good evening and welcome this is a regular meeting of the Princeton planning board on Thursday July 11th 2024 pursuant to section 13 of the open public meetings act adequate notice of the time and place of this meeting has been given by prominently posting the resolution of regularly scheduled meetings of the planning board of Princeton for February 2024 through January 2025 a copy was filed with the clerk of Princeton on January 8th 2024 legal notice on the adoption of said resolution was published in the January 12th 2024 edition of the Princeton packet notice of this meeting also has been posted to the municipal website Princeton nj.gov calendar notice that all regular and special meetings of the Princeton planning board will be held electronically via Zoom was transmitted to the Princeton packet and the times and was filed with the clerk of Princeton on Tuesday January 17 2023 please note that this meeting is being recorded during hearings on applications for development members of the public will have an opportunity to comment and ask questions questions may be asked after an applicant's Witnesses have testified public comment is heard by the board after an applicants Representatives have finished their presentations and have been questioned by board members and staff those wishing to comment orally when the time comes should virtually raise your hand by clicking on the reactions button or the raised hand icon at the bottom of your Zoom screen or if participating by phone by pressing star n oral comments will be taken in the order in which hands were raised we ask with respect that members of the public express your views in three minutes or less a countdown clock will be used to help speakers keep track of time and speakers who exceed 3 minutes will be interrupted inappropriate public comment containing obscenity hate speech or relating to matters not before the board will be muted Carrie would you call the role please yes Mr bodimer here miss capoli here Mr Cohen here Mr McOwen here miss Nuka here Mr odonnell here miss pearlmutter here miss saxs here Mr Taylor Miss Wilson Anderson here Mrs Wilson here we have a quorum thank you uh announcements Justin yes good evening Madam chair and members of the board and members of the public um just a quick announcement that the planning department uh has a job posting out right now for an administrative assistant position uh to work with us including the office of historic preservation um that position can be found at princ nj.gov um and is open until next Thursday if you know anyone uh that's interested in all this all right uh thank you for that um I guess I I'll I'll announce now that um our first application tonight I am conflicted on um uh I know I could announce that when the time comes but just so everybody knows um Mr veli is a neighbor of mine and the property in question is not within 200 feet of my house but he lives within 200 feet of my house so I'm going to um recuse myself when the time comes and move to um the other room and um Mr odonnell will take the Gabel at that time um are there other announcements from staff or from board members okay um let's move on to subcommittee reports I understand the master plan subcommittee met yes we did yes we met on July 3 uh the master plan subcommittee consisting of myself Jack Taylor uh council president saak and Julie capoli um and it was our first meeting uh of this year so it was really a ground setting meeting uh in many ways where we talked about uh making sure that the subcommittee uh has the uh it's part of a continual planning process uh within you know not not leaving everything to the last minute you know we're going to try to keep things uh keep things flowing and also uh come up with various tracking measurements for projects that are outlined in the master plan and make sure that we report back to uh to the board on those on a regular basis uh we will be having a second meeting in September in order to start that process to to to determine what that process is going to look like okay great look forward to Future updates yep um I think that's it for committee reports unless oh I'm not seeing any others um let's move to Applications then and I'll ask uh Miss philli to move me into the uh observers room and pass the gavel to Mr odonnell thank you if I may um notice is proper uh proof of publication and service are in order and the board has jurisdiction great thank you very much Jerry y this is an application of Anthony J velli it's a classification for minor site development with variance at 299 Witherspoon Street that's block 7202 Lot 4 file number p2323 d435 PM Justin would you uh care to be sworn in and do your statement absolutely thank you chairman you swear confirm the testimony about to give be the truth yes I do so that's one confirmed thank you I would like to start off by sharing my screen uh to show as I just about always do uh publicly available Arial imagery from Rowan University's NJ parcel Explorer uh the subject parcel at 299 Witherspoon uh is in the blue as you see here fronting Witherspoon Street there's currently a twostory building on the site uh which includes a medical office on the first floor and a one-bedroom apartment above uh there's a large multi- stem magolia Tree in a small lawn area on the front uh and that tree covers essentially the whole lawn area uh the branches uh and even part of the neighbor driveway and into the existing building uh literally uh a parking lot with 10 spaces is in the rear of the site um and the rear is nearly entirely covered covered in Asphalt uh across the street as you see here is Community Park School uh to the rear our Residential Properties fronting Carnahan Place uh directly adjacent to the south of the subject property is a 1920s built duplex that was renovated and reconfigured in the 2010s um I should mention that this is all a summary of my memo um adjacent to the north of the subject property is a mixed juice building that was approved by the board in 2017 uh to include 400 feet of office space uh three two-bedroom apartments and eight parking spaces uh to the north of that building is a flower shop with offices above that was also approved by the board in 2018 and I believe it uh was granted a parking variance at that time uh other properties on this block include religious institutions a fitness studio single family homes and multi family homes including ones with uh residential units in rear buildings so this eclect mix of properties uh including the subject property are in the B1 business district of the former Township and I just want to get into some of the intricacies of the B1 Zone that may come up uh first is that a mixed use building is allowed uh one of the few zones in the former Township that allows either apartments or mixed use buildings um but the zoning calls them a joint occupancy building uh that use is a it's allowed in a pretty convoluted way um the use is an exemption to a prohibited use uh so kind of like a double negative there um and uh that's allowed as long as the non-residential use is on the ground floor and has a different entrance than the residential one uh and secondly the minimum parking space requirement in the B1 zone is also written in a pretty convoluted way uh that I won't get into uh and I won't confuse us all um but essentially it means uh 1.5 Park spaces are required for a studio or one-bedroom apartment uh and one parking space is required for every 200 square feet of floor area for an office or Professional Service use uh if you want to find out more about uh how it's written crazy feel free to read my memo um moving on to uh the site plan proposal before you uh it is to add on to the existing joint occupancy occupancy building to create an office space on the first floor uh or Professional Service space and a one-bedroom apartment on the second floor which is similar to the current setup but it would be slightly larger in size with an addition around the existing building some portions of the rear of the existing building would be removed um and a canopy over seven parking spaces uh would be built that uh reaches to a newly built Edition in the rear uh which would include two one-bedroom apartments each within two stories and a basement the seven parking spaces proposed would include an ADA accessible space and an electric vehicle space uh variance is being requested to allow for one required parking space that is not being provided uh existing fences on the property uh lines would remain and proposed Landscaping includes Evergreen and deciduous shrubs uh and new ground cover as the amount of impervious surface in The Proposal uh would actually be reduced from the existing by about 83 Square ft on the site uh no trees are proposed to be removed uh though there are questions about the existing ones and as stated in the engineering and Zoning report that I will get into in a second uh the subject partiel is not in any local state or National Historic districts and the application was classified as Minor by the minor site plan committee the site's well served by public transit uh through NJ Transit 605 bus line on Witherspoon Street as well as the free Muni bus uh this is also a very walkable and bikable site to jobs and services uh moving into staff comments this is an infill opportunity uh utilizing the existing zoning to add two small apartments and retain a small apartment uh and that office or personal service use on Witherspoon Street uh it's a place where you frankly do not need a car to survive uh so the variance for a single parking space is reasonable additionally the property would be reg greened uh with impervious surface reduced so my concerns are really just in regards to the magnolia tree in the front and a tree in the rear the trees on Witherspoon Street have dwindled in recent years uh most notably from PSG cutting them this year and in other recent years uh the applicant should describe how the Magnolia in the front yard would essentially work with the new building um both during and after construction uh part particularly since the design shows large windows in the front uh and like I said earlier the Tree Grows not just into uh but also over the existing building which is 5 feet back today from where the proposal uh would push it Forward um Additionally the engineering and Zoning report mentions a maple tree in the rear uh that will be impact it and uh recommend it to be removed which would require two replacement trees uh I'm not sure where those could go with the current design hopefully the applicant get could get into that um they should address these concerns and the board may want to condition any motion of approval on the applicant meeting with the municipal arborist uh Andor uh the municipal landscape architect on site to make sure that the Magnolia survives uh and appropriate replacement trees are chosen if needed and located correctly within the uh design uh so that's all for my report um I'm happy to answer any questions uh you have now or after the applicant's presentation and Mr Weissman and Mr bridg are here uh with their report as well and let's mark that Ariel is pb1 got it thank you are there any questions from the from the board for Justin not seeing any uh Dan or uh Derek do you have anything to add at this point if both of you could raise your right hand I'll swear you both in you swear firm this the testimony about to give will be the truth I do all right do thank you okay nothing to add at this point not at this time okay thank you thank you Mr Allen welcome thank you um I'm Stephen Allen good evening I'm here on behalf of Anthony veli as Mr Lesco said we're applying for a minor site plan uh for some improvements at 299 Witherspoon Street and the property being in a B1 zoning district is mixed business and residential use uh Dr vasel lives on Lial Street walks to work at the property and has operated his medical practice there for the past 30 years uh on the second floor there's a one-bedroom residential apartment I won't go through all the things Mr Lesco said but I'll hit a couple of them um there will be some improvements to the existing house as well as the construction of a two-story Edition in the rear of the lot with two one-bedroom apartments and both of those will have a Fen backyards uh with privacy and and Greenery uh the new apartments will be connected to the existing house with a carport which may in the future include solar panels uh cost permitting uh the rear of the property is mostly asphalt now and the plan proposes to reduce impervious coverage uh substantially as part of the project um we are asking for the variance under T ordinance t10b 282 uh the ordinance requires eight spaces uh but the plan includes only seven as Mr Lesco pointed out the board approved a variance in 2018 to doors to the north at 305 Witherspoon and that that variance allowed one fewer space than required there's ample parking uh on the street and in several Lots within a block or so of the subject property as a mixed use property it's expected parking will be staggered um with residential and commercial use in the daytime uh the property's well within walking distance of the town and campus and there's bus uh stops on the Block New Jersey Transit and the free Muni bus um the property shares a driveway to the South with the uh neighbor and we intend to enter into a cross access easement with the owner and we'll coordinate with her during construction uh there was a comment in the engineering and Z zoning report about pedestrian access to apartments in the rear um we've discussed that a walkway can be added to the side of the house to allow pedestrian access from the front to to the back um the architect and the engineer will get more into that uh we'll present testimony tonight from our engineer Jim kamik and our architect Fred Schmidt I believe Dr baseli is also here but we don't expect him to testify unless any questions arise that only he can answer we have about we have 15 or 16 pages of slides and I'd like to Mark the exhibit as A1 y that's fine okay and now I'd like to call Jim calik our engineer and qualify him as our first witness let me swear in um all of your Witnesses at this point or at least um your engineer and architect if they both could raise their right hands do you swear or from testimony about to give it be the truth I do okay Mr Kamala can you tell us about your education and background as an engineer yes I have a bachelor's of Science degree in the field of civil and environmental engineering from Rucker University uh I've been practicing civil engineering and site planning for approximately uh an excess of 24 years I've been qualified many times before this board as a professional engineer I have a license in the state of New Jersey as a professional engineer as well as uh professional planner uh in the state of New Jersey and I will be providing um supplemental testimony relative to the single parking stall relief that's being requested tonight okay thank you we accept your qualifications thank you do you want to pull up uh exhibit A1 and go go through the engineer sure let me try to share this PowerPoint here screen just let me know when you guys can see that it's a little slow not yet okay we're still not anything no we're still not seeing we say that you've started screen sharing yeah I did yeah our screen says that you have started also so it's and then my machine says your screen share is loading okay uh Jim if it's the same PowerPoint that you submit it to our office um I have it on my screen if need be okay there's the site plan I did add some color to so I it'll be a little easier to see if this comes up that would be best but if not oh here here we go can you guys see that now yes yes great okay just hit from the beginning okay good evening everyone 299 Witherspoon Street as you can see here in the lower right hand corner of your screen on slide one you can see a picture of the existing um mix use building with the commercial use on the first floor and a residential apartment on the second floor here on slide two we have an aerial map similar to Mr alco's um aerial map that was preent presented previously and what I'd like to just point out is in the red box we have the subject property here 299 wither spoon street directly to the north we have 303 Witherspoon Street um with a very similar layout in terms of um entry onto the property with a driveway at the right into a parking lot at the rear of the property and then Additionally the next consecutive lot just opposite of um the school driveway you can see a similar orientation of the building at the front and extensive um asphalt pavement at the rear for supplemental parking for that use and again here is the property that's highlighted in this key map which is shows an absence of um sensitive environmental uh features relative to Wetland streams flood planes Etc from the state GIS mapping here on slide four we've highlighted the tax map and the sub property that's approximately 50 ft wide and 170 ft deep again consist consistent with the other Lots here in this immediate area and also consistent with the General Uses layout parking driveway entry Etc um specifically on Lots uh five and six as I previously mentioned uh see the zoning map here which is Slide Five Just highlights the limits of the B1 district and the site as located in that uh B1 zone that does permit as Mr leco indicated residential use slide six is a picture here of the existing survey which highlights the limits of the existing building and the extensive parking lot which uh extends all the way back to the rear fence in close proximity to the rear property line and basically this proposal includes maintaining this overall configuration um but extending a building addition canopy over the parking lot that exists here as you see on the existing survey on top of the page uh to a new addition at the rear over the existing pavement that's currently in place and we'll see that more clearly here on our site plan so we can see that the property has this existing driveway which is approximately currently located 9 ft uh onto the applicant's property and then extends in exist in the existing condition in a Shar driveway Arrangement approximately 5 feet in the lower leftand um portion of the lot I'm going to just highlight my laser pointer can you guys see that yes okay so as I'm talking over here you can see that this access exists and it will be maintained as well as uh the pavement that exists on the neighbors uh adjacent property line here that will remain and the driveway is proposed to be extended um to be maintained as extending to the rear uh with the maintenance of parking in this existing central portion this lighter uh purple area that I've highlighted over which there will be a structural canopy with a future intention of providing capacity for uh solar panels on that canopy uh and provide for covered parking the parking area is does provide for a 24 foot wide Drive aisle as you progress to the rear and as you can see here the proposed building with a footprint of approximately 990 uh square feet it doesn't ring again with the two main entries here at the front for apartment number one and then a second entry for apartment number two located at the end of the the driveway and then as um our architect will further discuss relative to the building and to the landscape areas we have an open Green Space that'll be maintained at the rear with um an exit door from each of the units to the rear Green Space in terms of the existing building it will be rehabilitated as well as a very small perimeter addition will be added basically um the existing canopy over the front porch and the front limit of that will be maintained and that'll be expanded slightly in this lighter brown area that I'm highlighting here around the existing building which would be maintained uh in this yellow color here and then we would have uh two entries one for the uh the existing apartment that would be renovated on the second floor apartment 3 entry and then another [Music] um accessible entry to the commercial space from the rear as we've highlighted here we have a loading area and handicap stall as well as additional parking spaces totaling um seven proposed parking spaces 9 ft wide by 18 ft deep with parking stops and we've provided um an area for recycling and uh waste containers that will be enclosed behind the building building at the rear and we've provided for uh bicycle parking as well there was a comment in one of the review letters about um maintaining a two foot proximity from the building and we are proposing to reorient that 90 degrees um and the architect can speak to that but we will set agree to a condition if this was approved um to provide for compliance for the reorientation of the bicycles there in that area just seeing if there's in terms of utilities we have existing utilities that serve the existing building based on the architect's review we do anticipate that the existing water line in this vicinity here um that's in general proximity to this uh dogwood tree at the front that Mr leco spoke to that that should remain in place we believe that that capacity is sufficient for service to this building and then I would just note that in order to minimize disturbance in and around the dogwood tree our position would be to um relocate these proposed um electric and gas services or expanded Services Elsewhere on the building so as to minimize disturbance to the area around that tree so that's something we can address during the compliance phase um with finding another location Elsewhere on the building that's suitable so that we can maximize the protection and maintenance of that tree currently there's a sidewalk that goes into the central opening uh front door of the existing building that will be removed here in the middle and relocated to provide pedestrian access to the main entrance to the commercial area which now is located in this front right corner as you're looking at the building uh we are including e charging station to provide for electric vehicle charging and then we also have indicated on our plan um maintenance of privacy fence uh around the perimeter just noting that