Jersey City Annual Zoning Board Report 2014 and 2015 Tanya R. Marione, AICP, PP 1/21/2016 "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious, and even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow-men, have had a good deal more to do than syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed. The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics." ~ Common Law, Oliver Wendell Holmes
Transcript
Jersey City Annual Zoning Board Report
2014 and 2015
Tanya R. Marione, AICP, PP
1/21/2016
"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious, and even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow-men, have had a good deal more to do than syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed. The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics." ~ Common Law, Oliver Wendell Holmes
2014 Findings
In 2014 there were 40 applications submitted to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The zoning board heard and decided 37 cases. 35 were approved, 2 denied, resulting in a 95.6% approval rate. From those 37 cases, 83 variances total were granted. 14, or 38%, of all the cases included major site plan approval or a subdivision. 34 were “d” variances:
49 were “c” variances*
2 principal structures on one lot Maximum Building coverage Minimum floor to ceiling height Maximum Lot coverage Minimum lot area Minimum lot depth Minimum lot width Parking between the building and street Minimum parking spaces required Minimum parking aisle width Maximum driveway width Minimum percentage of ground floor for garage Minimum dimensions of ground floor garage Front Yard setback Rear yard setback Sideyard setback Signage Tandem Parking Valet Parking
*Only number and percentage of c variances provided if the percentage was greater than 10%.
Types of “d” Variances # of total “d” variances % of total “d” variances d(1) Use 19 56% d(2) Expansion of a non-conforming use
2 6%
d(5) Density 1 3% d(6) Height exceeding 10% 12 35% Total 34 100%
Type of “c” Variances # of total “c” Variances % of total “c” Variances Minimum parking aisle width 5 10.2% Minimum number of parking spaces required
7 14.3%
Rear yard setback 8 16.3%
The greatest numbers of variances granted were for the R-1, One and Two Family Housing District:
56.6% of all the variances were for the R-1 zone.
The next highest percentage of variances granted were in the:
10% of all the variances were for the NC, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone
Variances Granted in the R-1, One and Two Family District
d(1) use variances - 12, or 25.5% of all variances for R-1 zone d(6) height variances - 6 or 13% of all variances for R-1 zone
Inversely:
67% of all the use variances granted (regardless the zone), were in the R-1 district 50% of all the height variances granted (regardless the zone), were in the R-1 district
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
2 pr
inci
pal s
truc
ture
s on
one
lot
build
ing
cove
rage
dens
ity
expa
nsio
n of
non
-con
form
ing
use
heig
ht -
min
imum
heig
ht 1
0% o
r gre
ater
lot c
over
age
lot s
ize-a
rea
lot s
ize-d
epth
lot s
ize-w
idth
park
ing
betw
. bld
g &
stre
et
park
ing-
dim
ensio
ns
park
ing-
# sp
aces
park
ing-
aisle
wid
th
park
ing-
curb
cut
wid
th
park
ing-
driv
eway
wid
th
park
ing-
fron
t yar
d
park
ing-
gara
ge %
of g
r.fl.a
rea
park
ing-
gara
ge d
imen
sions
park
ing-
spac
e di
men
sions
resid
entia
l on
the
grou
nd fl
oor
setb
ack-
fron
t yar
d
setb
ack-
rear
yar
d
sidey
ard-
both
signa
ge-fr
eest
andi
ng
signa
ge-m
ax #
sign
s
tand
em p
arki
ng
use
vale
t par
king
Num
ber o
f Var
ianc
es
Variance Types
2014 Variances Specific to the R-1 and NC Zone
R-1
NC
Location of Use and Height Variances for the R-1 zone
5 out of the 12 use variances granted were in the Village Neighborhood. 5 out of the 6 height variances granted were in the Village Neighborhood. The Village Neighborhood is the approximate area east of Coles Street, west of the Turnpike extension, north of Christopher Columbus Blvd, and south of 7th Street.
Variances Granted in the NC District 50 % of all variances in the NC zone were d(1) use variances. All NC d(1) variances were in the Village Neighborhood.
