Hudson TV News

JERSEY CITY — The Financial Agreements attached to Jersey City Ordinances 26-045 and 26-046 are now the attributable paper trail for Canal Crossing Phase 1 on Garfield Avenue: twin 30-year Annual Service Charge schedules, staged from 10% of Annual Gross Revenue, with Hudson County limited to 5% of ASC under state law.

The Municipal Council gave second-and-final passage on Wednesday, Sep. 23, 2026. Mayor James Solomon approved both ordinances on Sep. 24, 2026, per the civicweb ordinance records. First reading was Jun. 10, 2026 (9–0 on both). Final roll calls diverge: Ord. 26-045 (Phase 1A) finished 9–0; Ord. 26-046 (Phase 1B) finished 7–0–2, with Councilman Frank Gilmore and Council President Denise Ridley recorded as abstaining on the Phase 1B sheet.

Hudson TV previously covered the Sep. 23 hearing’s public comment and vote drama. This package is the FA math — not a rehash of that night’s podium fight.

Photo: Hudconja / Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0). Graphic: Hudson TV.

Phase 1A — Ord. 26-045 / Garfield Phase 1A Urban Renewal LLC

Parcel: Block 21501.01, Lot 1 — 850–870 Garfield Avenue.

Building (FA recitals): new six-story mixed-use; 215 residential rental units, including 43 affordable units at or below 50% AMI; about 6,818 square feet of ground-floor retail; 68 parking spaces; designated bicycle parking and amenity package.

Cost / jobs (FA findings): total project cost estimated in excess of $141 million; annual operating expenses projected at about $2 million; about 275 temporary construction jobs and 30 permanent jobs.

Entity notices: c/o Boraie Development LLC, New Brunswick. Redeveloper designation under the 2018 Amended and Restated Redevelopment Agreement also names Hampshire Urban Renewal Redevelopment, LLC, Garfield JC Partners, LLC, and Phase 1B.

Phase 1B — Ord. 26-046 / Garfield Phase 1B Urban Renewal LLC

Parcel: Block 21501.02, Lot 1.01 — 874–902 Garfield Avenue.

Building (FA recitals): new ten-story mixed-use; 293 residential rental units, including 59 affordable units at or below 50% AMI; about 11,462 square feet of ground-floor retail; 212 parking spaces; designated bicycle parking and amenity package.

Cost / jobs (FA findings): total project cost estimated in excess of $176 million; annual operating expenses projected at about $3 million; about 350 temporary construction jobs and 50 permanent jobs.

Combined arithmetic from the two FAs: 508 rental units / 102 affordable — not a separate marketing total invented outside the ordinances.

Both agreements say the projects help deliver Park 12P (plaza ~33,000 sq ft) and a portion of the Morris Canal Greenway, and that operations run under the city’s PECA (Ord. 18-151) and living-wage code §3-76.

The ASC schedule (§4.04) — identical twin rungs

Both FAs use the same staged Annual Service Charge. ASC is due each Feb. 1, May 1, Aug. 1, and Nov. 1 after the Annual Service Charge Start Date, for up to 30 years from that start date (agreement term is 35 years from execution, subject to earlier termination).

Minimum Annual Service Charge (both FAs): the total taxes levied against that phase’s parcel in the last full tax year it was subject to conventional taxation. The FAs do not state a dollar Minimum ASC — Hudson TV will not invent one.

Admin fee (§4.09): Entity pays the city 2% of that year’s ASC by Nov. 1 (N.J.S.A. 40A:20-9).

County share (§4.08): City remits 5% of ASC received to Hudson County pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:20-12. That is a cut of the PILOT — not a conventional ad-valorem school or county tax line on improvements while the exemption runs.

Land taxes: Land Tax Payments continue until the ASC Start Date. From the ASC Start Date through expiration/termination, the parcel is exempt from Land Taxes under N.J.S.A. 40A:20-12 (FA §4.05). Improvements and Land are tax-exempt as provided in the FA for the exemption term.

What is not in these FAs: Neither financial agreement dedicates a percentage of ASC to the Jersey City Board of Education or a schools capital account. Any citywide “PILOT-to-schools” proposal belongs to separate policy paper — including the administration’s own June 16, 2026 Interim Budget Report language about directing 10% of PILOT revenue to public schools — not to the Ord. 26-045 / 26-046 contract text Hudson TV reviewed. Do not treat that proposal as a clause in these twins.