there's an existing privacy fence separating 303 and 299 here that would be maintained which is relatively new based on recent construction so I'll go to the next slide here which is a res a review of our zoning compliance and requirements here we have our zoning table in the B1 district and as you can see it complies um sufficiently with lot area Frontage depth height uh f as well as all of the required um building setbacks and parking setback from the front as the parking is located ated at the rear as Mr Lesco previously noted in terms of impervious coverage there's a net reduction of impervious coverage on the site of 83 square feet as indicated here on the plan uh the net difference between the existing and the proposed uh and then additionally we've mentioned that we have provided calculations of required bicycle parking and we meet the requirements of the the total required three minimum bicycle parking spaces and we would uh comply with that comment in the professionals memo and then additionally relative to um parking on the site as I mentioned we have a total of seven parking stalls that we are proposing um where we had calculated eight as a requirement and at the end of the day what I understand that we're looking at And discussing with staff here um is that we are providing an EV parking um stall but a variance is still required for providing one less parking stall than the ordinance requires um for these two particular uses one of which we have a commercial use associated with the front building which would uh have a higher parking demand during the uh working hours of the day and then we have a reverse um parking demand um time demand uh more geared towards the evening hours associated with the residential use at the rear uh so it's it's at least our position based on this uh minimum deviation of one parking stall that the based on the different times of intensity of uses at different times of the day that ultimately and sufficient parking would be provided not withstanding um being one stall less than the requirement on the site based upon the nature of those uses we've also included just um some pictorial representation of um the new building here going from front to back or from Witherspoon Street on the left as I'm highlighting all the way to the rear with the parking located uh the existing parking with the new canopy over it in the middle and the solar panels uh highlighted here on top uh which does provide for some increased um solar accessibility in this particular location in the central portion of the property which is an asset as opposed to being more um concentrated here at the rear and then you can see the the new building addition at the rear with the 21 bedroom units and then the green space with two private green spaces and a fence separating the two on the right hand side of the property and Jim as you go through these if you could just identify what slide you're on the one we're talking about now is slide nine right this is slide nine and then on the bottom you can just see the limits of um the front of the existing building and the proposed as it extends as I'm highlighting on the property just in the context of the height of the buildings on each side and again this pattern of building driveway on the right building Drive access driveway on the right building access driveway on the right um that's rather consistent along the streetcape our plans also include uh grading plans to facilitate you know adequate um grading throughout the site which were basically maintaining the existing uh drainage conditions and providing um conveyance of uh drainage water just noting the fact that again we're reducing the impervia surface um so we do ultimately comply with the storm water management ordinance here with that with that reduction we did highlight here uh tree protection in and around that front dogwood tree um and then we do have uh an additional I'm on slide 10 here uh an additional tree that's located basically on onto the property line at the rear in the right rear corner here which staff has indicated due to the proximity of the new building and um disturbance of some of the roots recommending that that be removed um and you know if that with that requirement we would certainly provide the ordinance required to replacement trees perhaps one tree um if we're we're not going to talk about that front yard and disturbance of that Dogwood perhaps one can be installed in between the two um private areas at the rear here that may be one option um but you know beyond that the applicant is certainly willing to provide a contribution for that replacement tree if there's a location in the local area um even along the frontage or streetscape that that can be better used or utilized um the applicant would comply with that requirement Mr Chik if I can just interrupt for a second uh you keep referring to the Dogwood in the front I believe that's a magnolia I'm sorry the Magnolia I to make that record thank you I appreciate that um the Magnolia in the front so I'll try to remember that as we go through and our architect uh Mr Schmidt will speak a little bit to that as well relative to um the building and the landscape plan with some of the plantings that are proposed as part of his architectural presentation thank you okay thank you for that and I've already spoken mostly to the tree protection and tree issues here this is just a soil erosion plan included as part part of our our site to contain um the constru the soil erosion for the construction phase of the property we've also included uh a minor lighting plan that includes down lights uh underne in the underside of the canopy uh underneath the the roof and the solar panels that would project downwards onto the parking stalls and parking area and then additionally at each of the doors as I'm highlighting here and then on the back building here we would have recessed uh canopy lights that are recessed into the overhanging canopies over each of the door entries and exits and then in order to just provide a little supplemental Lighting on this portion of the entry drive we proposed a a goose mounted uh down light at this location um just to provide some illumination within that driveway between the canopy light at the front and the canopy light at the rear um and then lastly just a minor door um Lantern a 60 watt very limited um light adjacent to each of the doors at the rear and we've provided this lighting plan uh in efforts to comply with the ordinance right and we're on and we're on the slide 12 we're on slide 12 the lighting plan yes so relative to the site um feature existing features proposed features Etc uh those are the site related slides we can certainly move on to the architectural slides here with Mr Schmidt if we're ready to to take it that next step do anyone I see David Cohen has his hand raised yeah thank you uh Owen I had two questions uh one I think in your testimony Mr kolik you indicated that you had ideas about where a walkway could be introduced uh for pedestrians to access the rear units and if you could uh just address that a little bit I I didn't I mean sure you're thinking of yeah yeah and uh Mr Schmidt did put a little sketch together to give you a better picture of what that looks like so I'll wait till he yeah just wait a couple minutes and he'll address that we'll flip to that the the other the other question I had was um with the shared driveway you know it looks like there's not much Paving on the neighboring property it can't can't really see because you haven't detailed that much but I just wanted to you know there's reference to having a a cross uh access easement I'm just wondering if the neighboring property uses any of the existing parking on this property um and you know whether we should be thinking about that that um as we we talk about graning the parking variants if there's sure yeah I can I can just speak a little to that and maybe Mr Schmid can also chime in supplementally as well but the the shared access here is utilized obviously by both Property Owners we do have 9 ft on our side which is sufficient for one vehicle but the neighbor does need to encroach slightly and from my observations at the site they basically Park their vehicles um here on this gravel portion sort of pulled forward here there's a gravel area and then adjacent to the building is where I've seen um their parking in this vicinity so if that clears that up they kind of come in here and they pull to the side and there's one vehicle here from what I've seen and and in this area and it still provides for parking so I don't believe there's there's any parking usually after hours I only see you know the parking lot is empty over here okay thank you Dan Weissman uh question flash comment regarding the um magnolia tree in the front uh Mr calik uh the structure I believe has a basement is that correct the proposed addition at the front it h I'll let the architect speak to that but it has a basement now okay uh I think in the proposed condition with the rec construction there's I don't believe there is a basement so I think that's that's going to be addressed as part of the reconstructive activities okay um the reason I I bring it up is that if there is a basement and there's excavation to construct that basement typically there's some over excavation uh clearly the further you move towards that magnolia tree the more damage you'll do to the root system um so it would be good to uh if if get clarity on whether or not there is a basement there um and then what what additional measures could be done uh to help save that that tray okay I'll let Mr Schmidt speak to that and then if I need to add anything afterwards I might do that when when we get through that point okay thank you okay and I have a a question uh regarding the parking the last parking space on the right that's going to be an awful type fit for somebody to pull out isn't it or this one here yes well we we did provide for a turnout here and we do have a full 24 foot clear width so in my view I think I think that we we're providing sufficient egress um out out of that stall with the combination of the full 24t width and and this turnout that we've provided here okay thank you y are there any other questions for Mr tralo before we move on to Mr Schmidt U not seeing any uh Mr Schmidt if you'd like to take us through the architectural plan can we call Mr Schmidt and qualify him as an expert yes please um hello good evening sorry I couldn't get the uh the menu board up to unmute hi Fred uh can you uh do you want to swear him in first or um should we I believe he was sworn in so he was correct sorry yeah yes I was Schmid can you tell us a little about your education and background as an architect sure I um my wife and I uh are part in Schmid Anderson Architects we founded the firm in 1988 uh I personally have a bachelor of architecture from Cornell University I was valoran in my class I have a master's degree Cornell University uh 1987 practiced for three years and opened my own uh firm in mat New Jersey where we still maintain our offices we've we've been in business for 30 36 years uh we have we possess four uh Li licenses in four states New Jersey New York Pennsylvania and Massachusetts um we're trying to open a fledgling office in the Boston area we have a fair amount of work on the cape and we uh probably over those 36 years we've probably done you know close to a thousand small and and some you know quite big projects for for uh with we've done probably six or seven uh different jobs we we've built two residences for him he's a uh been a joy to work with and um he was really our first main client which uh is a is a fond memory with him and um we look forward to another one here I've testified in Princeton numerous times uh Rocky Hill Montgomery South Brunswick East Brunswick Lawrence Township uh couple towns in Bucks tou of course so uh you know have had professional testimony I've taught at New Jersey Institute of Technology for four years and uh taught as a TA at Cornell for a year and a half with design you know the Design Studios terrific we we accept your qualifications thank you very much and Mr schmith could you tell me what your first name is and how you spell your last name yeah Frederick f r d r i c k uh Schmidt s c h Mi TT Mi TT okay thank you yes thank you take it away so I sitting here uh Mr Lesco and and Jim have done a what I would for Trey has a fine job sort of giving an overview and some of the finer points so what I thought I might do is to give the board more of a uh an inside look on the concepts that we you know we relate to Tony and and he he's uh quite excited about it uh and of course if I'm glossing over something too quickly or you have a question please interrupt me um we tried to develop the site a little a little bit differently than maybe the p patter of the neighborhood and and sought a more articulate solution where the units have uh quite a bit more light availability to them and also a little more privacy and certainly try to to explore some amenities um particularly excited about the two back units where they have they're they're really a a a townhouse format where they're vertically they're ver vertically oriented they have a basement and they have a it it's small but it's very private it's a 10 foot deep uh by I believe about 15 feet across just a small courtyard where the tenant could um do some gardening or just relax or if they have a young child you know it's a secure play Spot and it it's very green back there because of the um sanitary easement you know it has a nice canopy of the trees that have overgrown the the the easement itself so it it is we like to units very much they each have uh 270 degrees of exposure either not party wall condition or uh you know backed into a larger volume and they have uh private entrances and and you know we just uh we find those units to be very strong and then they're linked of course to the older building again same thing Tony asked us to try to think outside the box a little bit uh the canopy is is we thought a certain amenity for any for anybody using the parking you don't given the weather we've been having and uh any any kind of solar exposure but even rain and snow it it provides the automobile with a bit of protection uh the solar panels are again a request of AEL he likes to try to make his work as uh sort of energy Innovative as possible so it is a fairly large array I hope it gets executed we we're not quite sure about how much power that'll offer us but it will definitely uh complement the the municipal load or utility load um he's he's possibly entertaining some uh roof uh recapture of rainwater he did that on his residence in Lidle Street and uh Works beautifully he he has a gray water for uh toilet use and also for landscaping and um that that there's a good chance we're going to try to pursue that as well you know cost permitting so and then as you link to the older structure uh it's a Dutch Colonial residence probably from the 20s it it's a you know framing wise and sort of the bones of it are fine it's obviously a tired uh structure a bit so we we've devised a plan to rely on it structurally but to really cosmetically overhaul it uh new roof line new finishes of course new windows as you're seeing and um really to kind of you know use that you know uh uh rely on its its Equity but not um on its uh outward appearance of course so we we're presenting a new facade to to Withers Street and then also reconfiguring some of the access points uh there' be a uh two handicap entry rances to the lower level and if I can just sneak in for Mr Weissman um the basement the the existing basement in the Dutch Colonial it's a shallow basement maybe s foot Headroom we would be dropping the floor construction down to get to a a handicap capability on grade so the existing basement will be only a crawl we you know we'll use that in construction of course but very little access just for ser or maintenance and then the new additions on the uh Witherspoon side and the driveway side they would be slab on grade so we we would restrict the amount of excavation on the on the Magnolia side and of course uh on the driveway the um there is a one-bedroom apartment which is really not bad it's a little bit small and Tony's had it rented continually for years really he's had a long-term tenant in there uh gentleman who was really out of town a lot but he he he loved it and he stayed for quite a bit so that apartment would would be um enhanced but not uh intensity wise not increased so one bedroom would remain as a one bedroom and then the downstairs or the first floor uh would be hopefully office or or a very light retail or personal service and the other point of fact that we're kind of hoping for Vel is that he we're we're I think with some creativity and a little sensitivity we can probably allow his office his practice to remain while we sort of Gussy up the outside we're hopeful of that anyway he has uh he's had a very successful practice he he is gearing down I think he only has hours three days a week and um his he he is slowing down toward retirement so the the practice doesn't have a very high intensity of ter over he has two nurse uh employees and they would they would um you know we're hopeful that would remain as as uh until he decides to to fully uh close shop and um probably the other important concept to mention to you is that the the the driveway from the canopy back the be beginning of the canopy back uh not to be presumptuous or to presumptuous that it it it has you know a particular um that it's particularly characteristic or whatever but we are trying to lean on it as as a kind of for court or a little uh trying to enhance the spatial nature of it and I think the the the canopy and the fence behind that would start to provide a kind of uh again a very loose for court or a little patetta or something that has a little bit of character other than just you know seven parking spaces with black top and maybe there's you know maybe as a as a very tiny grouping of of tenants you know maybe something could go on in there that might be fun maybe even a careful bicycle riding for a youngster or uh whatever but um again trying to use that area as a link to the two buildings the two pieces of the buildings and um gain something out of uh an element that is always you know frankly pretty pretty benal and um we do I think um I think the chair asked about uh the the the uh professionals comments about a walkway or or access for pedestrians and we do uh have a sketch that I guess you know Jim will get to in the slideshow and we'll show you what we thought about an enhancement that uh tends to uh fall in line with that idea of a of a of a semi-private area out there and we we think it's strong I know Tony liked it when we showed it to him so we we hope the board finds that uh pleasing as well and the um exterior wise you know we would finish the the the two additions to the building or the two the two wings of the building would be finished in the same uh finish the back building has a kind of outbuilding appearance or or a Loosely you know loose reference maybe to a carriage house uh in the back and then the uh the front is a uh flat roof uh reflective of its commercial uh roots and then um again trying to enhance the light using some big Windows rather than you know just a very common you know whatever 2x3 double hung to to uh provide a striking building and I would say the to answer uh I forget who brought it up sorry um the exposure with the Magnolia it's interesting but the the Magnolia uh from the apartment it'll form a sort of veil or a green wall really a living wall if you will as you look back out if we handle uh that carefully and you know Tony's not anxious to lose that we're counting on that as a key design feature uh um we we we certainly defer to the the arborist for Princeton uh both for pruning and for any preventative measures on the on the root system I don't think we would really uh damage that too badly we would be hitting possibly some of the canopy tangental we we've done in the past we've done some grade beams and and some creative things that avoid uh too much you know gross uh Crosscut or whatever in that neighborhood so we're committed to saving that guy he there's no question we have to prune it a little bit and and again we would have a professional or someone at the arborous directive to handle that carefully um there's some light there's some lighter Landscaping I can I can walk everybody through if that's appropriate at this time uh Jim if you don't yeah if you don't mind flashing that and you can see here the the Magnolia in the front there's some light just for the record we're on slide 15 15 yeah yeah sorry that's right the landscape landscape plan um uh you can see the Magnolia in the front if uh if you drop down toward the new walkway there's some small uh tailored sort of groomed uh hedge specimens there's a a kind of repetitive line of Evergreens on the neighbors the Southside neighbors perimeter to to kind of reflect the um repetitive nature of the canopy and then in the back you can see there's a fence and I I think I forget what we used uh or proposed uh to form a um a bit of a hedge R between the two tenants I think they I think we called for a 5 to six foot Evergreen uh a juniper or a blue spruce you know a dwarf spruce Bru but that you know those are certainly um negotiable you know we don't have anything set but we were trying to create some privacy again for those little back Gardens um that's that's about it if I can answer questions or or flesh out anything or the walkway Fred if you want to oh yeah yeah would you like yeah we should do that Jim thank you um so you'll the board will notice you know again same pattern of development the the entry walk the the two-sided gray addition to the Dutch Colonial the seven parking spaces in the center and then of course the two uh Vertical Apartments in the back and you'll note that the uh Jim shaded in the walkway along the driveway out to Withers Spin Street that we widen that slightly and we ding we dinked off a little bit of new area on the proposal so that we could continue that yeah