2015 Findings In 2015 there were 69 newly submitted applications to the Zoning Board. The zoning board heard and decided 43 cases. 36 were approved, 5 denied, and 2 were withdrawn resulting in an 83.7% approval rate. From those 43 cases, 95 variances total were granted. 25, or 58%, of all the cases included major site plan approval or a subdivision. 33 were “d” Variances
62 were “c” variances*:
Maximum Building coverage Expansion of a non-conforming structure Minimum percentage of front yard landscaping Minimum floor to ceiling height Maximum Lot coverage Minimum lot area Minimum lot depth Minimum lot width Parking between the building and street Minimum parking spaces required Minimum dimensions for parking spaces Minimum parking aisle width Minimum percentage of ground floor for garage Minimum dimensions of ground floor garage Front Yard setback Rear yard setback Signage
Type of “c” Variances # of total “c” Variances % of total “c” Variances Maximum building coverage 9 14.5% Minimum number of parking spaces required
7 11.3%
Rear yard setback 13 21% *Above Table only represent c variances with percentages greater than 10%.
Types of “d” Variances # of total “d” variances % of total “d” variances d(1) Use 15 45.5% d(2) Expansion of a non-conforming use
4 12%
d(5) Density 1 3% d(6) Height exceeding 10% 13 39.3% Total 33 100%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
D and C Variances Granted in 2015
HC NC PHHD PPOD R-1 R-2 R-3 VVP
The greatest numbers of variances granted were for the R-1, One and Two Family Housing District:
58% of all the variances were for the R-1 zone.
The next highest percentage of variances granted were in the:
13% of all the variances were for the NC, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone
Variances Granted in the R-1, One and Two Family District
d(1) use variances = 10, or 18.2% of all R-1 variances d(6) height variances = 7, or 13% of all R-1 variances
Inversely,
67% of all the use variances granted (regardless the zone), were in the R-1 district 54% of all the height variances granted (regardless the zone), were in the R-1 district
Location of Variances Granted in the R-1 District Village Neighborhood/Ward E (see attachment #1 for reference)
4 out of the 10 use variances granted (40%) 5 out of the 7 height variances granted (71.4%)
Ward D (see attachment #1 for reference)
2 out of the 10 use variances granted (20%) 2 out of the 7 height variances granted (29%)
Finally, Ward C (see attachment #1 for reference) is the third highest for use variances granted in the R-1 zone.
2, or 20%
Location of Variances Granted in the NC District
d(6) height variances = 25 % of all NC variances The 2 use variances granted were both for residential on the ground floor, behind the storefront
retail.
Location 100% of all height variances in the NC zone were in the Village Neighborhood 100% of all use variances were along Central Avenue
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Num
ber o
f Var
ianc
es G
rant
ed
Variance Types
2015 Variances Specific to the R-1 and NC Zone
R-1
NC
Staff Recommendations Article 9. Zoning Board of Adjustment 40:55D-70.1 Report on variance applications, amendment recommendations. The of adjustment shall, at least once a year, review its decisions on applications and appeals for variances and prepare and adopt by resolution a report on its findings on zoning ordinance provisions which were the subject of variance requests and its recommendations for zoning ordinance amendments or revision, if any. The board of adjustment shall send copies of the report and resolution to the governing body and planning board. (added by the 1985 amendments to the MLUL)
The legislative enactments requiring periodic reevaluation of municipal master plans and zoning ordinances, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-89, 40:55D-89.1, and annual reports and recommendations from the boards of adjustment, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70.1, reflect a legislative policy intended to insure that a municipality’s master plan and zoning ordinance reflect contemporary needs and conditions, and the governing body is kept informed of provisions the zoning ordinance that generate variance requests. This, the mandatory reexamination by the planning board of the master plan and zoning ordinance, at least every six years, (now ten) is intended to inform the governing body of the need for revision in the plan and ordinance based on significant changes in the community since the same such reexamination. Similarly, the annual reports by the boards of adjustment summarizing variance requests throughout the years and recommending amendments to the zoning ordinance are designed to avoid successive appeal for the same types of variance by encouraging the governing body to amend the ordinance so that such appeal will be unnecessary. When an informed governing body does not change the ordinance, a board of adjustment may reasonably infer that its inaction was deliberate. Medici v. BPR Co., N.J. 1 (1987) (content in italics added by staff)
The first zoning legislation introduced in New Jersey was in 1918. The New Jersey Constitution was amended in 1927 to expressly authorize municipalities to zone. However, it is not until the ratification of the 1947 Constitution where municipalities were enabled the right to land use regulation within the designation of the police powers granted to the legislative branch. Article IV, Section VI. 2. The Legislature may enact general laws under which municipalities, other than counties, may adopt zoning ordinances limiting and restricting to specified districts and regulating therein, buildings and structures, according to their construction, and the nature and extent of their use, and the nature and extent of the uses of land, and the exercise of such authority shall be deemed to be within the police power of the State. Such laws shall be subject to repeal or alteration by the Legislature.
