Back to Main Table of Contents
Back to Homepage

WEEHAWKEN PLANNING BOARD HEARING
DECEMBER 16, 1999
FULL TRANSCRIPT
PAGES 1 TO 53

Below is the transcript from the Weehawken Planning Board Hearing on December 16, 1999.  This html document follows the format of the official transcript. The transcript format has 25 lines per page. Each page is numbered. Because the transcript is so long, the file has been broken down into 4 different web pages.

Jump to 12/16/99 pages 54 to 106
Jump to 12/16/99 pages 107 to 150
Jump to 12/16/99 pages 151 to 170 (end of transcript)

1 TOWNSHIP OF WEEHAWKEN PLANNING BOARD
2 THURSDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1999
3 7:00 PM
4 RE: PORT IMPERIAL SOUTH
5 MEMBERS PRESENT:
6 MARK GOULD, Chairman
7 RICHARD TURNER
ALBERT CABRERA
8 CAROL KRAVITZ
RICHARD BARSA
9 ANTHONY ROSAS
PILAR BARDROFF, Board Clerk
10 ROBERT JURASIN, Town Engineer
JILL HARTMANN, Town Planner (not present)
11
12 ALSO PRESENT:
13 BEATTIE, PADOVANO, ESQS.
BY: THOMAS W. DUNN, ESQ.
14 Appearing on behalf of the Board.
15 WEINER, LESNIAK, ESQ.
BY: GLENN C. KIENZ, ESQ.
16 Appearing on behalf of the Applicant.
17 SEGRETO & SEGRETO, ESQ.
BY: JAMES V. SEGRETO, ESQ.
18 Attorney for the Objectors.
19
20
21
22
PHILIP A. FISHMAN
23 COURT REPORTING AGENCY
23 MARK TWAIN DRIVE
24 MORRISTOWN, NEW JERSEY 07960
(973) 285-5331 - FAX (973) 285-5293
25
2
1 I N D E X
2 DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
3 WITNESS
4 LAURA STAINES
5 by Mr. Segreto 93
6
7 I N D E X O F E X H I B I T S
8 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
9 O-4 Resolution dated July 17, 1996 123
10 O-5 Resolution dated April 6, 1994 134
11 O-6 Resolution dated June 15, 1994 135
12 O-7 Variance dated August 3, 1994 136
13 O-8 Resolution dated June 15, 1994 136
14 O-9 Variance dated August 3, 1994 136
15 O-10 Approval dated July 15, 1992 136
16 O-11 Resolution dated February 20,
1992 137
17
O-12 Resolution dated October 2,
18 1991 137
19 O-13 Resolution dated September 18,
1991 138
20
O-14 Resolution dated January 9,
21 1991 138
22 O-15 Resolution dated 1990 139
23 O-16 Resolution dated 1990 139
24 O-17 Resolution dated 1989 139
25 O-18 Resolution dated 1989 139
3
1 O-19 Resolution dated 1987 139
2 O-20 Resolution dated 1987 139
3 O-21 Resolution dated 1986 139
4 O-23 Document 140
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
1 MR. GOULD: Okay. Good evening
2 to everybody.
3 Can you all hear me back there?
4 Okay.
5 This is a regular public meeting of
6 the Weehawken Planning Board. It has been
7 called in accordance with the Open Public
8 Meetings Act of the State of New Jersey in
9 accordance with the board's motion adopted
10 on October 14, 1999.
11 We also have a letter from Donna
12 Jandik indicating that shef faxed an agenda
13 of the meeting to the Bergen Record, the
14 Jersey Journal and the Weehawken Reporter,
15 and posted it in the municipal building,
16 and filed it with the township clerk.
17 Will the clerk please call the roll.
18 THE CLERK: Anthony Rosas.
19 MR. ROSAS: Here.
20 THE CLERK: Mr. Barsa.
21 MR. BARSA: Here.
22 THE CLERK: Mr. Turner.
23 MR. TURNER: Here.
24 THE CLERK: Mr. Gould.
25 MR. GOULD: Here.
5
1 THE CLERK: Mr. Cabrera.
2 MR. CABRERA: Here.
3 THE CLERK: Ms. Kravitz.
4 MS. KRAVITZ: Here.
5 MR. GOULD: Okay. Thank you.
6 The first item on tonight's agenda
7 is the payment of bills.
8 I will pass out --
9 MR. BARSA: Signed them.
10 MR. GOULD: -- a couple of these
11 to everybody.
12 Pass those down. Okay.
13 There is only one bill on here dated
14 12/8/95 for $150 to Thomas Dunn, Beattie
15 Padovano.
16 Any questions or comments?
17 A motion.
18 MR. CABRERA: I will make a motion,
19 Mr. Chairman.
20 MR. ROSAS: Second.
21 MR. GOULD: Okay. Roll call,
22 please.
23 THE CLERK: Anthony Rosas.
24 MR. ROSAS: Yes.
25 THE CLERK: Mr. Barsa.
6
1 MR. BARSA: Yes.
2 THE CLERK: Mr. Turner.
3 MR. TURNER: Yes.
4 THE CLERK: Mr. Gould.
5 MR. GOULD: Yes.
6 THE CLERK: Mr. Cabrera.
7 MR. CABRERA: Yes.
8 THE CLERK: Ms. Kravitz.
9 MS. KRAVITZ: Yes.
10 MR. GOULD: Okay. Thank you.
11 Okay. The next item is, I think,
12 Tom, you have a resolution for our schedule
13 in January of 2000.
14 MR. DUNN: Yes.
15 "Whereas, pursuant to the Open
16 Public Meetings Act, all meetings of all
17 public bodies wherein formal actions,
18 decisions or discussions relating to the
19 public business are required to be
20 publically announced and scheduled with
21 adequate posting and advance notice of the
22 time, date, location and to the extent
23 known, the purpose or agenda of each such
24 meeting.