Jim's being very deaf with that Mart with the uh laser that would be the pathway into the back of the property the back uh entrance for the front apartment and then what we would propose I mentioned that it would be in keeping a little bit uh again you know if you think of some dense communities you know think Anapolis or Marblehead or uh Kate May perhaps where the automobile really takes a back seat sorry for the pun you know with with pedestrians that that we would ring the driveway with a pav or blue stone or decorative concrete at the board's uh selection or or recommendation and they would those Pathways would link the canopy and the would if you Jim loop around Jim toward the neighbor it would link the back apartment uh front doors so you can drive over those lines but the implication is that you know sort of be cautious uh or be aware that there are folks uh uh you know traveling ac across that route and um put a little shape on it so there no one's walking on a 90 degree angle as you go from Witherspoon back to the two apartments in the back and that's that's a common trick I mean you I'm sure You' everyone has seen it in Resort planning or uh maybe uh University or School planning you know it's a it's a common trick to engage uh that surface a bit make it a bit more pedestrian friendly and the drainage pattern would remain as Jim had defined it really they would be flush conditions both for handicap accessibility and also for vehicular uh you know no no big bump as a as a vehicle would kurn out of the property uh I would say that's about all I would probably want oh the the bicycle thing I the bicycle thing I think we would defer to the board or or certainly Mr Lesco or or or Dan or or Derek if they have a better recommendation I mean again it is a tight sight we're trying to make sure that everything functions well if if as a team you know we're certainly open to any suggestions on that but we believe we can get the bikes back there and it's it's private they're secure and um it's undercover which is nice of course so and the garbage enclosure as well uh the sun's not baking on some kind of enclosure it's out of the rain and uh we find that to be a nice piece of of the design as well and Fred if I could just add one of the comments was in Mr weissman's memo to possibly shift this depress curb down slightly away from this parking stall in this area for apartment 3 and we'd be agreeable to that if yeah that actually makes sense yeah it it takes it away a little bit from that that one uh any any vehicular backup for that seven space we uh I guess it was the the chair that brought that up that clearly clearly Tony would assign that space to that apartment so it's it's not particularly Grand but it's certainly practical you know that that tenant would park in that spot and for groceries or youngsters uh that would be a safe scenario there you know and um there's an EV uh charger under the I people have mentioned that but that uh that's part of Tony's request to try to push an energy agenda so and I think one more side walk comment was to fully replace the sidewalk along the frontage um due to its over condition then we would be agreeable to that yeah that's a will comply the utility company yeah they P they've got black black top patches in there from their their ongoing work so that thing needs to be redone so uh well I think what Mr Weissman was saying uh we're replacing that now as part of our Witherspoon phase 3 Municipal project uh okay almost as we speak uh so I think if that's damaged it's to be replaced understood but I see Mr Weissman has his hand up so I don't want to speak for him okay Mr Schmidt if you're uh finished we can open up to board comment but before we do that I'd like to announce that there are 24 attendees and we will be taking public comments so if uh people would like to raise your hand and will recognize you in the order in which hands are raised and bring you over at the appropriate time David yeah I just um had one question about the the paving concept for The Pedestrian access can we go back to that slide for a sec yeah so um I'm trying to understand the the decorative Paving seems to connect to the front drive and I'm curious about you know where the transition I guess there's a line showing what you know where you envision yeah that yeah sorry yeah that would be where where Jim has the pointer that would be the the the stopping point and then it would uh it would make a feel that that that oblong shape sets in and that you know presumably that would be more black top but the that squarish the perimeter ring would be some upgraded Paving either at the board's discretion or if you allowed us to pick we would pick something upgraded there yeah and there would be a depressed curb uh Jim if you could go back toward the back door of this the commercial space yeah right there you know we would have a depressed curb there so it it would be handicap accessible and um link to the to this uh decorative Paving yeah I'm a little I mean just a little concerned about how the the transition also seems to follow the property line which is not the center of the driveway so it's like an L there right it yeah true I think it's a detail but I think there's probably a better uh solution that yeah maybe a curve there um has it uh not have that UNC comfortable straddle condition uh in the middle of the driveway yeah well it's a it's a good point if I may as you because as you pull in you'll see that corner kind of projecting so it is a it is a good catch and i c i you know we would certainly be willing to to uh fool around that and get it a little tighter maybe the curve is the right way to do it you know yeah okay Dan weisson thank you chairman uh just to clarify the comment regarding the new Utility Services uh Mr FL goes right Witherspoon street is going undergoing a full Improvement project that includes uh resurfacing of the roadway and replacing the sidewalks along this entire Frontage uh so the request would be to have utilities coordinated and brought past the sidewalk prior to those improvements being done uh if they have to be done after because of timing constraints or any other constraints um the side we're requesting that the sidewalk be replaced in time entirely along the frontage of this um and then just so you know with with streets any streets that are paved in Princeton uh there was a five-year moratorium on those uh and that would be intersection to intersection um so there would be a a big push should this be approved to to get those utility stuff up then like now yeah I I can certainly speak for Tony I know he would be im mean to that we've been tracking that of course and tracking our progress on this application so we're well aware of it um I can I'm sure you're aware Dan like you can you can hog under the sidewalk for that short distance but obviously getting out into the street that's a problem so we would definitely want to stub we think the water line is suitable um so we're U for whatever reason the Dutch Colonial has a 2-inch waterline coming in which of course as you know is you know quite oversized and then the the uh Power is overhead we would need to get that underground and the gas probably needs to be upgraded yeah I think Jim is showing an upgrade to the gas service and they're behind the curb so that's a A plus for the moment yeah I think the water is the only uh main that is threatening the repave yeah thank you okay thank you Dan uh pvy hi um thank you uh for the presentation uh Mr Schmidt I just had a question following up on um I guess two questions uh regarding the pavement of that um parking area and the Central Area the central Courtyard area and then also a question about the layout of the apartments in the back um on the paving would it be possible um to consider doing something like permeable papers or gravel in the center going back to the previous slide you had up um which showed the idea for uh paved apron around this Central Parking area would it be possible to convert that Central Area into something a little bit softer than just asphalt yeah I don't think we would want to do gravel just for the simple maintenance and you know it gets it can get ratty very quickly and it's not handicap accessible things like that uh you know obviously it's like um uh admirable effort to try to improve that Center Island that that oblong Center Island then we can you know I think Tony would be amable to any discussion we I think it would need to be something that is a hard surface just for a practical purpose uh whether it was um permeable or something more creative than just the you know the two inches of black top I you know I certainly I think it would be um you know a good idea to consider sure um and can I just chime in on that one comment we do have some limitations relative to where we would outfall storm water and ultimately drain water that we would send at some greater depth underground and since the property does Fall and drain and slope towards the rear corner um in the back that might present some challenges for basically taking surface water and making it subsurface on this particular lot so I just want to throw that out there that the feasibility of that would need further investigation okay I mean I guess I'm sorry hopefully U I guess an upgraded solution might be to concrete that Center you know is concrete generally a little more pleasant to look at than the black top is certainly um can be uh snow blown and things like that and it would be durable but you know that that might be consider you know a detail that we could consider um okay and I the other question was with regard to the layout of the two apartments in the rear duplex Apartments um is there a particular reason why you don't have the staircases in those apartments on the same wall sharing a wall um and I'm asking that because if you did have a center wall dividing those two duplexes and the staircases were on both sides and the entrances were more or less adjacent then you could have a little bit of room in that lower corner for bicycle storage I don't know if I can't read the measurements very well on the plan but I don't know if that would allow room to access the parking space and have bicycle storage opposite from that parking space yeah I we did I mean we did study those pretty extensively they're only they only have about a 450 square foot footprint on the on the first floor plate so it's a little tight we were trying to get the kitchen close to the front door of course for packages and groceries and things of that nature but we certainly could um take you know dig up our stuff and see where that fell out for I think it just was the the rest of the displacement I mean that's a logical way to develop those units of course and you know you're on to something certainly that's common and and uh for one reason or another we you know our firm and then when we presented the Tony you know we we did go through a couple permutations and I for whatever reason it fell away as that design but um be happy to re revisit that or take a look at our old uh you know our preliminary stuff well I'm just saying that if you did consider that and and you can move the entrance to that um uh apartment that's um if you can move the two entrances closer together towards the center than that South if I'm reading this correctly that corner in the south of the paved parking area could afford you some space to include additional bike parking and if I understand correctly that biking parking is not currently shown on this plan no it is shown it's it's back behind the um the old renovated structure uh oh next to the trash bins is that yeah in yeah it's in that area it's under cover which you know of is a good thing um I recall it's a little tricky in that intersection because you have to enter the the top apartment and stay away from the parking and it gets a little tricky and we did want to we did want some distance between the two apartment entrances so that there was a bit of privacy you know sort of semi-private separation between the two the two uh vertical units but happy to happy to look again I mean it's not you know uh it's not final till it's final in terms of that you know that's interior development so and I would say it's great that you've included the the minimum required like parking spaces but any addition spes that you could provide would be terrific yeah absolutely okay all right thank you very much for that uh are there any other questions from board members or professional staff okay uh okay uh Claudia Wilson Anderson hi and thank you I heard you mention a sanitary easement that was overgrown where is it and what requirements are there for you to heed that easement well the sanitary easement run runs um down the center of the lots that front on Witherspoon like the property in question and then also the they're they're I think they're all pretty much single family residences that are fronting on carahan so down the center of the uh intersecting lot lines from carahan and Witherspoon there a 10- foot wide sanitary easement and it's it's just very it's just pretty verdant back there you know it's not like overgrown you you know I've walked back there it's really pretty it's really pretty nice because it it's kind of uh it's super private and it it um just spatially it's kind of a unique space back there but it you know it's accessible you can walk and uh I think some people use it to connect through you know to to uh uh head to different places but um the the easement is preserved and and we're not you know we're not encroaching in that easement or anything that's preserved on on this proposal okay thank you can and did I hear you say that you were going to be assigning parking spaces to the individual apartment units well I I think I I don't I I mean that wasn't there's no grand scheme on that but you know I guess if if I was in charge of that I would probably I would probably at least assign that one to the to the uh the the north uh apartment just for proximity purposes more than anything but they are shared you know there's there's basically four uh commercial spaces and three you know one for each apartment uh occupant but they will not be assigned individually to Apartments um I I guess you know I mean if that's a if that's a uh if that's a concern then I I guess I misspoke you know I don't really uh don't know how to answer that I guess it would maybe it's not a good idea but um there you know that that's certainly uh an open an open item if if you if the board finds that restrictive in some way then you know I definitely misspoke but um thank you okay um seeing no more hands up from the board I'd like to uh open up public comment at this time we have two members of the board there are currently 25 attendees from the public and uh two members have their hands raised Beverly leech and Jeff Fury so if uh Miss phelip can bring over those two people and I'll just take this opportunity to remind you that there will be a three minute countdown clock uh for you to make your your statements on this application there you are I think it would be helpful to take down the share yes thank you very much David okay M leech I see you have your your camera on and your microphone open and ready yes I'm right here you will be you will be sworn in by uh Mr Mueller and after you're sworn in please State your full name spell your last name raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that testimony about to give me the truth I do so SW affirmed I'm Beverly leech leac CH and I live at 293 Witherspoon Street which is the immediate adjacent property to Mr velis I'd like to um give a little Human Side to how we in residences surrounding these other properties are affected and I'd like to just give a very brief introduction in that regard how I think they will impact us or not uh but I more than that would also like my husband to speak as part of my talking or speak right after me to give some more specific concerns that we have is that all right with you if we do it that way yes we can do that he can have a a separate three it's okay all right well thank you and good evening everybody um my husband and I have owned this property next door to Tony velli for more than 30 years since 1993 uh so we therefore know our neighbor very well even though uh Dr belli does not live here but he is he's very much present um we moved from elsewhere in Princeton and we specifically liked this area of Witherspoon Street uh the way it was at that time and the way it is slowly evolving with some planning and the reason we liked it is we enjoy the multi-use aspect of it all we know many neighbors there are quite a number of of uh residential neighbors to the north of us beyond what we've been concentrating on here um we like passers by who stop and make comments give us a sense of community we like the small businesses and offices that have developed here and so we're very pleased to see how it's been developing so far and we would like that sort of consistency to continue if we could I have a particular passion for gardening if you've walked by our house I have a very colorful front public garden um and over all these years I have developed also a very lovely I like to think backyard which is much smaller uh but a very private area there and very green so with that as background I just say that about two weeks ago I we were quite surprised that with no warning at all we get a certified letter from assigned by the applicant um giving some basic plans for a grand scheme that he has next door to us and not knowing very much from that initial letter just his summary statements we saw several very alarming things um was quite a big shock and initially very upsetting uh to see that he was going to be really altering a lot of the things we treasure most in our our neighborhood in our in our home our own backyard and so forth um so having very little information um and having never heard from Dr veli about his plans even though I think they've been in the work since Jan January or more uh my husband even more than I did quite a bit of Investigation at City Hall looking at the plans talking with the members of the planning department and uh the engineers and so forth and the arborist um and we have several concerns they may not even be concerns in each case because we just don't have enough information and we'd like a little more clarification uh and they are really threefold one is you haven't talked very much at all about the tree in the back of the property because it is not Mr vasel it is our tree it is our only remaining large shade tree it is 22 in in diameter it's not some little tree that can be replaced by putting in two little trees Elsewhere on vel's property it's a huge tree and it's a maple tree it's uh it's health will is in fine shape right now but it will be greatly compromised by any work that's done near the root structure which is extensive it goes even beyond the canopy in the case of a silver maple like this we've talked at length with the arborist that's a whole subject for another another Miss Lee we we've passed three minute time time limit okay two more concerns uh we don't know exactly what this easement of the driveway is going to mean for us we're open to hearing about that but we need to know more but the big big thing that concerns us is that these two twostory high apartment buildings are going to be right up against our property line no setbacks three three feet at at most from what we can see no setback at all two stories high the quote privacy frints will afford no privacy at all if you look at it there the windows on the second floor looking right down on us in the place that we count on for our personal space and for our our uh peaceful quiet setting so can my husband take over this point then yes yes we can have him okay we're sharing a computer so I'll let him switch thank you thank you very [Music] much I've tried to keep comments brief have okay yeah here we go you swear affirm that the testimony about to give will be the truth yes I do please my name is Owen leech my last name spelling is Le a right and I live at 293 Witherspoon Street and my comments are a one sheeter which I'm in order to stay on track I'm going to read if you don't mind yes please um since receiving that certified letter that Bev spoke about on J June 25th the best word to describe our our feelings has been despondent uh if this plan goes forward our backyard privacy and quality of life will be essentially destroyed as we read these plans a 28t 7 in structure is to be erected 3 feet 7 Ines from our property line adjacent to the middle of our backyard the Berlin Wall was 12 feet high the Great Wall of China is only 26 feet tall this is a tall building as owners of this property since the early 90s we have enjoyed a Cooperative relationship with the applicant and also over the years we have come to depend upon the combined authorities of Planning and Zoning to protect us from overly aggressive development and we sincerely hope our dependency is well placed we do reside in a mixed use Zone where I believe I am obligated to offer to all my neighbors 15 ft of side setback for any new construction but the proposal offers me only 37 for the structure and zero for the excavation the protection I speak of includes three pillars Conformity consistency and predictability and in our opinion this proposal challenges all three of these looking at Google Maps and I've asked staff if there's any other situation in Princeton that uses a hard surface awning to justify the construction of a new two family resident while claiming it is one building I am told that this proposal is and I quote unique it conforms to nothing already in existence in Princeton Google map shows a line of structures on our side of Witherspoon from Henry Avenue to guo in this neighborhood all of the non-corner structures have a consistent setback from the front and none of the structures is lot lining the back portion of the property so we believe this proposal is therefore inconsistent with neighborhood standards we have invested thousands of dollars and Decades of time and labor in our backyard Landscaping plant procurement