Another public hearing about the proposed Babbio parking garage ended without resolution on Tuesday, April 27. The meeting, which ran for nearly 3 hours, featured testimony from the lawyers on both sides, as well as a Boswell engineer and a state-licensed planner.

Charles Liebling, the lawyer arguing on behalf of Stevens, first corrected some statements from the previous hearing. At the request of several board members, he also introduced into evidence several photos of the garage area. He then called Boswell engineer Peter Ten Kate.

Ten Kate provided the board with information about the plan to put a campus police facility in the basement of the garage. The police facility would have views of both the garage and Fifth Street. The plan would eliminate 11 of the 725 spaces proposed for the garage. The facility is a response to another request by members of the board.

For Stevens' opposition, David Zimmerman, a New Jersey licensed planner, was called to testify. He went through each requested variance and discussed why he felt it should not be granted. He said that there was "a difference of opinion" between himself and Stevens planner Elizabeth McKenzie regarding the variances.

Zimmerman spoke about the garage being an "expansion of a non-conforming structure [,the Babbio center]" and that that garage is "part and parcel of the Babbio building." The Babbio center building required planning board approval as a second principle building on a lot; the ordinance allows for only one principle building per lot.

Another problem Zimmerman addressed was the proximity of the garage to a residential district; Sinatra Park, located across the street from the garage, is zoned as a residential district. A Hoboken ordinance requires buildings such as the garage to be set back at least 100 feet from residential districts; the garage, as planned, is set back 31.1 feet.
One of the most-discussed issues was that of open space. According to Zimmerman, the plan only provides 7% of the area as open space, while a Hoboken ordinance requires at least 50%. Liebling responded to this point by saying that the rest of the campus contains large amounts of open space, which should be looked at favorably for granting a variance regarding open space. Zimmerman's response was "I don't buy the representation that you can look at the whole site ... the whole south side is covered in buildings."

Zimmerman concluded his testimony by stating that he did not believe the garage, as proposed, was the best use for the site, and that Stevens should consider an off-site parking facility with shuttles. This point was later rebutted by Liebling, who said that one of the requirements Stevens faces is having on-site parking. Zimmerman also mentioned that since Stevens required an "exceptional number of variances", perhaps they were "before the wrong body" and should look to the city council to change zoning laws to lessen the number of variances required.

Following Zimmerman's testimony, the zoning board questioned him about some of what he testified to. In particular, his thoughts about usage of the site and the number of variances were discussed. Liebling then had the chance to cross-examine Zimmerman, and took the opportunity to refute several of the points he had made. An emphasis was placed on the importance of the garage, as there is a statutory requirement for parking on-site, and residents of the smaller streets have stated that they do not want shuttle buses running. In response to a point Zimmerman had made about submitting an alternate proposal, Liebling said that the job of the board is not to "take pieces" and make a plan, but to simply approve or deny the plan which is before them. The board agreed with this assessment, with one member saying that "we're not here to redesign the project."

By the end of the meeting, no resolution had been reached, and the board requested that McKenzie come to the next meeting to refute portions of Zimmerman's testimony.

When asked about the meeting, Stevens Vice President of Facilities Hank Dobbelaar said he felt Zimmerman was "not convincing at all" and did not do a good job of refuting McKenzie's testimony. Dobbelaar expressed hope that the next meeting "will be the one when the board votes." When asked about what would happen if the variances were denied, Dobbelaar stated that there are alternatives, but they would only be addressed when and if the need arises.