Tax-crisis contrast — audit vs. new deals (timeline, not a veto rewrite)

The ASC math lands against a fiscal backdrop the Solomon administration has put in writing:

• Jan. 21, 2026: Mayor Solomon’s executive order launched a comprehensive audit of 100+ active long-term tax abatements, with a stated completion target of July 1, 2026 (city press release).
• Jun. 16, 2026 Interim Budget Report: Administration says it inherited a structural deficit of about $254.8 million, reduced on a net basis by about $55 million to a remaining structural gap of about $199.6 million. The same report lists the PILOT Audit among non-tax revenue initiatives, alongside a proposal to direct 10% of PILOT revenue to public schools — again, a proposal, not the Canal Crossing FA language.
• Sep. 23–24, 2026: Council final passage and mayoral approval of these two new 30-year exemptions.

Hudson TV’s point is the timeline contrast — new 30-year ASC schedules locking in while the public still lacks a published, parcel-by-parcel audit findings dump for the legacy portfolio. This story is not a rewrite of Trenton’s absolute-veto package on Jersey City fiscal bills; that package is separate context only.

Doubt check

• Who pays Stage One: For the first 15 years, the entity pays the greater of last-full-year conventional taxes on that parcel or 10% of AGR. If rents climb, the city’s ASC climbs with AGR — but conventional full-tax equivalents on finished buildings are not what Stage One guarantees.
• County 5%: Statutory slice of ASC, not full taxes.
• Schools: No FA carve-out in 26-045 / 26-046. Separate ordinance or appropriation would be required before anyone can attribute a school dollar from these ASCs.
• Vote hygiene: Use the ordinance sheets — Phase 1A final 9–0; Phase 1B final 7–0–2 — not a single blended roll call.
• Phase 1B Land definition glitch: In the Ord. 26-046 FA definitions extract, the “Land” paragraph still prints Block 21501.01, Lot 1 (Phase 1A identifiers). The ordinance caption, recitals, and Phase 1B Parcel definition correctly use Block 21501.02, Lot 1.01. Treat Exhibit A / parcel captions as controlling; flag the definition typo for OPRA/executed-FA follow-up.

Hudson TV asks: With twin 30-year Canal Crossing ASCs now on the books at Stage One 10% of gross revenue, should City Hall’s next public move be publishing the full PILOT-audit findings — or capping how many new long-term exemptions get signed while the structural gap stays open?

Share your take in the comments — and tell us which option you’d pick and why.

React: reply AUDIT or CAP (or OTHER + your idea).

JERSEY CITY, N.J. — The Jersey City Planning Board on Tuesday night, Sept. 29, 2026, approved preliminary and final major site plan relief with ‘c’ variances for an eight-story, 115-unit residential project at 33 Division Street, across from Enos Jones Park.

The case is P2024-0008. Official agenda facts:

• Applicant: 33-39 Division Street, LLC
• Attorney: Thomas P. Leane, Esq. (Connell Foley identified on the record)
• Review planner (agenda): Cameron Black, AICP, PP
• Block / lots / ward: Block 9801, Lots 7 and 11, Ward E
• Zone: Enos Jones Park RDP — Midrise Transition Zone
• Program (agenda): Clear 29-39 Division Street and construct a new eight (8) story residential building containing 115 dwelling units and 86 parking spaces
• Variances / waiver (agenda): Height in feet; setbacks above the 6th story; curb cut width; design waiver for proposed exterior design

The Sep. 29 official agenda lists prior appearances / carries: January 13, February 10, March 10, and August 25, 2026.

Video: Jersey City TV — Planning Board Meeting Sept. 29, 2026 · approval roll call at ~4:32:55

What counsel put on the record

Thomas P. Leane told the board the site sits at the end of 8th Street where 8th and Division meet, across from Enos Jones Park (World Boxing Gym site referenced on the record). The proposal: an eight-story building with 115 units, parking, and ground-floor retail.

Counsel said the applicant is using a bonus in the redevelopment plan: additional height tied to a monetary payment for Enos Jones Park improvements. On the record he calculated 48 additional units at $35,000 per unit, producing a stated $1.68 million bonus payment to be placed in escrow with the redevelopment agency if approved. Counsel also stated the applicant is the designated redeveloper for the property.