dying tree removal and new tree Replacements we did this based on what we thought was the predictability that we would not have a 28t great wall 3 feet from our property line hulking over the middle of portion of our most private outdoor area and besides the intimidation of the structure the facade facing our yard includes a large oversized window which if lighted at night would be so bright as to overwhelm the light of a full moon as we sit in the backyard we do have a 22inch diameter Norway maple at the back corner of our property it is not listed on the developer tree sensus and is shown on our side of the property line in his drawings so we believe it is our tree protecting its root base according to the arborist of Princeton would require a reduction in proposed foundation and building size of from the proposed of some six feet The Proposal suggests that our tree which provides our yard with valuable morning shade should be removed to which we say please not so fast can't it shouldn't it be protected with steel fencing I might add not just surrounded by snow fence attached to nothing until we receive the ctif letter may I three paragraphs to go finishing that's fine thank you until we received the certified letter the developer had not communicated with us even though plans were filed in January this morning for the first time the developer encountered Mrs leech in her front garden and casually pointed out that he owns 9 feet of the 13ft share driveway and hoped that lack of an easement would not force him to construct a curb 4 feet from our dwelling cutting off our access he further stated that if his current proposal is not approved he'd be open to a structure similar to the 4unit barski building on his other side noting that the barski configuration could save him money to which we say great barsky's building is large but it's not unattractive and most importantly it maintains a setback line both front and back that is in Conformity and consistent with all the other non-corner structures on this block Mr leech I'm sorry we have another person who's been waiting and uh we're well over the three minute timeline you know this is about the most important thing in our life may I have one paragraph more please yes go ahead please thank you in conclusion we urge this board to reject this unique concept of one building connected by awning we respectfully suggest that the board requests the applicant to propose a design that meets his needs for one commercial and three rental units but does so in Conformity and consistency with neighborhood standards and does not destroy the quality of life that we have spent decades building into our backyard thank you for your Indulgence thank you thank you sir okay our next commentator was Jeff Fury and then we have Peter Well Mia Mia has her hand raised sorry I did not say that Mia would you like to go ahead sorry I'm sorry I I didn't realize it was raised okay thank you okay Mr Fury if you can activate your camera please did he I believe that he has disappeared from my screen uh Curry why don't you bring over uh Peter sir you have to accept the invite thank you there we go Peter if you can unmute yourself and activate your camera please Peter is now declined okay all right then we have no other uh attendees now now he's oh now it shows that he's here okay uh Peter please put your video on no I'm not your your microphone is unmuted so if you wish to speak can you please say something now I'm not I'm not I'm not seeing anything so um seeing no other hands raised um and Peter has just disappeared from my screen also uh I made him an attendee okay he made him an attendee again okay I'll just give it another few seconds to see if anyone raises their hand again and not seeing any I will close Owen uh it's strange that Mr Fury uh had his video on then shot it down I might try to send him an email to see if he had any video issues if you don't mind okay that'll be fine Justin thank you very much Mr Fury um oh I'm sorry not Mr Fury m Mr leech came in under his wife's name you're asking about Mr Fury yes okay I we do have another hearing after this I yes we should all keep in mind um you know thank you Mia uh we'll just see if Justin can contact Mr Fury Mr Allen do you have a question uh less a question than Point uh in response to the um to the neighbor uh raising an issue about uh setback um I believe the uh plan is in compliance with the with the um setback requirements I um also wanted to make a point of getting planning proof for our Witnesses I'm sorry could you repeat that last part uh planning proof for our Witnesses I believe Fred and Jim may have a a point they would like to make again okay all right first of all Justin did you have any luck uh yeah Mr Fury is going to try to call in and and give his comment um I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't anything on our end uh it appeared to be that his computer shut down but he's going to try his best to call in and give his comment okay in that case we will go back to Mr Chalik and Mr Schmidt for their comments so I think we just wanted to summarize the point about the parking again we gave testimony as to um one less parking stall then is required and identified that in evaluating that and addressing the negative criteria if that would provide a substantial detriment to the public good or not um based upon the difference in uses and time periods um and a shared parking Arrangement between those two uses it's our opinion that um there would not be a substantial detriment from a parking standpoint relative to the parking that's provided on the site um and then additionally we feel that uh on balance what's what's being provided with uh enhancing the existing building that's up at the front number one providing two additional one-bedroom dwelling units at the rear with the canopy and the solar access uh and solar facilities that are being proposed that on balance certainly um the benefits of that deviation given all of those constraints outweigh the detriment from a a C2 standpoint um and I would just in a short way identify purpose I and G relative to those uh positive criteria so I just wanted to get that on the record since we we just discussed uh the nuts and bolts of it during the hearing thank you thank you very much all right I'm not seeing uh Mr Fury or any other hands up so I'm going to oh and Mr Fury called in I know generally we don't allow for phone numbers to call in but um he was on the video before Jerry would that would it be okay to allow him to talk that way I think we should okay I will allow him to talk then okay and okay he's being brought over now Mr Fury if you can unmute no I'm I believe you press nine on your phone to unmute the zoom is he moved over as a panelist yet see here we are Mr Fury yet yes we can hear you yes great you have three minutes okay if you can raise your right hand yeah do you swear or affirm that testimony about to give would be the truth I do please St your full name and spell your last name Jeff Fury s r y I reside at 319 Witherspoon Street Princeton go ahead thank you for this opportunity thank you for this opportunity um I do concur with everything that uh Mr and Mrs leech uh had tested five and it's really trying to change I really hope that the board would listen to them because you're really looking at a change in what's going on uh in the neighborhood we're not opposed to the additional apartments and everything I think the uh it's just I guess more or less the way it was done and which they uh were blindsided by this and I'm very concerned about you know um the way it was handled by Dr faceli to be honest and know because um I am a neighbor his mother had a house right has a house not directly behind us but a property away and we he put a uh he put a tenant up in the second floor of the garage and that had was basically in violation why because there was no second way out when I brought when it was brought to his attention he put a um step ladder for that person to get out then there was another incident where he had put a a fuel tank brought it through the alley put a fuel tank in the back I think it was during the pandemic everybody was concerned and he had no containment he just does whatever he wants to do and this is a concern for our neighborhood I'll just keep it uh short with that but I think we really need to uh be very vigilant and I have to say when I brought those two things to the township pension the uh P the engineering they reacted very quickly I have to commend to them on that but it's more like why do you do it anyway I'll just keep it like that and thank you for your time and uh well thank you for your time thank you okay thank you okay we will now close public comment uh and uh open up board deliberation if there are any comments from the board any additional questions for for either our staff or uh Justin uh yes thank you chairman I actually I have a question for the applicant um was it did I hear correctly before that there was an agreement uh for that driveway I thought that's what I had heard but then hearing from the neighbors it sounds like there's not well yeah perhaps I can answer or go ahead Stephen sorry I I had mentioned in my opening remarks that we had intended to uh uh obtain an easement um nothing has been done that I know of to date but we we were going to approach that if the if approval was granted because there wouldn't be any need for it if not so uh no to my knowledge there's no there's no um existing easement I I would just offer if I could to the board you know the the based on the the ages of the residences like vasel is probably as I stated 1920s I'm not sure about Mrs leash's side but it's certainly an older uh home so that that shared driveway is probably existed since possibly since the 1920s you know so there's nothing formalized that I know of in my discussions either with Tony but it has uh served both properties for you know again I'm speculating but possibly a hundred years uh so we haven't uh you know we haven't created that that situation if you know we're trying to sort of organize it but uh that's that's definitely a pre-existing condition and I I know Dr vel's he's he's perfectly anxious and willing to to get something on paper so that both parties are protected okay thank you David yeah I just wanted to um ask Mr Bridger um to confirm that this application is compliant as to setbacks um you know I I heard the concerns from from the leeches and uh and yet I don't think there was anything in the professional reports indicating there were any variances needed as to setback so just want to make sure that's super clear uh thank you Mr Cohen um yes it is a complying application it meets all the setbacks the f um except for the parking okay you thank you yeah if I might add Mr Cohen um I think uh what Mr leech might have been referring to is that there are different bulk standards for Residential Properties and for uh business properties in the B1 um so if you have a a residential house uh there's a 15 foot sidey yard setback I believe um if you have a business type property there's no sidey guard setback and the joint occupancy qualifies as business that's correct thanks if if again if I could jump in I hope I'm not interrupting the process um we um well where where would be willing to make excuse me I'm sorry I'm sorry goad I'm saying we're on board deliberation but why don't you finish well is I'll be brief I just wanted to um you know we we we have taken the pro it to the leech's property under under consideration we we actually restricted the first floor has no windows on their side of that of that one apartment we we would certainly be willing I'm sure to eliminate that second window for privacy um it's not it's 20 feet long you know the wall that presents itself to the leech's property is 20 feet long which is you know as even for residential standards go that's a fairly modest uh Dimension we're not trying to we're certainly not trying to maximize that or or or slight them in any wayve you can see the footprint is restricted uh to that narrowness on the southern end and the Northern end is not you know it's wider toward Mr barsky's property uh and the 4 feet again you know these things you know there's a functionality to it all that's that's the best balance that that we found and we did try to stay away as far as possible uh the tree in the corner I think Tony would would welcome leaving it and if that helps the leech's approach to the whole thing he's not after taking that thing down I think that was actually coming from the Princeton arborist or whoever came out to to do a walkthrough on the property itself we we would be um uh we'd be willing to accommodate any kind of design on the wall it would really just be I think it would be an oversized out building a shed or or a garden type structure yes it's two stories but again I just wanted to reiterate it's only 20 ft long thank you all right pa um I just had a question about the uh I have a question about the tree and then also about the driveway so on that Norway maple which is um I think the staff report says that it's on the property line um could we just clarify um if it is indeed actually on the on the property line and um I don't know if uh the municipal arborist no is not on here or if Dan Weissman could possibly comment on that but I think the staff comment was that the tree would be damaged if this building is constructed um and that's why they were recommending the removal is that I'm sorry I can't see on the zoom faces is here um yeah yeah I'm here thank you Miss Nuka uh the I I did walk the site with the arbest uh when reviewing this application um both his and my opinion is that the location of the structure uh with a basement at that rear building um The Roots would be damaged and that the tree wouldn't survive um it's 22 in diameter tree uh the tree according to the survey we're provided appears to be on the lot line um trees that are on lot lines are shared ownership um so if they were to be removed they would need approval from both owners um so if this project were to go ahead a condition of approval they have would request that they receive formal approval from the adjacent law owner to remove that tree um which would be contingent on the development moving forward um same would go with the I know this wasn't a question just just in the same uh track of thought the uh driveway access easement uh staff would also recommend that be a condition of approval uh with the adjacent model owner I I'm so sorry Dan C I just could could you just start again could you that again absolutely so the uh the tree does appear to be on the the survey we were provided the tree does appear to be on the this is the the maple with the 22 Ines in diameter correct okay um and I I did walk the site with the arborist uh when reviewing this application uh and we both agreed that the development as proposed would damage the root system and the tree ultimately would not survive um so staff would recommend that it would be removed Replacements be uh provided and accounted for on this development and that also they receive uh approval from the adjacent lot owner uh to have the tree removed uh trees that are common owned cannot be removed uh per the TR sh tree ordinance uh without approval from both lot owners so why is this I'm sorry Pa was you I don't want to preempt you do do can I just finish this or go ahead Mia go ahead yeah because I I I don't understand um if the then why this application is I do have an issue with this why has the application gotten this far if basically if they develop what is they've proposed and you've said that it will destroy this tree and that's not permitted under our ordinances then then then we're talking hypothetically we're I mean we're talking about a hypothetical development that's that we it's it's not just the parking varant we're approving this will we're approving an unlawful removal of a tree I mean or we're we're creating a condition in which they have to ask the neighbors whether they can remove it in order to continue their develop so you know and I'm quite sure that the neighbors are not going to agree to that so I'm wondering why the applicant didn't um make a change in their application so that um it was not necessary to kill the tree and if that's possible go ahead p uh so I guess I similar issue at play here with the driveway so the driveway if I'm understanding the situation correctly is shared although there's no formal agreement and if the neighbors don't approve the development um or the sharing of their driveway any longer then the applicant would not be able to proceed with this plan is that am I understanding that correctly maybe is that correct Jerry it Justin and Jerry if you could um sure just yeah uh I could start and then Jerry if you want to fill in anything else uh I think if you look at the engineering and Zoning report um which we generally take the conditions from uh there are uh staff comments in there that say that the applicant will need to get those agreements um you know as part of the compliance to do this project so I think that could work out a few different ways that obviously we heard from the neighbor tonight uh maybe they agree to it maybe there's a tradeoff who knows um that's really not to the board's discretion um tonight if you chose to approve this and put those conditions on you know they would need to secure those agreements or if they can't secure those maybe the applicant does come back for a modification of their approval uh or a new application for something that is uh you know doesn't affect those uh items that they they can't get the agreement on yeah I don't have anything to add I think that's right and I think it's a a good question that's been raised as to uh proceeding at this point when certainly there might be tradeoffs and maybe they'll wind up with an agreement as to the I think it's a silver mbel actually um but that seems highly doubtful to tell you the truth okay well go ahead I don't think we should prejudge what the negotiation between the neighbors is going to look like we've heard testimony but we have a clear path forward here to you know approve this application I I do think the planning proofs for the parking variants were strong I think that otherwise the project is compliant but we can impose conditions that give the neighbor a lot of Le you know of Leverage to get some of what they want and to leave it in their hands rather than us um running away from uh what is our responsibility in um considering what's before us on that note uh does anyone want to make a motion um M has her hand rais sorry M I'm sorry Mia yeah I don't think we're anywhere near to making a motion Owen I mean I I I think there's still a lot of issues that that need to be discussed here and I I mean I this is the spirit of this application represents very much what we would like to be like to see happening if someone who wants to who is going to be retiring would like to be able to stay in Princeton it's creating more smaller housing in an area of Princeton which was actually zoned and and is traditionally has this type of uh built environment um but there are some partic you know we we cannot be taking major trees down in the Witherspoon Jackson neighborhood at this point that is you know critical we are losing our shade tree canopy in this neighborhood more than any other neighborhood and it I'm really disappointed that the applicant himself who lives in this neighborhood and should be aware of that would come in with an application that would destroy a tree like this it's not that difficult to redesign since the tree is almost to the lot line something that that wouldn't destroy that tree um the driveway I'm less cons I mean the driveway I'm less concerned with and and I I understand the neighbors point but they do live in in a in a neighborhood that has this zoning and has always had this zoning and they know that it's had this zoning um uh the parking variance is a no-brainer you know that it's it's a a parking requirement that you know we we've talked about needing to reduce anyway but um I'm wondering if the applicant could I I just I wish that staff would work out with the applicant before it gets to the board an issue like this that we know it's going to Boomerang and come back to the board with something like like a major tree like this um and I'm wondering if the applicant has some idea while you're here for an alternate design um so that that tree could remain well if I if I if I may um the basement the the basement is easily modified in that local so that it would strictly be a three-foot excavation uh as I said before you can be creative with the foundation itself that are uh details uh particularly a grade beam it's called where you're you're only actually Excavating about 12 in and then the two ends of the of the structure come down into two points almost like you might frame a deck or whatever so there I mean there's there's some very easy steps that would keep that construction away from damaging uh you know a good portion of the canopy if we if we restricted the basement we could come in eight feet largely and we would be 12 or so feet away from the um the center of the tree at least uh you know those are the kind of steps that that might be very simply applied uh did Dan is that um with that can you comment on that the location of this I think uh regardless of whether or not it has a basement I mean it's within uh there's a tree protection Zone which is the drip line of the trees and then there's a critical root Zone which is located within that that tree protection Zone and that's where the critical Roots lie um the structure as proposed is within that critical root Zone um and that's really where any root damage or removal is going to be detrimental to the tree um so with the location of the structure where it is I'm I'm not sure that tree is would make it uh even if it were slab on grade there's there's going to be excavation into the ground to even construct slab on grade could could could uh veli offer to uh we could we could try it Dan if the tree dies of course were responsible and then Tony would be responsible for