25 "Whereas, the planning board wishes
7
1 to provide adequate notice of the board's
2 amended regular meeting scheduled for
3 January and February 2000, effective
4 January 1, 2000, in accordance with the
5 Open Public Meetings Act.
6 "Now, therefore, be it resolved by
7 the Weehawken Planning Board that the
8 following dates are hereby fixed as the
9 regular meeting dates of the planning board
10 for the January and February 2000 as
11 follows" -- it follows a schedule --
12 "Thursday, January 6th at seven PM;
13 Thursday, January 13th at seven PM;
14 Thursday, January 20th at seven PM;
15 Thursday, January 27th at seven PM;
16 Thursday, February 3rd at seven PM;
17 Thursday, February 10th at seven PM;
18 Thursday, February 17th at seven PM.
19 "All meetings will be held at the
20 municipal building, 400 Park Avenue,
21 Weehawken, New Jersey.
22 "Other special meetings as the
23 public business may require, shall be
24 scheduled and held pursuant to and with
25 such additional notice as is required by
8
1 the Open Public Meetings Act.
2 "Be it further resolved that the
3 township clerk is hereby requested to post
4 a copy of this resolution for public
5 viewing in the municipal building of the
6 Township of Weehawken, to file a copy with
7 the township clerk, to cause this
8 resolution to be published in the
9 designated official newspapers of the
10 Township of Weehawken, and to cause a copy
11 of this resolution to be sent to all
12 persons who have requested copies of
13 notices and paid the fee therefore."
14 MR. GOULD: Okay. So we have
15 that resolution before us.
16 Any questions or discussion about
17 that?
18 Okay. Do I have a motion to adopt
19 this resolution?
20 MS. KRAVITZ: I will make a motion
21 to adopt the resolution.
22 MR. GOULD: Okay. Any second?
23 MR. BARSA: I will second it.
24 MR. GOULD: Mr. Barsa.
25 Thank you.
9
1 Roll call, please.
2 THE CLERK: Anthony Rosas.
3 MR. ROSAS: Yes.
4 THE CLERK: Mr. Barsa.
5 MR. BARSA: Yes.
6 THE CLERK: Mr. Turner.
7 MR. TURNER: Yes.
8 THE CLERK: Mr. Gould.
9 MR. GOULD: Yes.
10 THE CLERK: Mr. Cabrera.
11 MR. CABRERA: Yes.
12 THE CLERK: Ms. Kravitz.
13 MS. KRAVITZ: Yes.
14 MR. GOULD: Okay. So adopted.
15 All right. This is the continued
16 public hearing of a preliminary planned
17 development application for Block 36.05,
18 Lot 1.01; Block 36.05, Lot 2.01; Block 45,
19 Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9; Block 45.01, Lots
20 1.01, 2.01, 3.01, and 4.01; Block 45.02,
21 Lot 1.01; Block 64, Lots 8 and 9; Block
22 64.01, Lots 1.01, 2.01, and 3.01; Block
23 64.02, Lot 1.01; and Block 64.03, Lot 1.01.
24 The applicant is Port Imperial
25 South, LLC.
10
1 Will counsel please enter their
2 appearances.
3 MR. KIENZ: Good evening, Mr.
4 Chairman.
5 I am Glenn Kienz on behalf of the
6 applicant.
7 MR. SEGRETO: James V. Segreto
8 appearing for the objectors.
9 MR. GOULD: Okay. All right.
10 Before we continue on, I would like
11 to see if I could ask Laura Staines and
12 Michael Giardino a couple of additional
13 questions related to their testimony last
14 week.
15 MR. KIENZ: Mr. Chairman, do you
16 want this mike brought over to them?
17 MR. GOULD: Why don't you bring
18 it over to them.
19 MR. SEGRETO: Mr. Chairman, it's my
20 recollection we are going to have questions
21 by the board and then questions by the
22 public, and, thereafter, I will commence my
23 cross-examination.
24 MR. GOULD: That is correct.
25 MR. SEGRETO: I wanted to put some
11
1 things on the record concerning document
2 inspection, but I can do that immediately
3 preceding the commencement of my
4 cross-examination.
5 MR. DUNN: Please do.
6 MR. GOULD: Okay. Thank you.
7 Could somebody in the back there
8 maybe shut two of the three windows? I
9 will try to keep a little air in here.
10 The court reporter needs to be able to hear
11 what's going on.
12 Thank you. That's good.
13 Okay. And I may ask you to put up
14 one or two of the plates that you have from
15 the previous testimony.
16 MR. WEIR: Okay. I will line
17 this up again.
18 MR. GOULD: Okay.
19 MR. GIARDINO: Do you need a desk?
20 MR. WEIR: No.
21 MR. SEGRETO: Are you sure? I can
22 step aside.
23 MR. GIARDINO: Steve, I think you
24 will be better with a desk.
25 MR. WEIR: Okay. If you don't
12
1 mind stepping aside.
2 MR. SEGRETO: I won't go far away.
3 MR. GOULD: All right. Well,
4 this first question that I have doesn't
5 require any of the plates, I don't believe.
6 MR. DUNN: Mr. Segreto, is it
7 possible that you could move over
8 permanently where the other Mr. Segreto is
9 sitting? Is that possible?
10 MR. SEGRETO: It's possible, but
11 the one table is not going to hold all the
12 documents I will be using.
13 I can do that now. Sure.
14 MR. DUNN: Okay.
15 MR. GOULD: All right.
16 Okay. I will ask my first question
17 while they are getting ready, and maybe we
18 can keep this moving a little bit.
19 My first question, and this maybe
20 for you, Tom, more than for the applicant,
21 but I am wondering about the definition for
22 the view corridor in our ordinance, and I
23 know there was a little bit of confusion
24 and maybe discussion about that subsequent
25 to the meeting, so I am just wondering if
13
1 you can be of any help in clarifying that.
2 MR. DUNN: Yes.
3 After the meeting last time, Mrs.
4 Elsassel, who is a long time resident of
5 the community and has been involved in
6 drafting the ordinances, came to me with a
7 question, and I would like to -- and I had
8 some research done in the official records
9 of the township, and I would like to make
10 the question -- I would like to tell you
11 the results of my review, and I think, at
12 some point during the proceedings, the
13 applicant should address some questions
14 that might be raised in that regard.
