[PAGE 1]
BOROUGH OF EDGEWATER
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
55 RIVER ROAD
EDGEWATER, NJ 07020
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 10,
2026.
MEMBERS PRESENT ALSO PRESENT
Chairman Christiansen Steven Tombalakian
Dimitri Nikolaidis Kathryn Gregory
Gianni Delgaudio Nicki Louloudis
Manny Cosme
Richard Gannon
Robert Stewart
OPEN MEETING ACT
ROLL CALL
BUSINESS
BADV-25/12. Commonly known as 440-456 River Road, Edgewater, NJ.
Block 85.02, Lots 4 & 5.01. Applicant North Star Partners Associates LLC.
Request approval for an amended site plan and variance approval for the
mixed-use building under construction at 440-456 River Road, which will
require “D” and “C” variance approval, located in the MXD-2 Mixed-Use
District. Deemed complete on January 7, 2026.
Daniel Steinhagen on behalf of North Star Partners Associates LLC. This
application is approximately 3 ¼ acres that was previously approved by the
Planning Board in 2018. At this time, the work has stopped. Full site plan
approval is being sought. Requesting a modification. A number of
variances are listed. Asking for the maximum height permitted, frontage
variance, parking spaces. I have three witnesses here with me tonight:
Conrad Roncati, Architect - 1 Executive Drive, Fort Lee, NJ
Haus Simoff, Site Civil Engineer Traffic Consultant
Christine Capone, not with us tonight as we probably won’t get to her.
There are also attorney’s present for the objectors.

[PAGE 2]
Mr. Jason M. Hyndman, Price, Meese, Shulman & D’Arminio, 50
Tice Boulevard, Suite 380, Woodcliff Lake, NJ. Representing Borough of
Cliffside Park.
Mr. Bruce H. Dexter, Dexter & Kilcoyne, 90 Main Street,
Hackensack, NJ., representing Chris and Jodi Boros 375 Esplanade and also
Laura Boros 381 Esplanade, Cliffside Park, NJ.
Mr. Nicholas P. Whittaker, O’Toole Scrivo, 14 Village Road, Cedar
Grove, NJ., representing Thomas & Donna Calabrese, 351 Esplanade,
Cliffside Park, NJ.
Mr. Steinhagen begins: for the record, two letters that were submitted by
attorney’s objecting to the sufficiency of the applicants notice, I replied to
them. Principal concern is the notice of the tallest part of the project. So
come to Edgewater and look at the plans and they’ll see that not all of the
project is 230’ tall. The purpose of the notice is to advise people of a
hearing and give the nature of the matters being considered. The notice
must describe the “use”, you don’t have to describe the variances, we did
that anyway, I don’t think this is a notice defect, we’re ready to proceed.
Another issue, I brought it up in my letter, on behalf of Mr. Dexter’s
appearance, you have to have standing, Mr. Dexter’s client is not a property
owner in the Borough of Edgewater, his clients are more than 200 ft. away.
How does this application effect, in the Borough of Cliffside Park, his right
to use, and enjoy his property. Steve Tombalakian: so, are you suggesting his
clients are not interested parties? I don’t know if his clients are interested
parties. I know they’re not taxpayers and citizens in the Borough of
Edgewater. I don’t know if Mr. Dexters clients are interested parties. And I
would ask that the proper right of user requirement to enjoy property is
being affected by this application. You do not have a right to a view. ST:
Mr. Dexter do you want to explain how your clients have standing? Mr.
Dexter: Laura Boros, 400 Esplanade on the Cliff is in close proximity of the
project that is being constructed. Case law does provide any interested
parties, do have standing, even from another town. Refer to Jacoby vs.
Englewood Cliffs, 2015. Since one client is in Edgewater, it’s a moot point.
For the record, she resides in Cliffside Park, and she also has property in
Edgewater, over the side of the wall. ST: I reviewed your notice affidavit
and find it acceptable, so it’s up to the board. Chairman: the board is very
comfortable.