at the board's discretion two three four specimens on you know either on the leech's property if they were inclined to do it that way that would create you know greater canopy for everyone including privacy for the leech's uh backyard that I know Tony would not be adverse to that idea um that that takes the onus off of that tree uh and again not not to say we wouldn't take steps to try to make to allow it to survive it's not um uh it's not a uh you know a backdoor solution we we would we would approach that frontally and then if if the tree wasn't making it we would we would be obligated to um make reparations at the board's uh what the board finds appropriate you know how old do you think that tree is Dan I'd have to consult it's a 22 inch tree is what I heard that is not an elderly tree that it might be 30 years 40 years it's not okay it's not 150 year old tree and but even 30 or 40 years I'm just saying you know so they plant new trees it's you know decades before there is of course but I I have a lot of discomfort I mean we a approv so many applications where trees come down and replacement trees are planted and to suddenly I mean essentially it feels to me like we're talking about denying this application because one tree would be killed and we don't have to because there's a negotiation that can happen between private property owners to come up with an A solution that wouldn't put us in that they can't he but he they're not they don't they're not able I don't want to prejudge it it's between them this is that there isn't a solution because the structure itself Justin said there are several Solutions the solution may not be to keep that wall exactly where it is but I don't want to prejudge what the solution I I just think it's a it's a really awkward precedent for us to be denying an application because one tree would come down that would be replaced according to our ordinance that's not our job our job is to put conditions on that preserve the tree if possible and requiring the neighbors to work it out between themselves is much much more appropriate than us in fact Jerry I don't know if you can can we deny David I'm just we're I'm not saying that David I'm just saying that this application has come we've just spent you know two hours on it and it's sort of a no-brainer that the neighbors are gonna we know they're not they're not going to agree to that tree coming down so it's going to end up coming back and taking more time and I just wish that you know this it would be it would make more sense if this sort of thing were worked out before it comes to us because I think it's going to Bo Boomerang B Boomerang back to us but I I hear your point I I I take your point David although I would I do feel like as a board we need to be cognizant in this neighborhood in particular because there are social justice and Equity considerations in this neighborhood with the tree canopy and and I just I think we need to be particularly sensitive to that um but um I I I understand your point um and you know maybe I you know I don't think we can deny the application because of the tree but I wish that this had been taken into consideration beforehand I I think the one of the points here is that it's always good to talk to your neighbors before with an application yeah if I may going back to Dan's Point earlier that the tree according to the survey is on the property loine and it could only be taken down which would be NE necessary for construction to take place um if there was approval by both property owners and Dan actually said if it's not approved by both Property Owners the project cannot proceed I would suggest as an alternative for you to consider is just the firing decision have having a go back so in fact those negotiations David which you rightfully pointed out are a good idea could take play and discussions could rightfully take place between the the property owner um and Dr veli and see if they could come up with something that that uh that works I I I I'm not sure that I don't I don't know how I feel about that Jerry just because I I feel I I David has slightly persuaded me that you know we that I don't want to set a precedent that everything that that once it's here you know that we send it back for negotiation I I I mean I do think that it it meets the the um it with the exception of the parking variants you know which I is to me is a no-brainer to to uh Grant I I mean I do think we should follow the procedure that we have established now which is that they that they work it out um I have a feeling we'll see it again but I I would rather you know do what is required of us in terms of the law which is unless we have an issue with that one variance then we we should approve it that that's my my feeling I just wish that it hadn't come in this form one way or I'm sorry P I'll get to you in a second One Way Or Another We're going to have to there's going to be a negotiation whether whether we do it with conditions or without and I think that it's probably better to do it with the as a condition of approval uh that's my opinion PA and then that um thanks so I you know I I like this application overall um and I want to support it I also just would like to save that tree um it's a nice tree and obviously the neighbors have uh a nice Garden that's shaded by this tree that they've enjoyed for many years and that's also important to keep in mind it's also clear that the applicant is benefiting from the share driveway with their neighbors um obviously there's mutual benefits there but the applicant is benefiting from that and the two apartments that will be constructed at the back of the property will be benefiting from that access which is shared by the neighbors um and so it seems like clearly these two parties need to discuss more among themselves and I would like to I'm wondering if the applicant changes the design based on the negotiation with the neighbor will that come back to us Jerry I don't know if yeah no certainly address that oh Justin go do you want to jump in uh sure I'll probably say what you were about to say but yeah if there was a modification to the approval uh you know basically different from what we're seeing tonight then they would have to come back to the board right correct okay thank you Nat thank you uh acting chair uh yeah I just wanted to Echo the comments that that the Mia made and I I just feel like it's it it just look I me we got to be respectful of the board's time we just can't this really just feels like we have like this is a such a critical point it's such a critical framing point for the way that we're thinking about what we're hearing H God I just I'm you know yeah I know that the applicants have to you know present their material but I mean we just can't this is so many times we hear length ly lengthy presentations of materials by applicants that completely bypass critical framing information about the decision we have to make and I I just I I just don't like this is more of a of a general process point of view but I mean it's already nine after nine o'clock and I just wish that we could get information that would be a little bit more respectful of us and focus us on the decisions that we need to make I just don't think that's what's happening so uh yeah I'm persuaded by David's point of view I you know I I I'm I I share Mia's frustration and it's just going to come back to us again and it's a you know that's a responsibility of the applicant as well so I just I'm just voicing my irritation well I'm fine with either proposal so I I I'm wondering Jerry is there some mechanism to see whether there's a pref ref by the board to approve it and let them you know it may come back if or to defer it as you know I mean I don't even know what the legal difference is's a mechanism someone makes a motion and we've vote on it and that tells us how the board feels about it which way they prefer although I think the acting chair could basically poll a board on on the feelings to how to proceed in this case um and what's going to be a key if the board approves it um is the terms of the condition with respect to further discussions with respect to the tree um if it's the that that the neighbor who has an which has an ownership interest in the tree has to approve it um and um it's not a question of U that the applicant can go ahead and do a redesign as as you actually suggested earlier David just um maybe Alternatives if the if the neighbor and property owner is not just in pursuing that then um and that could be how one a condition is articulated um then it's certainly going to have to gonna have to come back to the board I would think with a uher it's not a condition of approval right it's the law I mean it's it's the it's they they it's not a condition approval they it it's it's condition of approval that if the tree is in common ownership the neighbor has to agree to take it down because we're not imposing that that is just that is the way it always is but I think it makes sense to put it in the resolution just to make it clear Al I was just comenting one of your thoughts was if um it wasn't approved by the uh the neighbor maybe there Alternatives it could be pursued by U by the applicant in terms of replacement Etc but I I I'm hearing you now that that if that's the law it's the law and if they can't come up with a something that's acceptable to the neighbor uh in that regard then they can't proceed period could I just ask if the applicant was aware that he would did either his attorney or anyone in the municipal side inform the applicant that that he would need that his he would need his neighbor's approval in order to remove this tree I just think it's an important point because since the neighbors don't there there does not seem to have been any discussion with the neighbors um you know maybe he didn't know and maybe either we need to do a better job or you know I don't know well I can offer um you know the the tree was mentioned in the report one of the reports either from from um Dan or Justin but it was uh I've been kind of just holding off I mean I don't want to disparage what the leech has testified to but you have to there's a little context there that I mean the tree is not in a pastoral setting you know the parking lot from the prior from the probably 1970s uh on Tony's side goes right up to the line so the the the tree has been uh dealing with that amount of uh oxygen deoxygenated scenario and uh on the leech's side there's a I don't know maybe it's a 10 X1 12 x 12 garden shed right on the property line about a foot or two away from uh in front of this tree toward Witherspoon street so the tree I guess from our team's perspective it wasn't you know I mean obviously we know trees are are important uh you know everywhere and I know Princeton takes them very very seriously and you know it wasn't that we were being callous about it it's just uh it it just didn't seem to hold that you know an incredible amount of weight we we think it might be a Norway maple by the way not not something a little more noble and I wish we had inertive photos of that of that local there because it it's it's just I just don't want a kind of romanticized image of this tree to develop it's it's it's it's not phenomenally healthy in my opinion and I'm not saying I'm an expert by any stretch uh but I guess from our team's perspective it wasn't an obvious like oh wow that that thing's um an absolute you know and maybe that's was a mistake clearly clearly it it's causing a a lot of consternation on everyone's part and and um I think I think Tony would uh you know he believes in the plan he would like not to modify it we we think we have a lot of strong ideas a little bit unique ideas and we would like to pursue this plan so we're we would you know we're anxious to try to get over this hurdle and I'm sure Tony would be would entertain uh any and all ideas to to resolve it you know it's not um we we know you know we know we have to take it seriously and and you know that's clear so all right um I'd like to go to Julie and then Alvin oh hey I I just wanted to ask about the driveway just to make sure I understand that that's not another thing like is does there have to be an agreement on the driveway if we make that a condition of approval which was recommended by staff so if the neighbors refus to agree that would be another problem that would prevent this from happening potentially yes okay I just wanted to clarify thank you Alvin the um the issue here again is the tree being on the property line regardless of anything else the tree is on the property line which means that you know the the the the the neighbors have a right to say what happens with with that tree um I don't see how you get around it so again I'm on I'm on the side of well give them an opportunity to work it out but probably part of the condition should also be maybe they work out an alternative something else a redesign or something else that that you know preserves the tree and they do it I don't know but I would think that that opportunity should be given um to the parties and if they have to come back well you know they'll come back I guess the question is Alvin is it a condition of approval or do you think that they should go and have a negotiation before we well well it it has to be well it has to be a condition of well no I you could have a negotiation now I guess but you know I'm for kind of let's move it along because even if even if they even if they worked it out they still GNA have to come back and say we've reached some unfor we've reached some conclusion on on what on what we want to do here um so I would say it's a condition it's a condition of approval okay thank you I agree Alan Freddy yeah I just have kind of general question maybe this is for Jerry um in a case like this where there's property which is owned by two people and only one is an applicant in order for the application to be complete or to uh I mean don't they have to show ahead of time that they've got approval for the from the neighbor I mean is there some requirement that that um they've consulted you know where they know ahead of time that the I mean this is a you know this is not the typical situation but where they know ahead of time that that the on their property or something that's owned by somebody else don't they need to have the approval before they come here to do it I don't think so um but whether something is deemed complete it's a function of whether all all the provisions in the checklist ordinance as to what is necessarily must be filed to be deemed complete have been satisfied this is such an unusual situation um I would not expect um them to have that although it would be a good idea if they certainly a very good idea if they did it would save a lot of time um on everybody's behalf um but I I think it could could and has legitimately been been complete without that but it's it's a very good point and um Justin you want to jump in on that uh well I think there's a difference if you know someone's saying hey I'm going to take my lot and my neighbor's lot and do something with it um in this case we're talking about a tree that's you know on the line uh so I don't think it's truly someone else's property um the same with the uh the driveway access they're not necessarily changing that or or they're not necessarily changing the portion of the driveway that's not on their property although it you know it's it's tied together in terms of use so I think it's just a slightly different uh you know kind of scenario than one in which we would say no you can't come to us you know with land that doesn't belong to you they can't take the tree down without somebody else's consent right I mean they can use the the the easement which they don't have but they can use the driveway but they can't take the tree down without somebody else's consent so to come in here and say they want to take a tree down without that consent is I would think troubling at the very least I'm asking generally because again I don't think they've said first of all they didn't want to take the tree down at all staff was suggesting that it wasn't going to survive and that it was necessary to do that secondly um they're not saying they want to do it without the neighbor's consent I mean I if we're going to impose a condition that says this tree is own jointly uh and they need the property owner's consent I have not heard the applicant say we're not willing to accept that condition so I I just think it's I I really I think we're beating this to death um but let's hear what Claud has to say EXA Claudia one additional part of the uh the condition regarding the tree that I would have a concern about is Since U Mr Schmidt said that construction could be modified to limit the basement and the excavation but yet Mr Weissman said that any construction would likely damage the tree then we're not only talking about not taking the tree down without the leech's agreement but we're also talking about not doing anything that in Dan Weissman or our Municipal arborous opinion would damage the tree so that if it was deemed that they could do construction not by us but by the uh architect and the applicant and they damage the tree are we in a position where we ended up with a result we don't want meaning that the tree cannot be damaged and any design existing or modified could not damage the tree even if the tree was left up so just to clarify your point Claudia what you're saying is even if the neighbor agreed that the tree could come down that somehow we should be saying that it can't come down no no no I what I'm saying is that if there is a scheme a design in which the tree is remaining standing so the neighbor doesn't need to approve anything but it is a municipal Arbor's opinion or Dan weissman's opinion that the design will cause damage to the tree then it cannot go forward yeah just one important thing there is the design that's out there right now is the only design that you're approving that they would have to follow up on um if there was a different scheme let's say they uh you know cut 20 feet off the building or something like that that would be the type of thing that they have to come back to the board for the modification of the approval so you know unless there was an explicit condition allowing for a Monumental change uh to the design and even then I I don't know if we would be able to make that a condition uh those Alternatives would not happen until they came back to the board and Justin I just it's we're all saying the same thing basically Freddy claudy and I which is you know it's it's really a catch 22 here and and you know I just I don't know what could have been done differently but I hope we can you know sort of learn some lessons because it it's um is but to Jerry's point it seems very unusual so we'll just I mean actually it's it what could what should have been done differently is that the applicant should have discussed this application with their neighbors well in advance while they were in the design phase this happens all the time anytime somebody comes with an application where they're looking for a variance it's it's uh you know design 101 talk to your neighbors and make sure that they're on board with what you want to do I don't think staff could have done anything differently but I think that it's very unfortunate that the applicant didn't get Buy in from the neighbor uh rather than just sending them legal notice 10 days in advance I did want to just thank Mr Schmidt for his cander it's really nice to have professionals who are you know honest like that appreciate that well thank you I appreciate that all right on that note now would anybody like to make a motion and then we will attach conditions to to the motion David I see your hand up yeah thank you will anybody second so I I'll just say you know move to approve the application with the parking variants right and with the conditions as recommended by staff for the uh approval to take the tree down for the uh cross uh access easement on the driveway and other uh conditions as recommended by staff in their memo do I have a second on that second that thank you very much uh Jerry do you want to go through the well what what if I might want to propose something of a modification you can amend offer a friendly Amendment now pretty much I think I think it's it's pretty much that the condition of the tree that they have to consult one another and that there there is a dis and and and part of that discussion could be or consideration could be of an of an alternative by the applicant um for a different design a for a different design there where the tree wouldn't be be um taken taken down or damaged where the tree the root wouldn't be damaged there I am assuming that if there is an alternative that of course the applicant's GNA have to come back and say hey here's here's what we've done here's what we here's what we can do um and and propose that and propose that to the board so if that's not too convoluted what I said I I think there should be an OP there should be part of part of an option here should be of a different the the applicant should be given a chance to have a different an alternative design where um if there's no agreement on the removal of the tree if there's no agreement on the removal of the tree that they that could be proposed well Mr mcau and not to talk out of turn I think uh Justin mentioned that if the if if we were to sir we're in board deliberations now this is not I'm sorry I'm very sorry thank you um Alvin let let me tell you what I the notes that I've taken with respect to that at first I thought and this is really it relates certainly relates to what you're saying I thought it would simply be sufficient to say um the tree cannot be removed without the consent of the neighbor but then we heard a lot of testimony about well we could do certain things with in terms of the excavation etc etc so I would modify that and I think it meets all of your um uh concerns unless a redesign unless redesign and construction techniques will not damage the tree in the opinion of the municipal arborist it's not sufficient for them to come in and say okay well we're going to only going to