15 Under the definition section of the
16 ordinance, as it is codified, that all of
17 us have been working from, the term "view
18 corridor" is defined.
19 MR. SEGRETO: Counsel, wait one
20 second so I can follow you. I want to get
21 a copy of the ordinance.
22 MR. DUNN: Yes.
23 MR. SEGRETO: Okay.
24 MR. DUNN: Actually, I need to
25 get my act together a little bit here.
14
1 Why don't you go on with something
2 else, Mr. Gould.
3 MR. GOULD: Okay. We will come
4 back to that.
5 My next question relates, I think,
6 to Plate 226. I hope I have my numbers
7 right here, so maybe you can put that up
8 for us.
9 MR. WEIR: Okay. Excuse me.
10 That was the building section of the
11 buildings?
12 MR. GOULD: Yes.
13 MR. WEIR: Okay. Plate 226, and
14 please allow me to focus.
15 MR. GOULD: Okay. It will take a
16 second to warm up? I thought it was
17 already doing that. I am sorry.
18 Yes, that's the one.
19 Okay. I believe we touched on this
20 a little bit in one of the questions at the
21 last meeting, but could the applicant
22 please elaborate a little bit more on the
23 differences between "proposed building
24 envelope" and "illustrative building."
25 It's a two-part question. One is,
15
1 what is the application for? Is it for one
2 of those, either proposed building envelope
3 or for illustrative building; and, two, I
4 think you also gave testimony that in the
5 view lane of the river that you showed -- I
6 think that was either Plate 210 or 212 --
7 that you used the building envelope to get
8 to the 87 percent figure that was
9 represented.
10 MR. GIARDINO: Yes. Let me first
11 take the first part of the question.
12 The zoning ordinance of the Township
13 of Weehawken prescribes for the North
14 Weehawken view plane, a parameter which we
15 are all very familiar with, from a
16 viewpoint elevation measured five feet
17 above the curb line of Boulevard East
18 looking to the center line of the river and
19 elevation of minus 1.6 feet. The line
20 prescribed -- you can remember the road
21 that we showed the other day -- by such
22 line of sight, shall not be violated by any
23 structure.
24 We have developed a site plan, which
25 is before you here tonight. On that site
16
1 plan we depict building locations. Using
2 horizontal controls and cutting sections
3 through based on survey data, we have
4 generated a number of sections which have
5 been submitted into evidence.
6 The one on the screen that you are
7 looking at now is the north section taken
8 that illustrates Buildings 13 and 14
9 relative to the North Weehawken view plane
10 requirements.
11 The elevations indicated in the red
12 boxes are indeed the elevations prescribed
13 in accordance with your zoning.
14 To review quickly, the view
15 elevation which is shown here in green is
16 the generating point at the top of the
17 Palisades.
18 The line prescribed between that
19 point and the centerline of the river,
20 which, unfortunately, in this exhibit is
21 off the screen here, which falls in the
22 centerline of the river at elevation minus
23 1.6 foot, is the controlling line according
24 to the ordinance.
25 In our preparation to come to this
17
1 board with our PD application representing
2 the uses and their quantities and
3 locations, we developed illustrative
4 buildings, we developed them based on our
5 planning and architectural experience in
6 order to give you a very good idea as to
7 what it is that we are planning.
8 In fact, that idea is the idea that
9 the applicant intends to construct on this
10 site. The elevations of the buildings that
11 we have schematically worked through in
12 order to come to the board with the
13 required FARs and quantities and elements,
14 the heights of those buildings are
15 represented here by the numbers illustrated
16 in red.
17 It is our expectation that the
18 buildings that will ultimately be
19 constructed on this site will adhere to the
20 greatest degree practicable to the heights
21 of those buildings shown in gray -- in red.
22 However, we make one small caveat.
23 We have not developed final working
24 drawings for these buildings. Obviously,
25 this is a preliminary PD application. When
18
1 we go to the individual site plan approval,
2 which would be based upon the final
3 architectural design, the numbers shown in
4 gray may experience deminimous changes due
5 to construction techniques and final
6 architectural decisions which are made.
7 In order to allow for a conservative
8 presentation to this board, we as planners
9 elected to take a conservative stance in
10 generating what I earlier described as our
11 open water view study.
12 Rather than using the illustrative
13 building heights shown in gray, we, as
14 conservative planners, elected to introduce
15 a height, which here is illustrated in
16 blue, to control the outcome of that study.
17 That height is, as you can see, at a higher
18 elevation than our proposed building.
19 We did that so that under no
20 circumstances, in our best belief, will the
21 actual building brought at site plan exceed
22 that parameter.
23 Our firm's and clear representation
24 has been and will always continue to be
25 that under no circumstances will we ever
19
1 violate the numbers in the red here, the
2 zoning numbers.
3 Our firm commitment is that we will
4 come in with an application for each site
5 plan that is, as far as practicable,
6 identical, compatible within the deminimous
7 range to the illustrative buildings shown.
8 The blue numbers are merely our way
9 of insuring that we -- what we show you on
10 our open water view is a conservative
11 estimate. We could have used the
12 illustrative building heights and come up
13 with a greater percentage number to try to
14 drive a point home, but we didn't feel that
15 was fair to you or to us. We want to be
16 conservative in what we present to this
17 board.
18 I hope that answers --
19 MR. GOULD: It does.
20 I guess I would ask Tom or I would
21 ask the applicant for a clear definition of
22 what "deminimous" would be, because that
23 might be a subjective statement depending
24 on who you talk to.
25 MR. DUNN: Well, are you
20
1 representing that the buildings -- to the
2 extent you are saying, to the extent
3 practicable you are going to keep them to
4 the gray, are you representing they will
5 never exceed the blue?
6 MR. GIARDINO: I think you are
7 asking me to leap ahead a few steps.
8 I am an architect, so I understand
9 what goes on when architecture is made.