Substantial amendments were made in 1948, 1949, and 1953. Mainly, these amendments introduced
1) The authorization of granting use variances based on special reasons (previously use variances were only granted with proof of undue hardship)
2) Introduction of the negative criteria for both “c” and “d” variances, “provided such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance.”
3) Restricting the authority to grant “d” variances to the Zoning Board of Adjustment The first Jersey City Zoning Ordinance was created in 1931, and included 5 districts: 2 residential, 1 business, and 2 industrial. The zoning ordinance was amended in 1957, 1963, but it is not until the 1974 zoning amendment that the delineated zoning districts begin to look more like what currently exists: R-1, Low Density Residential, R-2 Low Density Residential, R-3 and R-3A Medium Density Residential, R-4 High Density Residential, C-1 Central Business District, C-2 Office and Retail, C-3 Shopping Center, C-4 Finance and Business District, I-1 Automotive, Construction, Office, I-2 Intensive Industrial, and I-3 Industrial Park. For illustrative purposes, here are some examples of what would have been permitted in the four residential districts:
The R-1 permitted a 3-story 1 or 2-family house on a 25x100 lot. The R-2 permitted 1 and 2 families, along with townhouses, and garden apartments. All
residential buildings were permitted to 4 stories or 40 feet, 2-family housing on a 2,500 sq ft lot was permitted the highest density at 35 units per acre. Retail and offices were permitted on the ground floor of garden apartments and had to have access to one of the following streets:
Hudson Boulevard (J.F. Kennedy Boulevard) north of Newark and New York Railroad; Summit Avenue north of Sip Avenue; Palisade Avenue; Newark Avenue; Montgomery Street; West Side Avenue north of Lincoln Park; Jackson Avenue (MLK Dr.); Ocean Avenue; and Communipaw Avenue
The R-3 and R-3A permitted all the uses from R-2 with the addition of medium rise apartments. The density, height and bulk standards also remained the same, but now medium rise apartments were permitted at 10 stories or 100 feet on minimum lot sizes of 40,000 sq ft at 60 units an acre. Retail sales and offices were permitted in medium rise apartments that were at least 6 stories and faced a street that had regular bus service or was classified as a collector or arterial street.
Finally, the R-4 again permitted all of the prior residential uses with the addition of high rise apartments. High rise apartments were regulated by floor area ratio with a maximum density of 90 units per acre.
The City continued to make amendments to the 1974 overhaul up until the introduction the today’s current zoning: the Jersey City Land Development Ordinance adopted in 2001. However, none of the amendments from 1974 to 2000 have as many drastic changes as the ordinances from 1951, 1963 and 1974.
From a historic perspective, the type of zoning and the time it was created makes sense based on current Federal policy and Supreme Court land use decisions.
The 1931 ordinance came after the Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926). Jersey City’s first zoning ordinance in 1931 until 1963 are clear examples of Euclidean zoning (single-use zoning).
The 1974 Zoning Ordinance begins to introduce mixed uses where in the residential zones, ground floor retail is also permitted. Performance zoning started to become incorporated into the code and the code started to provide additional regulations for uses that would limit the negative impacts it could have. This, of course, does not take into account the impact of redevelopment plan areas which would have been permitted as early as 1947, and today half the of City lies in a Redevelopment Zone.
The 2001 Jersey City Land Development Ordinance, currently used today with amendments as recent at January 2016 represents hybrid zoning. Amendments are based on a variety of reasons, some being market forces, as shown by the annual number of zoning applications. (2009 marks The Great Recession) This argues further in favor of the need to correct zoning.
The 2015 annual zoning report suggests the following:
1) A complete re-write of the Jersey City Master Plan. The last complete Master Plan Re-Examination was done in 2001, with a number of updates/amendments over the past 15 years. The amendments should be complied in collaboration with the annual zoning reports to address outstanding issues.
2) Re-Zoning of the R-1 district downtown, specifically the Village Neighborhood Attachment #2 to this report is newly proposed zoning for this area.
3) Zoning standards for Adaptive Reuse should be added to the LDO for every district.