excavate one foot it's going to be slab on grade etc etc the municipal arborist has to sign off that the tree is not going to be damaged how does that sound um it sounds good can I can I can I sort of just ask something else though to that maybe sure what what I was going to I was going to just say one more thing and that that was I don't think we need to to say that the um the applicant can pursue alternative designs but there's there's a certainly no no harm in saying that at all okay that's the other thing I I I I think yeah I thought I thought so yeah yeah that's the the thing I was I would think about add you know adding there I mean um if I heard Jus right they're going to have if they do decide they want some more alternative design they still going to have to come back in front of the board that's right that's right yeah that's correct I just want to be clear for your motion though it started to sound like they would need the approval of the neighbor to come back and that's not NE that's not the case yeah no I'm not saying that understood so again that that would be you know my only other and and if you could add that that's fine yeah okay and I will okay Jerry um n you okay with that as the seconder that's okay with that I'm okay with yes I'll add verbality to it okay okay do we have to go through all the other conditions as well don't well the the applicant and the neighbors also have to come to a an agreement on the on the uh the cross easement access cross access easement sorry um it might make sense to go through the comments from the engineering and Zoning report okay let me first go through as I usually do um my notes um and this might already be in the report that the applicant um should meet with the landscape architect and operis on site uh with respect to the Magnolia in the front protected the cross accent access easement is necessary there's such an thing as an easement by implication but I think which is something that's been used for Access for many years um the party getting the advantage of that and being the beneficiary of it can have an easement by implication but that would involve litigation I don't think we should get into that I just mentioned it um now the sidewalk on the side of the house will provide pedestrian ACC access to the rear Apartments that's not shown on the plans right I mean it's shown on it was shown on the slide presentation but that was that was pretty much it um W with modifications uh as councilman Cohen mentioned yes and also you know poy had some questions about pervious Paving I don't know that we want to require that um the I think the applicant was resistant to that but yeah I have not listed that um is the um canopy going to be solar ready my understanding it is okay that would be a condition the magnon the front will be its protection will be maximized through reloc a of facilities and that's of I'm sorry utilities and that's to be addressed during compliance um and they will defer the uh arborist in that regard then the reorientation of the um the bicycle parking could somebody give me more detail on what that that entails sry there's a condition in in the engineering and Z that that's fine work with staff that corrected that the sidewalk in the front um is being is being replaced by the municipality and it be repaired if it is damaged uh by the applicant and then part of the curb coming up the driveway on the right side [Music] um will be depress two window would eliminate is it the two windows on the on the sidewall or eliminate one of the two windows I believe it's one of the two was that this morning Mr schm it's only one window sir oh okay second floor window okay thank you very much [Music] um then just going over um the engineering and Zoning report uh under Section 4.0 utilities relocation away from the existing Magnolia um so that would be in that would be staff comment one staff comment to this under Section 4.0 B which deals with the Norway maple we've already addressed that the cross easements um two parts of that secure Crossman with the owner of lot three to provide continued use of the existing driveway by both owners Additionally the driveway access to the adjacent uh lot during construction should be coordinated with the adjacent lot owner and Dan jump in if if you think things should not be in or missing things um okay we talked about H1 which is a sidewalk um H2 is the alternative s lay site layout we've already addressed that the depressed curb the this is H3 the depressed curb at the pathway connecting the entryway to lot two should be relocated to the South to provide separation between the pathway and the adjacent vehicle parking space um but did we just agree to um depress that that curb is that rather than relocating it Dan uh that would be on the Eastern side of the site that' be the opposite side of that the Pressed curve okay so for your H3 I think they testified that they were okay with leaving that in okay Mr Schmid testified to that okay and the three bicycle parking spaces what do we say about that and this is your I one they'll work it out with staff yeah okay Jerry can I ask you a question sure just go going back to H1 the sidewalk along the lot front and she be re reconstructed in its entirety if disturbed um since it's a new sidewalk are there requirements to match the same material materials to use the same construction specs I something that comes up later Dan would you agree I would agree with that yeah absolutely using the same details as the Witherspoon phase three improvements project yeah thank you thank you then also step comment i1 um the inverted urax shall these of the bicycle shall be placed two feet away from the adjacent structure is recommended by the Association of pedestrian and bicycle professionals other then J um is about the utility services and that has to be completed before um the Wither the withers spoon uh Street re re repaving and and phase three related to that can I ask uh Dan since the it sounds like compliance is going to take a while with the negotiations with the neighbors is there a way to allow them to do the the utility work before full compliance yeah if they're willing to do that so that we can avoid the moratorium yeah AB absolutely noted as that a permitted early start work let me make a note of it okay then this has been classified as a minor site development um and the staff comment is no minor detrimental effects don't no there are no minor detrimental effects that do not cumulative cumulatively constitute a major detrimental effect and no major detrimental effects are anticipated it's recommended the pros site development be classified as a minor I would suggest we leave it classified as a minor unless the board thinks otherwise that's fine okay Jerry yes did we discuss I think it was pavi uh suggestion about the imprint in the uh rear parking lot to direct pedestrians to the residential units in the back no that's a thank you Derek yes sir Derek are you referring to the idea of having the two doors closer together and having a this the interior arrangement with the the stairs on the common wall no I was talking about having uh some kind of design in the parking lot in the back that would kind of visually direct people to the edges of the uh parking lot area to walk back to their units I I think we did actually that was one of the conditions that okay jry talked about early on sorry that I think we we yeah we wanted to um uh approve the alternate plan that was presented in sketch form ni to the satisfaction of Staff if there are any changes right okay and then I'm now up to 5.0 um and it would be the standard stuff about construction cost estimates approval by Superior higher level agencies Jerry the only Mr M the only thing I would suggest that inadvertently had left out on the agency approvals would also be the Princeton Ser Department okay so that's it uh well Jerry there's one other I don't think you covered uh about the two replacement trees and the suggestion from the applicant was that they would fit one replacement tree in the rear and contribute to uh the shade tree fund uh if the board agrees with that okay I thought the idea that the um the removal of the that that's replacement for oh it's okay you're right it's yeah the one we've been talking about all night right okay so that's it yeah okay thank you for that Jerry so uh we have a motion in a second and we've all heard the conditions uh krie would you mind calling the roll uh certainly yes um Mr bimer yes Miss capoli yes Mr Cohen yes Mr mcowan yes was that a yes yes Miss Nuka you're on mute yes did you get that uh yes I did thank you thank you um Miss pearlmutter had stated she stepped away and did not want to be called so I am not calling on her it was just for a small portion of time uh Miss saxs yes Miss Wilson Anderson yes and Mr odonnell yes motion carried thank you all very much uh thank you for your time afcan team and I I did tell my wife this would be a quick one and again I knew the moment I said it so it's your fault Jerry you jinxed us you're not kidding you'll be in trouble again when you get home thank you very much I know Tony's very excited about it and hope we can iron out the uh the issues but thank you to the board very much do thank you very much thank you all right uh Curry if you bring Louise over and I think that it's time for a 10-minute break she's here and uh yes I'm here and yes I I agree that you all deserve 10-minute break see you uh at 9:52 thank you very much uh welcome back everyone thank you for your patience um we will move on to our second application of the night Moreno and Marlin IOD Del continued from April 11th 2024 this is a minor subdivision and site plan with variances at 469 Ying street block 7202 lot13 file number P 2322 d255 m s slpm um we have 26 people in the attendees room um I think Justin I'll ask you to start and perhaps summarize the the um the ways in which the applicant has change the plan to respond to um consern concerns advice Etc from the board and also from Neighbors um and then we'll turn to the applicant and I would just um beg the applicant to be mindful of time and be as efficient as possible tonight because if possible it would be good to uh finish if we can um but of course we have a lot of interested people and I don't want to um obviously we'll we'll hear from everyone who wants to speak with a with a three minute uh time frame okay Justin Madam chair Justin starts just one of the say the board had previously taken jurisdiction and it it heard it in April it was carried to um June 20 and then it was carried again till tonight okay good uh thank you madam chair and I'll follow that directive as well um just a reminder uh we already used this as an exhibit so I don't think we need to mark it the property is at 469 Ying Street uh if my map showing yep as you can see here in blue um on that NJ parcel map by Rowan it's a 044 acre lot with a home on it uh that home has had a second attached unit at times in the past the proposed subdivision Remains the Same uh from the previous meetings um and that would be to split up the lot into 2.22 acres Lots uh whereas 0.25 acres is the minimum lot area required in this R six Zone uh thus the applicant is still requesting variances from lot area lot width and lot depth on each of the proposed two lots um the applicant is no longer asking for variances related to the structures uh you may remember the buckets of variances the buckets are gone um the proposal has been revised to include a primary house on the front part of each lot with an accessory dwelling unit uh towards the rear of each slot um a carport would be attached to each primary house uh removing the need for the detached garages that were proposed in the first place in the rear of the lot the primary houses have been reduced in size from nearly 1900 square feet to about 1300 uh each with walkways leading to their front doors from Ying Street uh and I'm kind of just going over high level of uh the big things that we've discussed at previous meetings that have changed um the adus have had uh are about 788 Square ft of floor area within one story and an attic uh a share driveway is still proposed uh though there is no longer any parking proposed in front of the main houses as in a past design uh this proposal does not utilize the proportional F floor area ratio rather it uses the 25% allowed in the r six Zone uh additionally it has been designed to meet the impervious coverage maximum of 36% uh for Lots between a quarter and a half of an acre um not the 49.5% allowed for lots up to a quarter of an acre although these obviously would be under that threshold just by the size the municipal landscape architect met with the applicant and I'll defer to him on his report from June 12th uh but I will note that the applicant has not provided a landscape plan to account for the uh 17 mature trees uh they would plan on removing with this application rather they've deferred to Future review by the landscape subcommittee of the board which could be made a condition of approval uh if the application was approved um that's all I have for now um I do want to just truly thank the applicant for returning to the board these three maybe four times over the past five months uh to re-evaluate and redesign their application based on the board's comments um at any time they could have removed the application and utilized the underlying zoning uh which would not require public hearing like the one tonight at 9:58 p.m. um it would not have a review of things like Trees and Landscaping which sometimes we go into detail on um and the development Allowed by Wright would be about uh 4,800 square feet of floor area ratio in one home or in uh split up between one home and an accessory dwelling unit uh so that's what they could have done and they chose not to and they they chose to stick with us all these months um so that being said Dan and Derek are here with their reports as is Dan Dober milsky uh you may want to hear from them now or turn it over to the applicant thank you uh thank you I I would like to know if um any of any of them has um anything in particular they want a flag and in light of the earlier conversation I would ask if we know if any of the trees that are um slated to be removed are under common ownership with neighboring property owners in other words are are any of the trees on the property line Dan do you know I mean that's proa maybe a question for the for the applicant to address as well but Dan if you happen to know either of the Dans der milsky or wisman if you happen to know I think it would be good to speak to that this is Dan Dober milski good evening uh thank you um um my recollection is that they are not the trees are all on their property there are some trees along the edges but they're actually will be saving those trees okay partially due to the proposed design in this case where they had the Central Court okay uh anything you want to flag Dan or Derek I assume Derek no because he's does not have his camera on no uh Justin's correct They removed all the variances except the lot area a lot width and lot Frontage okay okay um Mr Kennedy you want to thank you mam chair uh members of the board Ryan Kennedy from Stevenson Lee for the homeowners here uh Jimmy Marlin um thank you to all of you for sticking up with us for all these meetings which I think go back to 2022 for our first concept on this uh on this matter so we're appreciative of the process we're excited to be kind of at the end of it uh particularly um at the April meeting when we went through um uh almost a bit of a charet at the end to talk through what direction this board wanted us to go and we we feel we heard you loud and clear um proportional F no uh the uh using the uh graduated coverage that's available for a lot of their size no um uh reversing things so the main house was up front with the adus behind uh and ultimately designing with uh smaller homes so that there are many uh all of the design type variances related to putting adus up front are all gone that's the buckets that uh Justin uh mentioned before we are very appreciative of both that feedback of working with these homeowners uh over these years now and particularly for staff for the last couple of months um the the feedback we got at that meeting did result in a significant redesign and a lot of work from our engineering and Architectural team and uh it was a several back and forths uh to make sure we got it right technically with your staff and we're very much appreciative of Justin uh and and the team uh and and for Dan Doki to for meeting with our folks out the site to go through the trees um we hope we've done all the homework and responsive to what uh you what the board uh was was looking for with this application uh we will keep this brief we've got two witnesses here that you heard from last time first I'll have our architect Marina uh rabina go through the the changes and then we've got our engineer for the little testimony and he's also our planner um you heard him in our last application you just a few minutes ago or hours I suppose uh with last application we'll we'll make sure we get the planning proofs on the record um but um with that U Marina we've got um um Ryan I apologize I think Jim was going first no if we could just skip through these slides then to we uh Jim if you want to join me then for the uh zoning table here and then we'll get to your planning testimon at the end all right so just to summarize here as mentioned the three variants relief still lot area for a slight lot area reduction lot width and lot Frontage uh both similar and context and most importantly when we left I think um several board members of Mr Cohen asked us to get us as close to 36% imp page reducing it down from that 44 uh which we did as you can see on the table here um we've dialed in the heights of the building so that they comply and our f is 24.9 Which is less than a 25 total required everything else complies and Jerry I believe this is a new PowerPoint yes apologies well if we could mark this as uh A2 um many of the slides are we've all seen before but I think it be just easier to call something new and then here is just the summary we started last time at 44% and made a pretty significant reduction with the parking and the driveway Etc down to 36% Max for both Lots well by the way this should should be this should be A3 A1 A1 and A2 and then here on slide six we're highlighting the two subdivided properties um and as previously mentioned we were asked to flip uh put the u in the rear and have the single family Presence at the front so you can see the single family homes located at the front with pedestrian access uh to the front of the single family home as well as laterally to the driveway we're maintaining this common Shar driveway which also assists in that impervious coverage reduction uh we also reoriented the parking and Miss Wilson asked if we could possibly eliminate the garage at the rear um and any parking that faces the rear property line we eliminated the garages converted those to GRE that area to Green Space and then provided carports behind each of the single family units for two stalls and then also similarly outside of the carport a stall for each of the adus respectively on this slide too we were asked to relocate some of the utility trenching from the front of the property to the rear see if we could put some Utilities in the Central driveway Corridor to minimize impacts to um the peripheral area coming through and areas of trees Etc so we did um modify those utility trench locations especially down near that southernly or that property line at the bottom of the page where we have existing trees that'll be maintained so they've been adjusted as as was asked and then we also made some uh modifications and Incorporated um pervious pavement green infrastructure BMP for storm water management within the parking area in order to sort of consolidate and maintain the open space in the yards now you can see that the front yards we have a more traditional walkway to the front of each single family dwelling we don't have the rain Gardens that were previously proposed in the front but we still do have compliance for storm water management with this relocated BMP for the 36% impervious coverage on both lots and then on slide number eight this slide contains um number one the results of a site meeting that we had with staff we were asked to take a closer look at the location of the existing trees relative to the proposed buildings um and also their condition relative to what trees would be appropriate to maintain on the site um and with staff we actually went through each and every tree on the property uh and evaluated them and we prepared this table in the upper right hand corner which highlights uh each of the trees number 42 through number 59 um whether they're going to be removed or remain and then also the particular reasons for possible removal and you know we started uh with staff at the front of the property and we traversed and looked at each and every individual tree um with the effort of what would be the best case scenario and what trees um could we maintain and we have some ideas about potentially some trees that that could be maintained on the property um however there's a significant amount of trees and we've listed them here that um are in Decay um have codominant stems and that ultimately will result in um you know future potential of um tree fall Etc from those structural conditions and then other other disease conditions that we witnessed on various other trees and if there are specific questions we can certainly go through those together moreover along the frontage one of the concepts that seemed to ring true to us when we were in the field was that we have one of the large um Norway spruce that's at in the upper right hand corner or in the South westand corner of the site upper right hand corner there which is clearly in Decay um and has several years left as well we also have one Norway spruce in the central portion of the property just below the cursor there that would be removed as a result of its proximity to the driveway which really needs to be located