10 When one builds a building one meets with
11 one structural engineer and, ultimately,
12 one's client to determine, for example,
13 what ceiling heights will we use in our
14 penthouse, what structural framing system
15 will be employed in the floor systems,
16 these things can vary the height of the
17 building by a foot or two -- or two in an
18 area, which I fully -- I am incapable at
19 this juncture of anticipating completely
20 for each building in the matter.
21 What we are representing is, the
22 buildings as shown are the buildings that
23 we intend to ultimately produce.
24 MR. GOULD: Okay. I think I will
25 -- Tom, unless --
21
1 MR. DUNN: Unless you have
2 something to add.
3 MR. DUNN: I understand your
4 position.
5 MR. GOULD: Okay. Let me move
6 onto another question related or, Tom, do
7 you want to --
8 MR. DUNN: I apologize to the
9 board for not having -- in referring to
10 Page 2322 of the ordinance.
11 Do you have it, Mr. Segreto?
12 MR. SEGRETO: I have it.
13 MR. DUNN: Okay.
14 That sentence reads: In the
15 codification, in addition, a "View corridor
16 may contain parking or other structures
17 provided that the roof of the structures
18 are landscaped areas, are not higher than
19 50 feet above sea level and do not block
20 the Weehawken view of the shoreline."
21 In Ordinance No. 4, 1985, which, as
22 far as I could tell, has not been amended.
23 MR. SEGRETO: Ordinance which?
24 MR. DUNN: No. 4, 1985, and I
25 will provide you with a copy of it.
22
1 MR. SEGRETO: What page is that
2 found?
3 MR. DUNN: It's not in the
4 codification.
5 What I am saying, there is a
6 difference between the ordinance as it was
7 adopted before 1985 and the codification.
8 MR. SEGRETO: And this was in 1995?
9 MR. DUNN: 1985.
10 MR. SEGRETO: 1985.
11 And the codification is subsequently
12 --
13 MR. DUNN: The codification is
14 probably subsequent. I don't know. I am
15 raising this problem for you. I am not
16 looking for an answer to it tonight. I am
17 putting the facts on the record.
18 The codification says after the
19 words, "Do not block the Weehawken view of
20 the shoreline," it goes on to say, "of the
21 Hudson River at the easterly end of the
22 view corridor."
23 MR. SEGRETO: This is new language
24 to me, so I want to get it down, "of the
25 Hudson River" --
23
1 MR. DUNN: "At the easterly
2 end."
3 MR. SEGRETO: -- "at the" --
4 MR. DUNN: -- "easterly end of
5 the view corridor by a pedestrian at the
6 top of the Palisades."
7 MR. SEGRETO: That's what the
8 ordinance used to say.
9 MR. DUNN: I am not -- I am not
10 indicating -- I haven't checked as to when
11 the codification was adopted.
12 The codification, as you know, is
13 codified -- do you have the book?
14 Does anybody have the codification,
15 the actual book?
16 MR. KIENZ: I have this version.
17 MR. SEGRETO: The codification --
18 you are talking about the general code of
19 which the land use is one integral part.
20 MR. DUNN: Right.
21 MR. SEGRETO: The codification was
22 adopted on January 26, 1989, which is
23 subsequent to the '85 that you are just
24 talking about.
25 MR. DUNN: I understand.
24
1 All right. All right.
2 I would like to have -- I would like
3 the applicant at a later date to address
4 whether that makes any difference in the
5 parameters that you have applied to this
6 application.
7 MR. KIENZ: Understood, Mr. Dunn.
8 MR. DUNN: At that time it will
9 be subject to cross-examination and legal
10 arguments as to the effect -- which
11 ordinance is in effect, if any, if it makes
12 any difference. It may not make any
13 difference.
14 MR. KIENZ: Understood.
15 MR. DUNN: I would like to know
16 #NAME?
17 corridors, I am aware. I am not sure I
18 know which one it was.
19 MR. GOULD: I think it was either
20 210 or 212.
21 MR. WEIR: I believe it would be
22 212
23 MR. DUNN: 212.
24 MR. SEGRETO: Can I respectfully at
25 least put my view of the relevance of your
25
1 pointing out what was in the 1985
2 ordinance, so it's in the transcript at the
3 same place as your comment?
4 MR. KIENZ: Mr. Chairman, I am
5 going to object.
6 I just indicated we will look at it.
7 Mr. Dunn gave us instructions. I would
8 like to get on with the hearing.
9 MR. SEGRETO: Wait just a moment.
10 MR. DUNN: I will allow Mr.
11 Segreto to do it.
12 Please sit down, Mr. Kienz.
13 MR. SEGRETO: Somebody eventually
14 is going to review this transcript.
15 MR. DUNN: Well, we hope not.
16 MR. SEGRETO: I was unaware that
17 counsel was going to refer to a 1985
18 ordinance, which is different than the
19 actual adopted codification of 1989.
20 Where a codification is adopted
21 pursuant to the provisions of Title 40, the
22 governing body is required to adopt a
23 resolution -- a formal resolution adopting
24 the codification. This municipality
25 introduced the resolution on January 12,
26
1 1989 and adopted it on January 26, 1989,
2 and that means that the extant ordinance is
3 what is contained in the codification.
4 The only way that anything that is
5 in the codification can be repealed,
6 modified or amended, is by the governing
7 body adopting an ordinance which explicitly
8 repeals, modifies or amends a particular
9 section of the ordinance. It is not my
10 understanding that that has happened.
11 As a matter of fact, it is my
12 understanding, because I have done
13 ordinances with the people down -- who did
14 your ordinance, and they have a customary
15 format resolution which then becomes
16 adopted into the article, one, which
17 indicates that any ordinances heretofore
18 adopted which are inconsistent with the
19 codification are repealed except if there
20 is a saving clause in the adopting
21 resolution for the codification explicitly
22 continuing those ordinances.
23 There is no such provision, and it
24 is my view, and I am speaking spontaneously
25 now, if this is going to be addressed at
27
1 sometime in the future, I would want to
2 respond more formally in writing.
3 It is my view that the 1985
4 ordinance is past history and has no
5 relevance to this proceeding and that the
6 view corridor definition, which is
7 contained on Page 2 -- whatever it is --
8 you gave it to me before --
9 MR. DUNN: Yes.
10 MR. SEGRETO: -- 2322, is the one
11 that is -- the only controlling definition
12 of "view corridor."