[PAGE 3]
First witness: Conrad Roncati, principal of Architectura, 1 Executive Drive,
Fort Lee, NJ is sworn in. Licensed in New Jersey and 17 other states. The
chair recognizes his expertise.
I’m not the original architect on this project. It was mostly constructed
when the client asked him to pick up the project and to carryon moving
forward. Building design and uses, height and bulk, prior approvals, visual
and view shed diagrams. Nothing on engineering except bulk.
BOA 1-12, dated October 28, 2025. Reviewed 2018 Planning Board
resolutions, applications and drawings, reviewed tonight’s Engineering Plan
along with the Planners.
B1, Planning Review Letter, dated February 5, 2026
B2, Engineering Review Letter, dated February 9, 2026.
This project is a unique presentation, concept, drawings and pictures.
Building is mostly up. For the record, it’s in the MXD-2, Mixed-Use
District. Hudson River, Skylands, River Road and Older River Road.
Significant Buildings approved and are listed with heights. The overall use
has not changed. Parking and retail. North is the Condo Hotel, West is the
office, South side is the Hotel. What is being proposed is no change to that
use. Just floors are and height.
Hotel Condo from 171 to 248
Commercial same 7,680
Hotel from 184 to 198
Office Building from 78,500 to 100,800 SF
540 Parking Spaces
Amended site plan approval. In 2018, the Planning Board approved this
project. Top of building, seeking to add floors, 2018 project has exacted
same use. Footprint is exactly as approved. Modifications at the top.
Ground level and street level are the same. Height, the façade (building was
extended). Dimensional changes, original drawings, the height was higher.
Lobby was lowered in the Condo Hotel. Hotel and Condo Hotel in two
separate buildings, not mixed use within the buildings. Ground floor –
retail, remails the same. River Road is activated and walkability remains
and aligns with the Master Plan. Bulk and height, floor ration 3.24,
increases 4.656 due to refinements. This didn’t involve changing the
footprint or current approvals. Building height “D” variance 14 stories
(150’) to 19 stories. Lobby of condo 230.3’ to 21 stories on River Road.

[PAGE 4]
Old River Road is the south line. Office building and hotel are lower than
that. Hotel from 12 stories to 15 stories, office from 6 to 7 stories.
Exhibits BOA 1-12, dated October 28, 2025.
BOA-2, Site Plan, dated October 28, 2025. North is to the right; River Rd. is
at the bottom. Condo is North, Office is west, hotel – southside, “C”
Variance req. 15’ setback. Entrance drive, 5 parking spaces. Unchanged –
15’ implicates the first two parking spaces only. The use will be for quick
drop-offs, postal, UPS, Amazon, etc. All of the other (8) parking spaces,
east side of River Road all comply with the 15’ requirement. Hotel Condo
building conforms to the setback. Building is 15’1 to Old River Road.
From River Road only a point or corner that’s 8’3” where 15’ is required.
Building conforms for four stories before it comes out at the cantilever,
much higher above, about 40. South building – hotel conforms to 20’
setback on the west side, a corner of the building is an 8’ setback instead of
15’. Office building – architectural feature, this curved line is 6’3 where 15’
is required. Building shifted, features are up higher. We’re measuring 2-5th
floor cantilever. We’re being more conservative. They were all there
originally (on the plans).
BOA-3, Section thru Garage, looking south, dated October 28, 2025.
Section from the site north to south, looking east to west. Right is tallest
building hotel condo, office and south the hotel tower. Perpendicular to the
river. Most planning buildings are perpendicular to the water (in
Edgewater).
BOA-3A, Section thru Office & Hotel Condo, dated October 28, 2025. Top:
North/South section of office added 4, 6 & 7. Condo – 19th floor, not a full
floor (penthouse) partial floor. Twenty-one stories from River Road, 19
from the Lobby Level (3rd floor).
BOA-10 – Floor Plan-Overall Condo Hotel/Hotel/Office, dated October 28,
2025. Shows uses on each floor. DS: How much space between condo and
office? 45-50’.
BOA-12 – Main Roof Level Plan, dated October 28, 2025. Top of condo –
two units only, stairs etc. Top of hotel: restaurant and pool, not a full floor
(32%). Accessory use to the hotel. Full sprinklers, stairs to the roof.
Counting them even though they are small. DS: Restaurant, eastern edge of