there so that we can have one share driveway and not two um and then we have a condition there where we have these very old trees that are was identified basically at the end of their lifespan um you know with perhaps 10 or 15 years left for example um but then they would also be in serious de okay number one and then number two with the removal of two of the four trees along the front there was a bit of a concern of possible because of the shallow roots um increased wind load on those trees because they're no longer functioning together uh necessarily as one unit so in discussing it with the arborist and Mr Dober milski at the site the conclusion of of the site was if we could come up with um a detailed final Landscaping plan you know subject to landscape um committee review which included new robust sustainable um you know tree structure over a long period of time of Street trees coupled with um evergreen trees behind that within the front yard yet maintaining open space and some understory um vegetation there that that would likely be a superior condition for the Redevelopment of this property and for the maintenance um and preservation you know in an ongoing way uh for trees in the safest way possible on the property so if you look down on the lower property line at the bottom we're proposing to maintain all of those arbori along the property line and then in this particular area upon close review they're very um low foliage poor conditioned trees um which we thought could be replaced and supplemented you know and provide some buffering condition of that yard with the neighbor um if it was decided that we wanted a more enhanced buffer at that location um and we've included that within this final landscape plan recipe to the right of all of these particular points that would be included here um as we proceeded around the back we also proposed um evergreen trees along the rear property line and then these other green circles would be proposed uh deciduous trees basically just showing you that um with a final Landscaping plan we'll be able to provide the necessary number of trees that are viable um in a safe structural condition and in a non- diseased condition um that would be well suited for both of the structures on the cyp both the single family uh and the Adu and then to that end um we also discussed the Quant quantifying the overall number of replacement trees which is at this point uh 26 would be required and that could be established as a budget for the final Landscaping plan um that would be designed and approved by the landscape um subcommittee if this was approved based upon this particular modified layout which you guys are seeing all for the first time and we can focus um on the particular key areas on the property the frontage the top of the page with the privet hedge R and supplementing that the rear and the properties along the rear property line and then at the bottom of the page just as I spoke um those uh that arbiv area and those lower quality plantings that could be supplemented so I think the summary here is you know we we evaluate ated specifically those the conditions of the trees um and at the end of the day it seemed to be the consensus of the group was you know we can do better with um a robust tree replacement plan here as opposed to trying to maintain some structurally compromised trees um in different locations of the site and then we put together under the final landscape plan notes uh various specifics that the landscape subcommittee can f Fus sign as criteria for um that what would be a condition of approval here um Jim one one more thing here that that that site visit and the uh you know the understanding of of the condition of some of those trees I guess does that also give the uh some flexibility um as as to possibility of a of a sidewalk here on this side of the street I know it's it's it's in Princeton's plan and uh maybe a block away the pron will be installing it but uh with with the flexibility to reconfigure figure those trees was it create that as an opportunity perhaps to uh to insert a sidewalk where it might be useful in the future the future Street trees along the frontage and as that that's replanted that can be coordinated with a sidewalk to be installed there um and then also if there's grading that needs to be adjusted to make that happen this type of replanting of the frontage would facilitate that thanks Jim so Jim will return wearing his planner hat in in a few minutes but uh perhaps if if the board of professionals have questions for from a engineering or civil engineering perspective um that that'll be his testimony now um Our intention would be to go through architecture and then return to him in his planning capacity happy to take questions down uh David yeah um so one question regarding the sidewalk that we were just talking about um I mean I think that that's actually a requirement rather than I mean because if if it's uh denoted in our sidewalk plan I think when when you do a development like this it's required to put it in am I is that correct I'm not positive if that's an absolute Municipal requirement or not um I mean I I I think the sidewalk doesn't exist on either of of the property lines but certainly or the the adjacent properties currently but if that's a requirement you know certainly no objection to providing that Justin I saw you unmute yeah I believe that's only if it's a major subdivision application okay and I I did uh I'll address that I did have a comment in a few of these reports uh advocating for the sidewalks even though they'd be kind of sidewalks to Nowhere for now um after discussing uh with our own staff I think uh and you know I'm seeing this for the first time but this seems like a reasonable approach uh most likely if there were to be sidewalks on that side of viewing it would be done as a municipal project um you know it's not like we're going to see each and every one of these redeveloped uh so I think it's fair to do it this way okay but I would like to you know maybe show it as a phantom so that the tree locations for the street trees provide for that future installation of the sidewalk it's a great idea yeah the other the other um comment I just want to make and this is I know it's already been said but I really appreciate the applicant has essentially addressed every single comment uh that the board had the last time at least all the comments that I can remember and one of those comments was concerned about uh maneuvering space for the cars on the site and Jim didn't mention it in his presentation I think unless I uh uh uh dozed off for a sec but um even that uh concern has been addressed and and all of the cars have ample room to uh you know to um turn around on site and get back out on tuing Street uh front first which uh was something that was important so I wanna I want to recognize that yeah thank you and this tree summary table I know the original one was incorrect in a in a few ways I assume this has been updated and you know double and triple checked so that everything on here is correct in terms of tree species and location and size and everything yeah I apologize I did send my surveyor back out there and and and rename some of those trees I think there was one typo I think Mr Dober milsky pointed out where I had a Maple as nonnative but it is native so we'll fix that but um this is the latest and greatest and should be accurate you know for what we talked about last time um good and I I'm having a little trouble reading um part of the table so tree number 42 which is a 24inch caliper Oak does the table say that that tree is dead it's the it's the first one on the table uh it's diseased yeah and that that's over I guess on on top of the page in that top side yard correct and and because Oaks are so valuable it's not that one it's the one to the left of well where your cursor was it it's sort of in the middle of the and closest to the property line I think um so um that's one that stuck out to me depending on its health and condition that would be great to to retain it if it's healthy but you're saying that it's not so I you know I defer to people who have seen it in person and who are expert on these things um yeah okay and I tried to put the detail in this table to sort of explain the what you know in terms of their condition and the challenges with the shallow roots above grade and things like that so yeah uh other questions for Mr Kik before we move on seeing none um so are we going now to miss Rubina and then back correct then we'll finish with our we we because we weren't sure how many variances we'd have after the last meeting we didn't do our planning testimony so we will quickly get to that uh so Marina if you want to go to the next slide and and and show the board the uh um revised architectural design yes absolutely thank you um so I'm going to try to really briefly address other comments that were made um architecture related that we also addressed and modified and I think one of the comments that we heard is the desire was to reorient the site where the main homes would be located um near the street and then the duus would be located in the back so that they would be um essentially not visible so that from the street it would appear as if these are pretty standard modern scale homes um so this is a street view that indicates and we feel that what we're trying to create not only they're We Believe good-look homes but they're also trying to create a center welcoming um entry point to the site with the shared driveway which allows us to save space and Inter um save impervious coverage space and um kind of create a little Community um so this is the view from the other Sid so yes you will get a little glimps or peak of the Adu but it's substantially smaller and it's not dominating in any shape or form the street view so they wouldn't be creating um a detrimental effect on the street um and then this is a site cross-section which indicates what you would be seeing as you're on that shared driveway so at first um let me briefly look back so there's a walkway to the home if you know kids are walking to school or people are walking to work um and then Marina as you go through these slides if you could indicate what slide you're on yes so this is slide number 11 and um right here we have um steps that are leading to the front porch as well so you can go across and visit your neighbor um and as you proceed this is the view of the carport that's located behind um the main home this would be the space for the Adu car to be parked and then this is the Adu itself with the side door is the access to sort of our bike storage SL shed uh the next view is the reverse so if you're standing way at the back and you're looking at the street what we're trying to create is kind of a communal Central Courtyard and um as David mentioned everybody could turn around and exit facing forward but it it kind of create a central space for the people who are going to live there um and then as we um talked about and um the idea here is to create kind of a pin wheel design that although there's a communal Central cord um everybody has their private space um although it's not large but everybody got um a little covered outdoor space space and a place for a garden to be outside so this is the northern northern house before I get confused this is the main house in the front uh this is the Adu in the back and they also see so they're not looking at each other's windows so that they're all oriented so that they have privacy but this at the same time they're part of a larger complex thank you and then now we are back at the front where again as you're walking down the street you kind of get sort of a glimpse of something Beyond there but it's definitely not a major presence and you can kind of see here so yes the the homes address the street but you could also go across and you know visit your neighbors that way um if there are any questions for me I'm happy to um answer any Ryan Jim did I leave anything off or anything Justin when he started his uh his initial um description of the project talked about the 4,800 foot home that could be built here could you rem the board or just what size of the homes actually are designed uh now I think things got scaled back even further from the you know kind of modest homes that were presented uh initially quickly take the board through the the the sizing I suppose or what what uh yes so so the um the overall um air square footage of the homes is600 square feet and the overall square footage of the Adu was 788 um and there's no bonus here being provided so all of that area basically could have been lumped in one object of any shape or form so nobody's getting away with anything or getting any bonuses this is literally taking the same exact volume that was available and using it differently hopefully did I explain that correctly yeah but I just was thought it' be helpful them to hear though compared to the what could be built the size of the homes at about 1600 square feet as a comparison as when they hear the planning testimony about what you know would fit into the neighborhood necessarily correct and I didn't feel that it was necessary to go over the floor PL since you guys already have them in your packages and they're on the website but I have them in case anybody has a specific question I'm happy to pull them up and answer any specific question if anybody would like to see it one last one because I know there was some some question about it but ultimately you found a way to to to find some some uh kind of outdoor bike storage space in some of these uh units I'm not sure what you mean by outdoor space all right we do have indoor bike space thator yeah yeah you're getting confused no no no no so the adus are allowed to have a little place for bikes that is um allocated in the ordinance I think it's 48 that's right it's accessible from the outside but it's there's bike storage are yes thank you and if you remember I showed this is the door remember how I was saying that there's a little bike storage access yeah this is the door yep thank you okay great thank you Miss rabina I'm happy to answer any questions or comments show any questions from board members or staff for Marina Rubina architecturally speaking seeing none um are we going on to planning testimony now absolutely Jim if you wantan I'm happy to mute myself and Jim I'll just drive the slides as you need me all right great so we'll go to the next slide slide 16 so as I mentioned here the variances that we're requesting really relate to um two things one is lot area where we have a slightly undersized condition where 10,890 square feet are required in each of the New Lots we'll have 9,598 square F feet uh that would be a variance condition and then we have the width of the Lots which are characterized in two ways one is regular lot width and lot Frontage where 85 is required and we're providing um 67 uh for lot Frontage and change and 63.4 for 63.2 for a lot WID um on this particular plan in the next slide if you remember we did provide detailed testimony as to the um the context of the existing Lots specifically within this block and within the local neighborhood which are on the order of um 60 foot wide Lots uh and similar lot areas that were requested as part of this application so really lot 13 at44 square feet which is our lot as you can see it is an anomaly and the proposed lots that we are proposing will be more consistent with the neighborhood and will fit the forms um much better from a neighborhood context um with the plan that we're proposing relative to these two specific Lots so in terms of more detail on the next slide Marina you can see that lot 13 here where we're in excess of 13 UH 60 foot lot width and Frontage to the left you can see lots 15 and 16 all of these Lots here are 60 feet wide which are narrower than um the property that we're talking about tonight so this is further detail that um the shape of the Lots relative to the subdivision will fit the overall neighborhood context and what that'll do if you go to the next slide Marina as well is that that will also Drive the structures on the property um to fit the smaller lots that are in this particular neighborhood the result that that has is taking the overall allowable f um in excess of 4,000 square feet and separating that in smaller building forms and building mass that results in at least in our view um with less impact on adjacent properties relative to those uh forms of building Mass because they're separated and we have basically spaces between them as opposed to a large broad wall uh type structure across the property Frontage which would be less in keeping with narrower Lots um narrower structures and deeper structures which are sort of the Rhythm in the overall neighborhood when you take a look at um the aerial and the tax map so next slide okay so relative to the planning testimony just to hit some highlights on this um in the C2 context we see that these variances relate to this specific lot and this property and the physical characteristics of Lot 36 um excuse me of this lot in the R6 Zone we feel that it supports special reasons in the context of the purposes of zoning specifically e to promote the establishment of of appropriate population densities and concentrations that will contribute to the well-being of person's neighborhoods and the preservation of the environment we feel that the creation of two single family residential lots out of one large lot where the New Lots um are though slightly slightly substandard are still in character with other Lots in the area with respect to width and overall area this also provides an opportunity to include a permitted use uh of an Adu specifically advocated by the municipal ordinance and again that's not specifically related to the variants we're requesting because we're talking about the dimensional characteristics of the Lots but in the development potential and relative to the site plan approval that we're requesting separately as part of this application that opportunity for the adus which is desire of the municipality uh is included here so to that end Purp G to provide appropriate locations for a variety of residential uses to meet the needs of New Jersey citizens this will provide opportunities for a variety of housing types um as discussed in the overall ordinance and master plan to increase uh types of housing uh in the municipal housing stock it also has proximity to mixed use centers in this case the Princeton shopping center which is in very close proximity uh to the property along with public transportation uh and a bus stop within a tenth of a mile including other uh Transit opportunities at the Princeton shopping center so with this configuration the single family homes at the front and the adus in the back we feel at least as though it's a respectful infill development that will increase housing Supply uh and diversity um we also feel that the architectural plan the layout um the minimization of the impervious cover coverage and what Marina has come up with would support purpose I to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques good Civic design Arrangements that's um driven by the common driveway and the relationship between the New Lots and how they sort of function as a as a small community um and as I mentioned we feel that this will these lot configurations will reduce the overall scale because we have smaller housing forms on each of the two lots instead of something very large on a big lot as it relates to massing and lastly I think it it does support uh several elements uh related to the master plan in terms of um more broadly providing opportunities uh for adus to be incorporated uh into properties as as well as um through variance relief which may be required in order to facilitate the incorporation of uh of adus and this would provide a component also for the the so calleded missing middle component that was discussed uh in the master plan as far as the negative criteria we reduced the impervious coverage substantially provided a viable um green infrastructure element for management of storm water uh from a traffic perspective there was testimony given and I believe in the municipal reports that there's no substantial um impact from traffic because of the number of lots uh is is low the overall streetcape will be supported uh given the single family uh units now are located along the frontage uh so we don't see a negative um impact from that positioning and then finally as we mentioned it is consistent with many of the lot sizes uh and lots in the immediate area as Illustrated here on slide 19 that you're looking at so um in this case relative to the subdivision we feel that the positives um significantly outweigh the the negatives with the deviation of the the geometry of lot area lot width and lot Frontage from a planning perspective Jim perhaps two real quick questions for you one um this application was filed you know well before the the current master plan was was drafted or or adopted does your testimony um ring true or still um uh apply and with your familiarity of the original um or the PRI master plan as well yeah I I don't see any significant impacts uh to our project here thank you and and uh Mr leco has one U comment about the the staging here is your understanding that the the applicant does um somehow intend to and and has figured out a way to kind of do this all together um but uh but ultimately um at a time prior to um would be looking to uh for a condition that would allow uh demolition to be prior to the sale of the home uh or one of the individual Lots uh is that uh correct I know there'll be some discussion of that but ultimately uh be looking for the ability to perhaps keep the house as is following Perfection but a condition to um have the homes removed entirely prior to any lot being individually sold is that your understanding that's my understanding yes thank you if there any other questions for our planner uh Andor engineer or anyone else on our team happy to to uh to to entertain him now any questions for these Witnesses from board members before we go to public comment seeing none um let's move to to public