13 In any event, that's my view of the
14 matter.
15 MR. DUNN: Thank you.
16 I understand.
17 I don't think we will need to
18 address it any further at this point.
19 My question -- may I have the view
20 corridor.
21 MR. WEIR: Yes, sir.
22 Plate 212.
23 MR. DUNN: There we go.
24 The 100-foot view corridor that is
25 diagonal and the 100-foot view corridor
28
1 that's underneath the diagonal, where those
2 two intersect, is the ferry building under
3 there, under those view corridors?
4 MR. GIARDINO: I have the plate
5 which actually -- I am afraid we don't have
6 it prepared for the projector, but based on
7 the comments at the last meeting, we did a
8 blowup of the area involving the ferry
9 terminal, and I think at this point it
10 would be good for us to put that in
11 evidence as there is a procedure for that.
12 The short answer is, yes, the ferry
13 terminal is in that area. We would like to
14 show you how it works.
15 MR. KIENZ: Mr. Chairman, I think
16 that was in response -- the question is
17 actually in response to a direct question
18 by you at the last hearing.
19 MR. DUNN: Yes.
20 MR. KIENZ: What I would like to
21 do, if it's all right with you, I believe
22 we are up to A-17.
23 MR. DUNN: Right.
24 MR. SEGRETO: This is called what?
25 MR. KIENZ: This was the blowup
29
1 that the Chair had asked for at the last
2 meeting.
3 MR. SEGRETO: Mr. Chairman, most
4 respectfully, I don't want to be a
5 perpetual complainer, but I spent a whole
6 day today up until, I think, two o'clock in
7 Glenn's office reviewing the ostensible
8 total file of the planner.
9 This particular document, as far as
10 I can recall, was not produced for my
11 inspection.
12 MR. KIENZ: I can save you
13 verbiage.
14 You are absolutely correct, because
15 I didn't have it. It arrived after you
16 left.
17 MR. GOULD: I think the testimony
18 we have is that this is a blowup of one of
19 the other exhibits, so I assume it's just
20 an enlargement of what we have already
21 seen.
22 MR. KIENZ: That's what you had
23 requested, and it arrived at our office
24 after Mr. Segreto had exited.
25 MR. DUNN: This is A-17.
30
1 MR. KIENZ: That's correct.
2 MR. DUNN: Please hand Mr.
3 Segreto a copy of it.
4 MR. KIENZ: Of course, I will.
5 MR. GOULD: It's entitled "Ferry
6 Terminal Close-up 02, dated -- revised
7 December 16, 1999, Plate 287."
8 MR. DUNN: We don't have a
9 graphic on the screen for that.
10 MR. KIENZ: No, because of the
11 lateness and the complexity of preparing
12 these documents, as we have indicated.
13 MR. SEGRETO: This is what?
14 MR. KIENZ: I am sorry.
15 MR. SEGRETO: What is it? P what?
16 MR. DUNN: A-17.
17 MR. KIENZ: A-17.
18 MR. SEGRETO: I am sorry. A-17.
19 I must say Glenn was very gracious
20 and hospitable to me, and I will accept his
21 representation that he didn't get it until
22 after I got it.
23 We got a fax. You could have sent
24 it to us.
25 In any event --
31
1 MR. DUNN: Let's just try --
2 let's just try to keep to the substance
3 here.
4 Can you tell me --
5 THE PUBLIC: Can we see it?
6 MR. GOULD: Can we hold one up to
7 the audience?
8 MR. KIENZ: I can give them a
9 couple, as long as you give them back. We
10 made a copy for the professionals.
11 MR. DUNN: What does A-17
12 represent?
13 MS. STAINES: If I might address
14 the board.
15 MR. KIENZ: I am passing four
16 out.
17 MR. TURNER: Would you give one to
18 that side of the room, please.
19 MR. SEGRETO: All I want to know --
20 I have no problem at all.
21 I want the record to note, if we are
22 going to have other planners talk about
23 view corridors, please don't remonstrate
24 with me when I ask both planners questions
25 about view corridors.
32
1 MR. KIENZ: I am passing six out
2 that we need to get back for the
3 professionals.
4 MR. DUNN: As long as you don't
5 ask the same questions to both planners.
6 MR. SEGRETO: I know I can do that.
7 MR. GOULD: Okay. Please
8 continue.
9 MS. STAINES: If the board will, at
10 the prior meeting we had a question,
11 related to the view across the ferry
12 terminal, whether or not the representation
13 on this particular screen allowed for a
14 view of the shoreline of the Hudson River.
15 Reading particularly the ordinance
16 paragraph to which Mr. Dunn referred to
17 earlier, there is no mention of whether or
18 not the view should be of the easterly or
19 the westerly shoreline.
20 However, in every case along the
21 view corridors that are proposed, our
22 planned studies have provided a view of the
23 westerly shoreline of Weehawken, regardless
24 of the fact that the ordinance doesn't
25 speak to that particular position, and also
33
1 regardless of the fact that there was a
2 codification proposed, as we just
3 previously mentioned, that may have limited
4 that view to the opposing shore.
5 As Mr. Giardino pointed out, we have
6 taken a very conservative approach. We are
7 very respectful of the views that are so
8 important to the townspeople here in
9 Weehawken, also the position that the
10 members of the board have taken in the
11 prior reviews of the applications that have
12 been before the board within the last year,
13 specifically as it relates to A-17, the
14 view from Old Glory Park has an opportunity
15 to be either a direct perpendicular view to
16 Manhattan with an opportunity to swing a
17 30-degree arc and still provide a
18 100-foot-wide view corridor.
19 AT last week's presentation the
20 question was asked whether or not the
21 actual view corridor and Old Glory View
22 Park corridor were one and the same.
23 At that point I stated that our
24 representation was they were two separate
25 and distinct items.