Civil engineer Mike Resnick was identified as the first witness. Later technical testimony on the record repeatedly described 86 parking spaces (matching the official agenda), plus bike parking and EV charging compliance; counsel’s opening line briefly said “85,” which is treated as a slip against the agenda and subsequent testimony.

Architect testimony on the record described a 762-square-foot corner retail space requested in community feedback.

Staff conditions (on the record)

Agenda review planner Cameron Black was not on the dais; Matt Ward stated he was filling in and that Black provided a memo dated 9/29/2026. Counsel put on the record that the applicant would comply with the conditions therein.

Additional conditions discussed and accepted on the record included:

• Applicant must execute a Redevelopment Agreement (RDA) with the JCRA before permits are applied for (clarified on the record vs. “before stamped plans”)
• Park-contribution payment schedule pursuant to the redevelopment plan / RDA — staff asked that the schedule and contribution amounts be spelled out in the resolution (counsel/staff referenced one payment prior to permits and one prior to certificate of occupancy)
• Curb bump-out / curb extension item from review-agent comments (to be shown in revised compliance plans)

Staff recommended approval with conditions.

Public comment (attributable)

Neighbor Robin Tew (spelled T-E-W on the record), owner of 396 Seventh Street south of the site, asked for a substantial construction fence (about nine feet) during demolition/construction and raised shade / balcony privacy concerns. Applicant’s team said site-safety plans would go to the Building Department, agreed to stay in touch, and described privacy screens and a green buffer for south-side balconies at roughly floor two / ~22 feet above sidewalk.

Roll call (video ~4:32:55)

Motion: approve application P2024-0008 with the conditions outlined in the staff report (as discussed). A commissioner moved; another seconded.

• Acting Vice Chair Patel — Aye
• Commissioner Conway — Aye
• Commissioner Stamato — Aye
• Commissioner Capers — Aye
• Commissioner Kaplan — Aye

Chair announced motion carries, all in favor. Madam Chair was not individually called on this roll.

What this is — and is not

Is: Planning Board approval of preliminary and final major site plan with c variances and conditions for P2024-0008 — board land-use action on the site plan.

Is not: A City Council redevelopment designation vote; a building permit; a guarantee construction starts on a fixed date; or final sign-off until conditions (RDA, park payments, plan revisions) are satisfied through city agencies.

Memorialization of the written resolution typically follows board approval. Hudson TV will watch for the memorialized resolution and any later compliance disputes.

Hudson TV asks: Is an eight-story, 115-unit building across from Enos Jones Park a fair trade for the stated park improvement payment — or too much bulk for the block?

Share your take in the comments — and tell us which option you’d pick and why.

React: reply FAIR or CONCERN (or OTHER + your idea).

JERSEY CITY, N.J. — The Jersey City Planning Board on Tuesday night, Sept. 29, 2026, voted to recommend the Let’s Move JC Transportation Master Plan — framed on the agenda and on the motion as a new mobility element of the Jersey City Master Plan — to City Council for adoption.

The case is P2026-0120. Official agenda applicant: Eli Guseman, Principal Transportation Planner, Division of Transportation Planning. Official agenda review planner: Matthew da Silva, AICP, PP. Formal action was taken after staff presentation, public comment, and a staff recommendation of approval.

Video: Jersey City TV — Planning Board Meeting Sept. 29, 2026 · recommendation roll call at ~1:17:58

Recusal on the record

Before the presentation, Commissioner Kaplan stated for the record that he would recuse himself because “my department has been behind this plan.” He left the dais for the item and returned after the vote for the next case. Public comment later referred to him as Director Kaplan in connection with transportation outreach; the official board roll identifies him as Commissioner Kaplan.

What staff put on the record

Guseman presented Let’s Move JC as an update to the city’s circulation / transportation planning. On the record he said the Division of Transportation Planning applied in 2024 for a grant to update the circulation element; the last update was in 2013. He described a roughly year-long process of outreach, existing-conditions work, modeling, and neighborhood focus efforts, with a final plan released in June (year stated as part of the same presentation arc). He cited engagement with over 4,000 unique participants and coordination with regional partners including NJDOT, NJ Transit, the Port Authority, Hudson County, and neighboring municipalities.

Matthew da Silva of the Planning Department told the board he had been involved in the stakeholder group as a representative of City Planning, that the transportation plan is in line with the goals of the city’s master plan, and that staff recommends approval.