[PAGE 5]
the building, how many outdoor seats? 24. Wall on west side – no view of
outdoor seating. To the south is the self-storage. Mezzanine on top of
restaurant, stairs, storage, etc., brings it up to 16 stories, instead of making it
wider.
Exhibit A-5 Rendering of Building, dated 10/28/25. Rendering image to
scale, shows the cliffs, south of hotel (self-storage). Exterior limestone,
bronze metal panels, bronze window frames and lots of glass, nice aesthetic.
Exhibit A 1-3 Viewshed – 1, 2 & 3 South, 4 & 5 North, 6 West (looking east;
6 is in Cliffside Park).
Exhibit 2 – North to South
 Image 1 – from Target
 Image 2 – from the Alexander
 Image 3 – River Rd. looking South (eye level)
 Image 4 – from 1 Hudson Park
 Image 5 – Self-storage
 Image 6 – Eye level looking north
Exhibit 3 – Views from various points
 Image 1 – from the Cliffhouse
 Image 2 – from top floor of Aventine
 Image 3 – from top of Esplanade (Cliffside)
In summation, keeping with the MX2 Zone, minor deviations. Consistent
with what was approved. Improvement in design theory. Modifications are
at the top, not the bottom. I believe the Board can approve.
Chair: we’re going to take a break and then have cross examination.
Back to Order, all members and professionals are present.
Mr. Steinhagen, for the record Messrs. Haig and Shant Shirinian are not
present tonight because they are within 200’ and Mr. Hadi is my client.
Jason Hyndman on behalf of Cliffside Park. Mr. Roncati, you took over
from prior architect, can you refresh my memory? I gave an exhausted list.
No changes from prior, some modifications. Setbacks? More conservative
approach. Planning Board did not grant any variances? No. All setbacks
are part of my submitted drawings. Planning Board didn’t identify and
variances that we’re asking for. Had they identified them; they would’ve

[PAGE 6]
granted them. We are now asking this board. The Planning Board didn’t
review those proofs. What is the height existing on the building today? I
don’t know. What is the basis for the exhibits? Field changes as built. So,
you were provided with measurements? I didn’t independently go the roof
and measure. Objection by DS. We’re asking for approval for what is here
now. ST: What was built, may not be identical to what was approved by the
Planning Board. Well, we’re going to stipulate that. I’d like to know what
is out there right now, so when we’re evaluating this application so we can
see the change. How is that material to this right now? It has to do with the
view shed, for a fair evaluation. The best evidence is to see it with your own
eyes. How many more feet from what is there right now, are they going to
go up. DS: I don’t think its material. I don’t know what the change is
going to be, the renderings are to scale. We want to know how high it’s
going up. That’s up to the chair.
Chairman: I don’t think that’s the Boards consideration, so let’s move on.
Prior Property – 14 stories – 150’ max allowed, not what was approved by
the Planning Board, was 121’, counsel has the prior approval.
Prior site plan, dated 11/1/2017, revised 2/20/2018, have you seen this plan?
No revisions, not shown in the Planning Board Applications. That’s a
question for Mr. Simoff (he’s the next witness).
BOA-2 – Overhead view of the development site excludes the panhandle
(long neck of the property). What about this portion of the site is irregular?
Highly irregular site and shape. Old River Road is not a straight road, off
shaped. How did that impact the site? Prior to my involvement. Building to
the south, north and lower offices, how does that relate to the height? The
irregular shape does not influence the height? No, bulk requirements, the
site is immediately adjacent to the R5 district. What property? The next
intersection between Old River Rd. and the River Rd. traffic light. No
property in the R5 abutting the site? No. With respect to the height? 230’
measured from the front of the building from River Road (the hotel condo).
What is that 230’ being measured to? The flat roof, nothing above that. A
gazebo as the decorative feature, not counted in the building. Height, based
on the ordinance. Are you referring to 240-99 height exception. He then
reads the ordinance. They do not exceed 15’. Not an occupiable gazebo.
Amenities on the roof (be specific)? Portion of the roof that is 230’ from