34
1 A view corridor is a minimum of --
2 minimum of 60 feet. That had been provided
3 in an easterly/westerly fashion where the
4 shoreline was visible and there was an open
5 space of water between the actual
6 waterfront walkway easterly edge and the
7 westerly portion of the proposed ferry
8 terminal.
9 The singular exceptions are those
10 actual walkway elements that provide
11 pedestrian access to the ferry terminal
12 itself.
13 Subsequent to that meeting, we
14 recognized the sensitivity of the view
15 corridors and the position that the Old
16 Glory Park view corridor may utilize the
17 cross-reference to the view corridors, and
18 rather than propose a 60-foot view corridor
19 and an additional 40 feet exclusive of a
20 view to the westerly shoreline, we have
21 examined the architectural documents, and
22 with a relatively modest change to the
23 parking structure proposed with Building 4,
24 we have been able to accommodate the full
25 100-foot-wide view corridor, which is now
35
1 one and the same with the proposed Old
2 Glory Park view corridor, both of which
3 will now provide a 100-foot-wide view of
4 the westerly shoreline of the Weehawken
5 side of the Hudson River.
6 The plate that you see in front of
7 you represents conceptually that we have a
8 freestanding ferry structure that is
9 separate from the shoreline, and the only
10 elements that will prevent an actual view
11 of the shore itself are the pedestrian
12 walkway elements that will allow the
13 patrons of the ferry to gain access to the
14 facility itself, and they are outside of
15 the view corridor itself.
16 MR. GOULD: Do you know at this
17 point how tall the ferry building itself
18 is?
19 MS. STAINES: The ferry building
20 itself is proposed to be no taller than 50
21 feet above sea level, therefore, complying
22 with your definition of "view corridor."
23 MR. GOULD: Okay. And let me
24 just ask another question related to this,
25 which, I think, Michael Giardino touched on
36
1 a little bit, the viewpoint at the top of
2 the cliff.
3 Would you again just explain -- you
4 said that is on the curb line of Boulevard
5 East.
6 MR. GIARDINO: You are referring to
7 not the Old Glory Park.
8 MR. GOULD: Just view corridors
9 in general.
10 MR. GIARDINO: For view corridors,
11 yes, we have taken those in our analysis
12 looking at the zoning maps, et cetera, to
13 be representative of the curb elevations
14 along Boulevard East.
15 Our interpretation as planners
16 looking at your maps was that that was the
17 location located. It's a hard location in
18 the field. It's verifiable. It's also, I
19 would add, conservative in that it's
20 further west than elevations that we could
21 have taken to the east of, say, the
22 sidewalk would have been. We could have
23 opened our view angles up to some taller
24 buildings.
25 MR. GOULD: And where is the
37
1 actual property line for the PD application
2 at that location? Is it at the foot of the
3 wall? Do you know?
4 MR. GIARDINO: I don't know that a
5 stake has been put in the field. I haven't
6 seen one, and I am not able to answer the
7 question.
8 MR. GOULD: Okay. All right.
9 Continuing with view corridors,
10 could you maybe just take us through either
11 from north to south or south to north and
12 maybe relate them to streets that are
13 existent in Weehawken at this point? Is
14 that something that you could just walk us
15 through?
16 MR. GIARDINO: If you bear with us,
17 we want to look at a document.
18 I will do my best in relaying the
19 view corridor relations to the upper
20 Weehawken streets.
21 MR. GOULD: Thank you.
22 MR. GIARDINO: First at the north
23 end of the site, there is the special
24 80-foot-wide view corridor, which is known
25 as the 51st Street view corridor.
38
1 That view corridor is indeed at the
2 foot of 51st Street where it meets
3 Boulevard East.
4 The next view corridor provided
5 falls between what we term Building 1 and
6 Building 4, three area.
7 That view corridor is mid-block
8 between 49th and 50th Streets, slightly to
9 the north of center.
10 The next view corridor is the --
11 THE PUBLIC: How wide is that one?
12 MR. GIARDINO: That is a
13 60-foot-wide view corridor.
14 It's the blue line illustrated here
15 on the plate.
16 The next view corridor is a required
17 60-foot view corridor. Of course, it's
18 wider than that because it is also the area
19 through which the Old Glory Park view
20 corridor comes. It's roughly a 100-foot
21 width as a view corridor. It is more than
22 a 100-foot width as the Old Glory Park view
23 corridor. That view corridor falls just to
24 the north of 48th Street.
25 The next view corridor falls between
39
1 Building 5 and Building 7. That is a wide
2 view corridor that we discussed at the last
3 meeting in here.
4 That view corridor falls at 47th
5 Street and just to the south of 47th
6 Street. It is a wide view corridor.
7 MR. DUNN: How wide?
8 MR. GIARDINO: I believe the number
9 that we testified to was 97 feet.
10 The view corridor that falls between
11 Building 7 and Buildings 8/9 is mid-block
12 between Fulton Street and 46th Street.
13 That's this 70-foot view corridor here.
14 The view corridor that falls between
15 Buildings 8/9 and Building 11, this view
16 corridor, it's a 70-foot view corridor at
17 the foot of Fulton Street.
18 The central grand view corridor, if
19 you will, which is an 80-foot width
20 focusing on the center of our mixed-use
21 community here, is at the foot of Columbia
22 Terrace. That will be an especially
23 attractive view corridor.
24 The view corridor which falls
25 between Building 13 and the next building
40
1 to the south, which is Building 15, falls
2 more or less at the foot of Clifton
3 Terrace. That's this view corridor here.
4 That's a 70-foot-wide view corridor.
5 The view corridor that falls between
6 15 -- Building 15 and the building to the
7 south, which is Building 16, is, in fact,
8 Pershing Road, and as you may be familiar,
9 Pershing Road, the easterly to westerly
10 section, is more or less at the foot of
11 Liberty Place. That's this view corridor
12 here.
13 To the south of Building 16 in the
14 area between Arthur's Landing Restaurant,
15 which we all know to be really quite a low
16 building --
17 MR. TURNER: How wide was the last
18 one?
19 MR. GIARDINO: The last one was a
20 75-foot width approximately.