Roll call (video ~1:17:58)

Motion on the record: recommend the Let’s Move JC Transportation Master Plan as a new mobility element of the Jersey City Master Plan to the City Council for adoption. A commissioner moved; another seconded. Kaplan was not called (recused).

• Acting Vice Chair Patel — Aye
• Commissioner Conway — Aye
• Commissioner Stamato — Aye
• Commissioner Capers — Aye
• Madam Chair Gangadin — Aye (thanked those involved in the study; noted substantial work remains)

Motion carries. All voting members present voted aye (5–0 with Kaplan recused). Quorum at opening roll was six commissioners.

What this is — and is not

Is: A Planning Board recommendation to City Council that Let’s Move JC be adopted as a Master Plan mobility element (P2026-0120), on video, with Kaplan recused.

Is not: Final City Council adoption of the Master Plan element; a capital budget; a construction contract; or a guarantee that every recommendation in the plan will be funded or built on a fixed timetable.

Under the motion language used Tuesday night, Council is the body asked to adopt. Hudson TV will watch the City Council calendar for that adoption vote.

Hudson TV asks: Should City Council adopt Let’s Move JC as Jersey City’s Master Plan mobility element — or hold for more public debate on costs and priorities?

Share your take in the comments — and tell us which option you’d pick and why.

React: reply SUPPORT or HOLD (or OTHER + your idea).

JERSEY CITY, N.J. — The 42-story, 440-foot, 696-unit residential proposal at 506 Summit Avenue — including a Summit House public plaza in the Journal Square 2060 Zone 11 Transition district — was carried again at the Jersey City Planning Board’s Sept. 29, 2026 meeting. It was not approved and not denied.

The application is P2025-0169 (applicant SP 500 Summit-Dev Co LLC / counsel identified on the record as Gerard Pizzillo, Genova Burns, for 500 Summit Avenue Owner, LLC). The official agenda trail shows prior appearances and carries: April 14; June 9, carried to June 30; July 14; July 28, carried from July 14; August 11, carried to August 25; and September 8, carried to September 29, 2026.

Video: Jersey City TV — Planning Board Meeting Sept. 29, 2026 · carry discussion at ~3:55:20

What happened on the record

After the board approved 146 Academy Street, Madam Chair Gangadin said the board would take a short break and that she was “very sure” they would not be getting to P2025-0169 / 506 Summit Avenue. She asked counsel whether they wished to carry.

Counsel agreed to carry due to the lateness of the hour and where the agenda stood, with preservation of notice, and confirmed the board’s request to waive the time for the board to act. Affidavit of notice was said to be on the city portal; counsel offered to hand it up at the next appearance.

On return dates, counsel and the chair discussed October 13 and October 27. The chair indicated the October 13 calendar was not full. Hudson TV is not locking a next hearing date in the headline until the next published Planning Board agenda confirms the listing — the on-record discussion supports an October return with preservation of notice.

The board then proceeded to hear 33 Division Street (approved later the same night) and memorializations.

What the agenda says the project is

Per the Sept. 29 official agenda (not a board approval):

• Preliminary Major Site Plan
• 42 stories / 440 feet residential
• 696 dwelling units
• 47 parking spaces
• Creation of Summit House public plaza, pedestrian walkway, sidewalk, streetscape, and related site improvements
• Zone: Journal Square 2060 – Zone 11 Transition (Ward C)
• Review planner: Tanya Marione, AICP, PP

Same night context (not this application)

Separately, the same meeting approved an 8-story / 115-unit project at 33 Division Street (P2024-0008) and advanced other site plans. Those outcomes do not decide 506 Summit.

Doubt check

• Carry ≠ approval. No preliminary site plan vote was taken on P2025-0169 on Sept. 29.
• Repeated carries. Agenda shows multiple prior carries into this night.
• Next date. Treat Oct. 13 / Oct. 27 as discussed, confirm on the next official agenda before stating a firm return date in social copy.

—

Hudson TV asks: Should the Planning Board prioritize finishing the 506 Summit Ave tower hearing on the next available October agenda — or keep stacking smaller cases first even if the 696-unit application slips again?

Share your take in the comments — and tell us which option you’d pick and why.

React: reply OCT13 or LATER (or OTHER + your idea).