[PAGE 7]
River Rd., actual height is less. Do you identify the grade plan? That’s on
Mr. Simoff’s drawings. Going back to the existing floors, how many floors
right now? 14 stories (condo bldg.). Moving to floor plan, with respect to
the hotel, any changes from previous? I don’t believe so. Refer to BOA-10,
condo hotel, 5th-9th with respect to condo hotel, mix of bedrooms. Do all
units have kitchens? Yes. Actual hotel, kitchens? No, suites have
kitchenettes. Refer to A1, based on this rendering, it looks like the
hotel/condo building is at least 3 floors above the Palisades ridgeline. It’s
impossible to gauge. How tall is the property building in relation to
Esplanade Drive? (I don’t know). Is your opinion that A1 is accurate in
relation to the Palisades? Yes. With respect to A2 (EX3), you testified to
view angles. Can you refresh my memory on view angle 3? End of
Esplanade, drew an angle from north to south, extended it north before the
view is impeded. Any other obstructions before the scenario? Beyond that,
the view gets limited. The angle in theory would be wider. View angle 2,
same rationale? Top floor of Aventine is lower than the angle. View 5,
street view River Road, view of the Palisades almost entirely obstructed. It
obstructs the view of the Palisades Cliffs? Yes. That’s all I have.
Bruce Dexter, 90 Main Street, Hackensack, NJ. Mr. Roncati, project was
approved variance free in 2018 for a height of 141.3’ and 13 stories with
regard to the hotel condo building? Correct. Zoning ordinance permits a
maximum height of 150’ and 14 stories. Is that correct? Yes. Applicant is
asking for variances, where none were requested in 2018. Variances of 233’
and 21 stories, correct? Yes. Is there a reason it can’t be built as originally
approved? DS: I don’t see the relevance. Chairman agrees, the reason
we’re here is seeking variances, that’s why we’re here. We’re not arguing
that we can’t build the site, we’re demonstrating the special reasons. I don’t
know but Mr. Roncati was asked to design a building and he did it. So, I
think the objection was sustained. Is there a reason it can’t be built as at a
max of 150’? That’s the same question. Mr. Chairman: I don’t think he has
to answer that. Well, the residents would like to hear an answer. Audience
becomes disruptive. ST: It was not within his scope. He’s a professional,
he would answer if was within his scope. So please, there’s going to be an
engineer and planner to testify, so please, this is cross. Thank you.