21 The view corridor that falls between
22 Building 16 and Arthur's Landing and a
23 little piece of the brownstone community,
24 an 80-foot-wide view corridor falls at the
25 foot of Eldorado Place.
41
1 Midpoint between the low-rise
2 brownstones is a ground-level view corridor
3 of 60 feet, and you will have to help me,
4 it's the street south of Hudson Place,
5 which name --
6 MR. ROSAS: Duer Place.
7 MR. GIARDINO: -- Duer Place.
8 Once we get beyond the southern
9 extreme of the brownstone area, we are in
10 an area that is opposite a residential
11 single-access street that is to the east of
12 King Avenue. It's a U-shaped street.
13 There are no perpendicular --
14 MR. GOULD: Hampton.
15 MR. GIARDINO: Hampton.
16 There are no perpendicular Weehawken
17 streets in that area.
18 As one proceeds further to the
19 south, that remains the case.
20 What we have done in designing the
21 view corridors is attempt to line up with
22 the existing streets of upper Weehawken to
23 the maximum extent practicable.
24 We also would note that the streets
25 of upper Weehawken come in at slightly
42
1 different angles one to the next. They are
2 not perfectly orthogonal, if you will, so
3 we have made our best effort to pick up on
4 the actual view line that those streets
5 would produce.
6 For example, when an upper Weehawken
7 street is deflecting slightly to the south,
8 we have taken account of that, and we have
9 deflected our location slightly to the
10 south so that one's view will actually go
11 through every corridor to the best extent
12 practicable.
13 MR. GOULD: So from further up
14 the street then you would be able to still
15 sight down the view corridor?
16 MR. GIARDINO: Exactly.
17 MR. GOULD: And I know you
18 explained this to me once before, but the
19 wider swaths that you are showing there --
20 MR. GIARDINO: The wider swaths are
21 simply areas where there are no --
22 MR. KIENZ: Michael, let him ask
23 the question.
24 MR. GIARDINO: I am sorry.
25 MR. GOULD: I was just asking you
43
1 to tell me whether that was the view
2 corridor or whether you are just showing
3 that's an open view.
4 MR. GIARDINO: It falls within the
5 definition of "view corridor." It is an
6 open view. It is at grade level, and it is
7 60 feet away.
8 MR. GOULD: Okay. So in the, I
9 think -- I don't know the total -- I know
10 the ordinance was requiring 1150 lineal
11 feet of view corridor along the centerline
12 of the river. Is that correct?
13 MR. GIARDINO: North of the southern
14 boundary of the North Weehawken view plane.
15 MR. GOULD: Yes.
16 MR. GIARDINO: Yes.
17 MR. GOULD: Is that area counted
18 in your total?
19 MR. GIARDINO: All areas that are
20 north of the south boundary of the North
21 Weehawken view plane.
22 MR. GOULD: Point that out for
23 me, please.
24 MR. GIARDINO: Right in here.
25 MR. GOULD: Right.
44
1 MR. GIARDINO: Are counted in our
2 total where they are an at-grade view
3 corridor.
4 The 1150 requirement is for at view
5 corridor, as you know from the definition,
6 just one is permitted to have a building up
7 to 50 feet within the view corridor, but
8 one is not allowed to count view corridors
9 with buildings in them toward the 1150
10 number because that is an at-grade number.
11 MR. GOULD: I see.
12 Do you have the total that you are
13 providing? What is the -- hold on.
14 THE PUBLIC: What is south?
15 MR. DUNN: I am not going to --
16 I am going to allow public questions after.
17 MR. GOULD: Please continue.
18 MR. GIARDINO: We are back on the
19 record?
20 MR. GOULD: Yes, we are.
21 MR. GIARDINO: We have -- we did a
22 quick run of the total of that. I don't
23 have it offhand. It is in excess of twice
24 the requirement.
25 If the board would like us to give
45
1 an exact number, we can furnish that to the
2 board.
3 MR. DUNN: Please do.
4 MR. GOULD: Okay.
5 MR. GIARDINO: Okay.
6 MR. GOULD: All right.
7 MS. KRAVITZ: I have a question.
8 MR. GOULD: Please.
9 MS. KRAVITZ: Could you put up
10 Plate 219, please.
11 I don't think this was brought into
12 view yet, but it pertains to the view
13 corridors from Old Glory Park or pertains
14 to a view study from Old Glory Park from
15 where you are standing, I guess, on top of
16 the park, and it might be a little more
17 illustrative.
18 MR. GOULD: Okay.
19 MS. KRAVITZ: Simply from the point
20 of view, I have a question regarding the
21 bulk of the buildings.
22 MR. GIARDINO: Plate 219.
23 MS. KRAVITZ: Plate 219.
24 MR. WEIR: Plate 219.
25 MS. KRAVITZ: Okay. On the upper
46
1 -- my question --
2 MR. GIARDINO: Would it help you if
3 I furnish the magic wand?
4 MS. KRAVITZ: Sure.
5 MR. DUNN: Let's understand what
6 219 is, please.
7 MS. KRAVITZ: Okay.
8 MR. GOULD: Hold on, Carol.
9 Can you identify just what we are
10 looking at, what the plate is?
11 MR. GIARDINO: Plate 219 is the Old
12 Glory Park view study. It's dated June
13 1993. It's by Buckerst, Fish, et al.
14 MR. GOULD: Thank you.
15 MS. KRAVITZ: My question is,
16 eliminating this particular view corridor
17 where it says -- you can't really read it
18 -- on my page it says, "no-build zone as
19 viewed from a point Old Glory Park," so I
20 have to assume you cannot build anything
21 that will block any of this view. Am I
22 correct?
23 MR. GIARDINO: Let me caution you
24 regarding this plate.
25 MS. KRAVITZ: Okay.
47
1 MR. GIARDINO: This plate is here so
2 we can speak around a certain concept.
3 This plate is part of a study.
4 The study was presented, I
5 understand, to the township committee, and
6 there was a debate, and at the end of the
7 debate the township committee created
8 ordinances which were later codified into
9 your ordinance document.