Prior annual zoning reports recommendations yet to be addressed, but still relevant:
1) Re-Zoning of the Northern Part of J.F. Kennedy Boulevard
The former 1974 R-2 zone permitted 1 and 2 families, along with townhouses, and garden apartments. All residential buildings were permitted to 4 stories or 40 feet, 2-family housing on a 2,500 sq ft lot was permitted the highest density at 35 units per acre. Retail and offices were permitted on the ground floor of garden apartments and had to have access to one of the following streets:
Hudson Boulevard (J.F. Kennedy Boulevard) north of Newark and New York Railroad; Summit Avenue north of Sip Avenue; Palisade Avenue; Newark Avenue; Montgomery Street; West Side Avenue north of Lincoln Park; Jackson Avenue (MLK Boulevard); Ocean Avenue; and Communipaw Avenue
Ground floor retail and offices were permitted along these corridors because they had direct access to streets that were mass transit was accessible. Additionally, it was historically always permitted, as early as the 1951 zoning ordinance. Planning staff, recommends that the City acknowledge this pattern of development has always existed and continues to exist either through grandfathering or variance applications. Strict R-1 zoning, excluding ground floor retail or office along the aforementioned streets is historically and currently inappropriate.
2) Lot Size
In order to prevent the constant lot variances, staff strongly suggests that all lots existing at the time of the 2001 Land Development Ordinance be grandfathered.
Attachment #1
Attachment #2
§ 345-58. – R-E Residential Low Rise Residential, Mixed Use zone
A. Purpose. The purpose of this district is to provide development regulations contextual to the existing predominantly two to four story multifamily neighborhood with occasional retail venues and provide for appropriate infill development. Additionally, the purpose of the zoning in this district is to address and help mitigate the impact in the flood prone and vulnerable areas.
B. Permitted principal uses:
1. Residential
2. Retail sales of goods and services on the ground floor along Brunswick Street, Monmouth Street, or Coles Street, or other locations where there are existing, legal storefronts
3. Professional offices and medical offices on the ground floor along Brunswick Street, Monmouth Street, or Coles Street, or other locations where there are existing, legal storefronts.
3. Schools.
4. Governmental uses.
5. Houses of worship.
6. Mortuaries.
7. Parks and playgrounds.
8. Home occupations (See 345-60.G.2. Standards for Specific Accessory Uses. a. Home Occupations).
1. All lots legally existing at the time of adoption of this ordinance are now conforming
2. Minimum Lot Size: One thousand eight hundred (1,800) square feet.
3. Minimum Lot Width: Eighteen (18) feet.
4. Minimum Lot Depth: One hundred (100) feet.
5. Minimum Front Yard Setback: Must meet adjacent setback on either side.
6. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: Thirty (30) feet.
7. Side Yard Setbacks: Zero feet within 10 feet of a right-of-way except where required by fire or building code to accommodate windows.
8. Maximum Building Height:
Four (4) stories, 45 feet
9. Minimum Floor to Ceiling Height: 9 feet
10. Maximum Building Coverage: Seventy Percent (70%)
11. Maximum Lot Coverage: Seventy-five percent (75%).
12. Maximum Dwelling Units Per Acre:
a. Lots with a lot area of 2,000 square feet or less: Eighty (80).
b. Lots with a lot area greater than 2,000 square feet: One-Hundred Twenty (120).
F. Parking Standards
1. Parking is prohibited on any lots that have sole frontage on either Brunswick Street, Monmouth Street, or Coles Street.
2. Parking is prohibited on lots less than 50 feet wide
a. Where parking is permitted, parking is required on lots 50 feet wide or greater, according to the following:
b. Residential units shall provide a maximum of 0.5 parking spaces per unit.
c. In no instance shall parking be permitted between the building line and street line.
d. Maximum width of curb cut: 10
e. Maximum width of driveway: 10
Only a single curb cut, per property, is permitted; however in no instance shall a curb cut be permitted on Brunswick Street, Monmouth Street, or Coles Street.
G. Landscaping and Lot Coverage Standards
1. All properties are required to provide street trees, except where it can be demonstrated to Planning Staff that it is not possible to plant trees due to underground constraints such as water or utility lines.
2. All street trees shall be in accordance with the design standards in 345-66.B.
3. In the event a street tree is removed for construction, required repair/replacement, or for any other purpose, restoration of a street tree is required in accordance with the design standards in 345-66.B.
4. Parking spaces, driveways, and any type of patio shall be constructed using pervious paving materials. The following are acceptable materials:
a. Interlocking concrete blocks
b. Permeable Pavers
c. Open-celled pavers
d. Porous pavement, concrete or ashphalt
e. Gravel
f. Reinforced lawn
g. Or other material deemed appropriate by Planning/Zoning Board
5. At least 25% of every lot shall be landscaped with one of the following materials:
a. Reinforced lawn
b. Ground cover
c. Rain garden
d. Bioswales
e. Plants that are native, non-invasive and proven drought resistant in an urban environment