[PAGE 8]
Nicholas Whittaker, O’Toole Scrivo, 14 Village Park Rd., Cedar Grove, NJ.
During your testimony, you used the word slight. Do you remember that?
You used it five times. How do you define slight deviation from the minor
modification? At the minimalist change. 63% increase, how does that
constitute as minor? I don’t believe I ever said the height was slight. The
height of 140 is measured on Old River Rd? I measured from River Rd,
which is much lower. Significant height? I don’t think the height request is
minor. Floor ratio 3.24-4.656, 33.7% increase. Bulk of 57% is minor? I
was specific as to where and why these projections are points. Unique site,
points we’re asking for, bulk is minimal. Side-yard, parking, front yard, two
parking spaces for loading? Signage? Steve interrupts, I have to stop this,
you’re asking for site plan questions, not architectural questions. You’re
wasting time, he’s the architect. I have asked him questions pertaining to his
testimony, but I am preserving my objection. As it relates to the project
parking garage, I don’t understand where the spots went from the previous
approval. Under the previous approval there were more spots than now,
correct? No. Okay then I’ll move on. Viewshed study A2, EXA 3, which
direction is that property facing? Do you know which side it faces? Have
you viewed it in person? That’s your client’s property. Northeast direction.
How come the viewshed wasn’t done from that direction, because isn’t that
the view of the property? DS: Mr. Roncati concedes it obstructs some view.
View will block lower Manhattan? No, I don’t think you can see lower
Manhattan.
Open to the Public: Edgewater first, questions on architectural? Cliffside
Park within 200’ of applicant.
Chris Boros 375 Esplanade, Cliffside Park, NJ. Are you represented by an
attorney? Yes. Then you can’t ask questions.
Simi Falase 54 Cecelia – Structural question as it’s been considerably added
on too. The building is type 2, noncombustible, cast in place concrete.
Reviewed by the Building Dept, has a permit, inspections, etc? Building
department would flag a flaw.
Sherri Feldman, The Apogee 250 Gorge Rd. Cliffside Park, NJ. Why wasn’t
the Apogee taken into consideration when taking views? Apogee is further
South. We chose Cliffhouse as it was closest to our building. We are
affected. Thank you.

[PAGE 9]
Eleanor Halley, The Apogee 250 Gorge Rd. Cliffside Park, NJ. The Apogee
has been left out. I’m concerned with population density. We’re 30 stories
and it’s not being depicted. Was it omitted on purpose? If we took the view
from further away, it would be smaller. The buildings would be smaller.
We use a drone shot so nothing has been modified. It’s accurate. Thank
you.
James Sandler, The Apogee 250 Gorge Rd. Cliffside Park, NJ. The photo
from Cliffhouse is based on actual size. Are you telling me there will not
be an obstruction as to where it’s going to be 50-60% higher and you’re
telling me it’s not going to obstruct the view, that’s preposterous. Chair
interrupts, ask direct questions only. It’s an accurate depiction from Google
maps. Over the top of the hotel. The hotel will obstruct the shopping center,
but not the river. Is there going to be an obstruction and what will that
obstruction be?
Robert Palestini, The Apogee 250 Gorge Rd. Cliffside Park, NJ. Can I show
you a picture I took (on my phone) from the 11th floor? Chair: No. You can
bring photos for everyone to see, it’s unfair on your phone. Focus on
testimony and questions only.
Bruce Dexter – Mr. Roncati, do you know the height of the building now?
No. Does the height of the building exceed the Palisades. Is it above the
ridgeline? The ridgeline changes and varies. Original height 140’? Close,
141’. Measured from Old River Road or River Road? Old River Rd. I don’t
know the ridgeline height of the Palisades. Assume the cliff is 182’, is the
building taller than that at 230’? Yes, it is. ST: Which data: It’s confusing
to the board. Chair: can someone tell what is the height of the cliffs? It
varies too. Mr. Roncati answered that he can’t really define it.
Closed to the Public
Mr. Steinhagen: are you familiar with the R5 Zone, The Alexander? I meant
north. Can we change it to a cupola instead of a gazebo? I would describe it
as a cupola; it’s an architectural feature. I think you were asked why, there
any changes? Significant building is taller? Yes. Were the depictions on
the plans that the Planning Board saw. Yes, I think so. I was asked about
parking changes and I said no. Mr. Simoff is the better person to ask.

[PAGE 10]
Nicki: the cupola will not exceed 15’, any other mechanical equipment?
Small package units that don’t exceed 36”, screening for noise.
As the hour is near curfew, we need to set up a next meeting. Available
dates are provided. Tuesday, March 10th is selected. Notification will be in
the newspapers and posted on our website and the bulletin boards.
Open to the Public
Chairman asks for a motion to adjourn the meeting, Mr. Stewart makes a
motion, seconded by Mr. Gannon. Voice vote indicates the end of the
meeting.
Sincerely,
Nancy Hayes
Secretary, Board of Adjustment