10 MS. KRAVITZ: Okay.
11 MR. GIARDINO: They did not verbatim
12 adopt all of the recommendations within the
13 study. They made adjustments here,
14 adjustments there.
15 The plate that you are currently
16 looking at is not a verbatim adopted
17 portion into the ordinance. Okay?
18 There was a recommendation of this
19 study that a minimum of 20 percent of the
20 Palisades plane north-to-south dimension
21 must be within the view corridors provided
22 by a developer.
23 The ultimate ordinance requires 250
24 feet within that zone, and as we testified
25 at the last hearing, we have provided in
48
1 excess of 250 feet.
2 MS. KRAVITZ: Okay. You have
3 clarified that, but the question that I
4 have is, since -- when we are looking at,
5 like, for instance, Pages 210 and 212, we
6 are looking at a flat diagramatics, whereas
7 here it looks like a person standing
8 actually at the park. You can actually say
9 this is a view corridor, this is a view
10 corridor, this is a view corridor, et
11 cetera, et cetera.
12 MR. GIARDINO: I follow you.
13 MS. KRAVITZ: Were a person
14 standing at Old Glory Park, will you be
15 able to -- will the bulk of the buildings
16 fill up this area from here and up over
17 here so that, when you are standing at this
18 point, that can actually be filled with
19 buildings there and there, so long as you
20 do not touch anything above that line?
21 MR. GIARDINO: In order for me to
22 answer your question as clearly as I
23 possibly can, I will ask Mr. Weir to put on
24 the proposed view corridor water view,
25 proposed view study.
49
1 Which plate number? I am afraid I
2 don't recall.
3 MR. WEIR: I believe it's Plate
4 210
5 MR. GIARDINO: You can hold onto
6 that one.
7 Okay. Keeping in mind the document
8 that's before you, that's marked now as
9 A-17, and what is going on in the locus of
10 the proposed ferry terminal.
11 This plate illustrates in the dark
12 blue tone, which, if my memory serves, was
13 a dark-gray zone in the books last week,
14 those areas of water, which are -- which
15 our scheme would remain, would leave open
16 to view under your definition as "view
17 corridor," so in answer to your question,
18 here is the centerline of the river, the
19 buildings that we have created when
20 analyzed from a view corridor point of view
21 -- and I am going to come back to that --
22 would result in shadows, if you will, of
23 obstruction of the river as shown here in
24 the light blue or light gray in your plate.
25 Now, the question that you have
50
1 asked is what would this study look like if
2 I were to do it in a radial manner.
3 MS. KRAVITZ: Right.
4 MR. GIARDINO: We have not performed
5 that study in a radial manner.
6 What we have done, though, is taken
7 a quick look with mathematics as to where
8 would those building shadow lines fall from
9 Old Glory Park, and the short answer is
10 they all fall within -- all of the
11 buildings, with the exception of Building
12 16, will fall to the west, based on our
13 calculations, of the centerline of the
14 Hudson River.
15 There is a parameter in the code
16 which says, "Shall" -- "Shall not obstruct
17 from Old Glory Park more than 20 percent of
18 the view of the centerline of the river as
19 it relates to the skyline view," which,
20 Steve, if you could go back to the plate
21 that was just on --
22 MR. WEIR: Plate 219.
23 MR. GIARDINO: -- as it relates to
24 the skyline view, which we have explained
25 and will explain again, is from 58th Street
51
1 to the visual tip of Manhattan, when you do
2 an analysis of plain geometry relative to
3 that parameter.
4 Building 16 is not within that
5 envelope, so, in short, the only portion of
6 the view of the centerline of the river
7 that would possibly be exacted would be in
8 this region over here, which, in fact, the
9 river takes a bend here. We haven't even
10 bothered to analyze that. It's probably
11 still on, technically, the westerly side of
12 the centerline, because the centerline
13 bends, but it's outside the parameters of
14 the code.
15 Does that help or did I confuse you?
16 MS. KRAVITZ: No, it helps me.
17 I am just trying to get the idea for
18 the bulk of the buildings standing at Old
19 Glory Park, rather than looking at the
20 footprint, because we don't fly, we are
21 grounded, so we are never going to see it
22 from over the centerline of the Hudson
23 River, the shadow, as you call it.
24 MR. GOULD: Will you be offering
25 any three-dimensional perspective studies
52
1 from those kinds of vantage points?
2 MR. GIARDINO: We have, I believe,
3 within the documents submitted, a view that
4 was generated from that general location.
5 It gives some idea of what we are talking
6 about.
7 Steve, do you have it?
8 MR. WEIR: I believe that would
9 be Plate 286 in your binder.
10 MR. GIARDINO: There you go.
11 MR. GOULD: This is looking
12 between Buildings 3/4.
13 MR. GIARDINO: This is a view from
14 Old Glory between Buildings 3 and 4. The
15 centerline of the river is out here.
16 MR. GOULD: Okay. Carol, do you
17 have further questions?
18 MS. KRAVITZ: No, that answered my
19 question.
20 MR. GOULD: Okay. One last
21 question from me, and then if any other
22 board members have questions, I think one
23 of the other things that I asked for at the
24 last meeting was maybe a breakdown of the
25 parking counts by use.
53
1 Is that something that you have for
2 us tonight?
3 MS. STAINES: Yes.
4 MR. KIENZ: Yes, I was waiting to
5 get to that.
6 MR. GOULD: Okay.
7 MR. KIENZ: And for the record, I
8 got this at approximately six o'clock, I
9 guess, when I finally saw you.
10 MR. SEGRETO: This is an oblique
11 way of saying they didn't give me this one
12 either.
13 MR. GOULD: That's correct, but
14 you will get a copy now for sure.
15 MR. KIENZ: It's also an oblique
16 way of saying you will get the first copy.
17 MR. SEGRETO: I am getting -- this
18 is a view without a quibble, as I see it, I
19 am not going to finish my cross-examination
20 tonight.
21 MR. KIENZ: Mr. Chairman, there
22 is an official exhibit.
23 MR. GOULD: Thank you.
24 MR. SEGRETO: Do you have a date on
25 this one, Glenn? It's today's date.