Plan amendments, which passed by the same 5-1 tally.