comment so if you are um a member of the public and wish to speak to this application and now is the time to raise your hand um virtually and we will take speakers in the order in which hands are raised and um hold you to three minutes minut so I see three hands up so far um four so right now's the time good keep raising your hands if you're if you're gonna want to testify um uh let's see I see Mr bunting was brought over and also Mr Wahlberg I think we're gonna start with with Sam bunting is that correct was he first Carrie Carrie are on mute he was okay that is correct great so um Mr meller um Sam bunting has his camera on and uh his microphone on so you can swear him in now if you could raise your right hand it's raised could you swear or affirm testimony about to give be the truth I do speak please St your full name and state your last name Samuel bunting b u n t i n G and you you had not been previously sworn correct no have you been previously sworn on this application s i I have not actually okay great well basically it's a new plan isn't a revised plan so yeah I'm not gev yeah I'm not gonna deny people a chance to speak even if they've before so right um go ahead Mr bunting well I'm I'm a homeowner on Dempsey Avenue which is a few blocks away from the the applicant site I've been living there for 12 years and I'm also a family man with young children who are regularly walking and bicycling in the area uh I live in a conforming lot as well um and I would just like to say from the outset that I'm extremely enthusiastic about this application I commend the IOD Deli family for bringing this forward um I I I think that on balance the application could quite easily be passed B based on a zoning testimony what we're basically looking at here is a subdivision which will create Lots which are very much equivalent to other Lots which are already in the neighborhood so there is really no change to the existing character of the neighborhood there and then there are adus on each of the subdivided Lots which is a permitted use and I also see that the applicant has really gone to a quite substantial lengths to take account of previous recommendations suggestions and restrictions from the board and I think that's to be commended but uh going beyond that what I see here is something which is really very attractive because it provides uh these kind of small homes which many people would like because they are likely to be more affordable than other homes which exist in the neighborhood our neighborhood has now become a million doll property neighborhood even cheap properties here are not going for a million dollars I think back to when I was trying to move into Princeton with my wife and there was almost nothing for us we were very lucky to get in here when we did 12 years ago right now we would have no chance I also think about people like my own mother who after my father passed moved into an apartment but for various reasons she didn't like the apartment she wanted a little bit of outside space for herself and this kind of small home as is being proposed by the IOD delis would be ideal for somebody like that to downsize into after their children have grown so by providing those opportunities for a broader range of people to uh get on the property ladder and or to find properties which are suitable for them uh this application very much improves our neighborhood and in terms of negative criteria I really don't see a great deal of them I don't anticipate a very large increase in traffic I don't anticipate any threats to my children who are regularly walking and cycling in the area I see some very nicely designed new houses which will be a great home for some future neighbors who I welcome thank you to the IOD delis again thank you Mr buting um the next person is Paul Walberg and then an iPhone caller and then Michael Bell Mr Walberg can you um activate your camera please thank you madam chair he'd been previously sworn I'm not suggesting he should not be given a further opportunity but I don't think he he doesn't have to be re it does not have to be reworn okay great Mr Walberg you remain under oath okay thank you very much um I too live uh very close to the applicant uh we also have a child in in grade school and have lots of friends in the neighborhood we know Sam well he's a he's a good guy and he's very opinionated and he's and he supports his opinions and we appreciate that but there are a lot of people in the neighborhood that have that disagree with some of the things some not all of them but some of them many of us are opposed to this subdivision the first is that we think it would have been reasonable and More in line with our neighborhood to have had one house with one Adu we're worried essentially that what you're doing is squeezing four houses onto a lot that originally had one and we're thinking that you're planning on going farther with that in the future it's not just this house small houses are okay and we would prefer small houses and we recognize that large houses are what we might get when we don't want four small ones but we think there's a middle ground we think right now your average third acre lot is perfectly fine with one house and an Adu the Adu being much smaller and inexpensive just as just as Sam has explained so that there is a place for everyone but we don't need to have four houses we don't need to squeeze as many people as we possibly can into Princeton into our neighborhood so you can have a city okay we think it's perfectly fair to have one house and an Adu when you squeeze four families in you have four times as many cars people will park on the street people will be driving on the streets we had an accident yesterday two streets down with notion additional increase in density eing is a tiny Street if you have any cars parked on it it's hard to get around my friend was killed and if you want names I'll give you when I lived in a residential street in the middle of a city he was 11 years old and he was walking and he walked out between two cars parked on the streets and was killed so to tell me that there's no sense of danger at all is absolutely ridiculous fine your building structures will affect the environment I'm an environmentalist and I know what happens when you clearcut a lot I don't know where based on the pictures they gave us it shows where you're going to put 22 trees I'm guessing you're just going to let him pay and say you're going to put them somewhere else but you know what at the rate you guys are going there's going to be no left no place left in Princeton to put those trees because you're developing everywhere you've taken all the plots that are I'm being asked to calm down I'm very sorry but what you're doing is wrong fourth providing this variance will encourage future developers to ask for similar variances and those of you who think otherwise are wrong why wouldn't it everyone knows that the more houses you build on a lot the more money you can make the more money realtors make the more money goes to Town coffers the more it makes the planners that encouraged it for a growing Princeton they get to put on their resume they created a plan that encouraged Princeton to increase in size by four times this is of course outside the scope of what we're talking about here but we don't really think it is we think you guys are heavily invested in this because that's potentially where you guys want to go I do have to admit it's really need architecture what they've put together as a design for four houses looks really neat I commend that I commend all their efforts to try to do the best they can do but they're still putting four houses in when two would have been fine um finally we did have a petition with 45 members signing asking you not to do this I'm sorry Sam but most of us don't want it and you didn't let us read it and that's not fair either and then finally by doing this variance you are letting us you are making us excuse one of your Mr Walberg you're you're out of order because Mr mu needs to say something the reference reference to the petition should be ignored okay yeah I'm sure you will ignore it no he says the reference to the right you won't write it down so that your record don't show they 45 people just not something that the board um can legally consider yeah that really works to your advantage does your other that really works to your advantage you control three minutes you are everything Terry can you would you mute Mr Wahlberg please um thank you for your comments Mr wellberg we are listening um who's next I'm sorry I'm that would be the users's iPhone and then Michael Bell so the person identified as user's iPhone um you should turn on your iPhone camera and uh also unmute yourself should we go we C we can see you now um except like we're not going to be able to hear you because you're you're muted I'm getting messages that they declin to be promoted at this time no user see I see the iPhone so I see the users's iPhone I got it I'm good there you go okay it takes a while okay um have you been sworn in yet to speak about last time yes I did okay can you can you say your name again uh for the record uh Claire Baxter Bax t r that's right okay go right ahead oh thanks live two houses away and I my one huge thing is I'm a big person of trees there are four um spruce trees in the front and I go by there like every day and I look at them and they appear to be in pretty good health yes they're old growth but they're in good they look to be in great shape they survive every you know whatever we hurricane storm they seem to be great and unfortunat you know you put that Central driveway in they're gone but um it's a shame because they you can see those trees from far away they're beautiful and uh there's one at the end the little one is no good I I understand that one but it's a shame that you have to um do something about them um my other thing is when they redid Ying Street they did make it a little more narrow it seemed because it's a it is a pretty busy street I'm thankful for a sidewalk I walk my dogs there all the time and people still go flying along you know down the up and down the street my one concern is I think they didn't have like eight parking spaces they only have six which means probably two of the cars will be on the street and it is it is a tight Street and people you know they they still go whizzing down the street so I'm I'm a little nervous about that because they do they do that but uh those are my two big concerns so I hope you to address them thanks thank you Michael Bell should have been moved over already Michael Bell is is here and unmuted but uh Mr Bell can you um activate your camera please I did there we go yes you did and now yeah okay okay and I believe you've been sworn in before on this is that correct that is correct yes okay okay um concerning this proposal for 469 newing Street I reiterate my quotation of board members when approving the new master plan the plan is not going to open the floodgates to a complete Redevelopment of the town or the complete tear down of every building in order to build four unit buildings per acre this proposal is worse it is four units on 044 Acres as others have stated this board is ignoring existing zoning to the detriment of the immediately surrounding Community while I thank the board members for their concerns over the fate of trees I feel they should also give equal weight to the impacts of their actions on the people directly affected with respect to this proposed subdivision to create two non-conforming lots I quote my mother as I'm sure that board members could also do from their childhood two wrongs don't make a right populating each of these New substandard Lots with two houses is redoubling the the injury if you want an example of how this proposal will affect the streetcape in our neighborhood after the removal of 17 trees including those four stately Norway spruce defining that section look at the house and Adu by the same designer at the corner of levit Lane and fiser Avenue the plans talk of two-story main dwelling but without getting into technicalities about what's a story those are three story houses to anyone viewing them from mewing street I will not comment further except to say I would like to hear these applicants defend the single driveway shared by four dwellings on June the 25th appearing for the 479 Jefferson proposal Mr Kennedy stated that shared driveways do not always make great Neighbors how would good neighborliness be assured in this case when the parking is extremely crowded and deliveries service vehicles and visitors are factored in there's barely room for a small vehicle in the Adu parking space to back and turn to exit forward I did I looked at it for a 35t turning radius and it's tight if the chance of conflict between any two neighbors is only 20% in any given period the probability of conflict amongst four separate parties is 74% as a result parking on Ying street with its narrow 50ft right of way will increase traffic on Ying street is already frequently disrupted by on street parking of private cars and service Vehicles just ask the neighbors and the drivers of the school buses and the garbage and recycling trucks I would say more but my time is running low and so I will defer but my wife would also like to make some comments I believe and she should have equal opportunity sure we will we will certainly extend her three minutes Mr Bell could you could you translate the Latin for those of us who uh did not take Latin the the nearest one is there is no accounting for Taste okay thank you I um so uh your wife slash partner yes do I recall that her name is um Jane M yes her name is Jane mccardy and we are married okay I didn't I I mean and you said that but so um and you you have been sworn as well miss bardi is that correct I believe so yes yes you will Could you um spell your last name again please for the record the last name mccardy MC capital c a Ty okay thank you go right ahead okay um although many of the object objections raised at previous meetings have been addressed there's still several items of concern with this development the New Lots be created are below the size required in this Zone the applicant presented information about other lot sizes in the immediate area but they're very selective in what they included the neighborhood includes houses on both sides of Ying Street between turun and Kyler they did not include any houses from the other side of the tree Street six out of 14 of the houses are less than the required 80 foot5 ft wide two of these are 75 ft wide and both are greater than 0.25 Acres on the other side of viewing all six properties have Frontage of more than 83 ft and more than 27 Acres so the rationale given by the applicant is not convincing reason for a variance the lots are not conforming that are not conforming predated establishment of the zoning rules we should not be creating more non-conforming Lots also the number of cars the number of cars is listed as being six two for the main house one for the Adu for each of the Lots and I agree with what my husband said that it's unrealistic to think that the adus only have one car each and where the additional car is going to park on Ying Street Ying street is narrow has a 50 ft ride away does not have space for cars to park and still allow traffic to pass in both directions the applicants also claim that smaller houses allows them to be priced at or at or below the median so what will the selling price of these house for houses be will they really be bad or below the medium that has not come up in the discussions at all this subdivision sets a precedent for the neighborhood and other places in the community others would attempt to do the same thing especially lot 14 next door there are several houses that have larger property sizes and are not small as described by the applicant so they argument that having two additional small properties because they're are are already so many in the area does not sound logic these requests for variances are a way of changing the zoning without doing it formally it set pre sets precedence with departures from the zoning ordinances we're concerned about the changes to the neighborhood character we brought our house eight years ago because we like the neighborhood although it has changed some which we expected this subdivision and development to put four houses where there had previously been one is an adverse change which will increase traffic parking on Ying Street and the density of houses it will set a precedence which others will follow thank you thank you Miss mccardy okay the next gentleman to speak is VJ magnani and then Nick doio okay okay hello everyone um hello have you been sworn already uh have you given testimony on this application before no I haven't then uh Mr Muller needs to swear you in you can raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that testimony you're about to give will be the truth yes so one or airm please State your full name and spell last name thank you so um I Mr magani I'm sorry to interrupt but uh Mr Mueller asked if you would State your full name and spell your last name for the record please absolutely so my full name is Vijay manani the last name is spelled as m a n g h n a n i thank you so much go right ahead all right so um I live in 464 Ying street right across the street from 469 Ying with with this proposal is coming from um and I'm good friends with u the IOD family um when they were neighbors um you know definitely had very cordial relationships with them um so I and I fully support their desire to uh build something new in that lot um however I am concerned with the current proposal which takes uh a lot and where there's a single family house and makes four uh properties there uh and I Echo the sentiments that were shared by Michael and also um some other um you know Neighbors in this community um I have two kids who are high school um who go to the middle school and the high school here and they often Bike to School uh I'm concerned that you know the high density uh in this neighborhood will increase uh the number of cars uh I agree I have seen how constrained um the street can be it's not that broad um and um when there is a car parked on one side of the street uh it's it becomes difficult um for traffic uh there's a lot of TR traffic that goes through the street as it comes down uh from uh from the main Ying Street Road from 206 and and Beyond um so I am concerned about the traffic part of it I fully support um you know a single house with an Adu I think Adu in general is a good idea but I I'm concerned that um having four law four houses in the same uh space where currently there's one house um increases traffic uh it will definitely affect free canopy in this neighborhood which is also a concern um and U you know one of our neighbors brought that up but you know I'll I think for me the bigger concern is um changing the nature of the neighborhood from what's walking friendly biking friendly uh for me and my family and especially my kids uh to something that becomes less so um and you know I'm more concerned about the risk that it will put to them thank you Mr magnani um Nick didio Mr yes okay Nick um could you and then Dale me okay good bring over Dale me hello um welcome Mr D demesio um I think Mr Mueller needs to swear you in if you have not yet spoken you haven't yet have you okay good go ahead Jerry if you could raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth yes I want to Refirm please State your full name and spell your last name my name is Nick diio uh ni i k and last name is D is in David i d is in David O M is in Mary i c is and zebra i o great go right ahead okay thanks I'll keep my comments brief um but uh so I I live um on Nassau Street I live in a multi-unit um there's actually four units in it so it's an interesting comparison um I will say first and foremost I know that cars is always a concern that people bring up when it when it comes to new housing but I I do want to speak in defense of it that that's a biggest assumption um you know in in the place where I live currently um not everyone has a car and I know Ying is a little bit far away from the downtown but I still think it's very bikable and furthermore for people living in adus I think um they might be more in a restricted budget or they might find that that having a bike is more attractive so I just I do want to you know take that with the grain of salt when we talk about cars that not everyone wants a car I think in the ideal world you know people actually like to bike and walk um the other thing is I really really like the design of this I think that it's a really great compromise when you think about what the Alternatives could be you know a lot of people get concerned about really high dwellings um where you have a lot of multiple units and then I think in the most recent um uh survey of the town a lot of people Wanted single family homes on a plot and I think this really gives you a nice option of both where you know you're in a highdensity dwelling but you still have your sense of okay this is my own yard and the one thing I don't have currently and I really really miss so I think that this is really a great compromise um and we're currently in a housing crisis so you know I just think that we need to do more work now to prepare for that because it's only going to get worse and I know that you know fitting four um units on one lot is really not ideal but from what I've looked at it really looks like it Blends in it provides lots of green space and like I said you know not everyone is going to have a car um and the last thing I just want to note is I really appreciate this design because you know some other homes that I've seen built that are new built have like a giant garage right in the front and it's so anti- Community Building like when you have a home like that you know you don't have a front porch you're not waving to your neighbors it's just like look at my garage and this actually encourages it if not it mandates it you know all the homes are surrounded by this common area and I just think we need more of that so that's the end of my comments thank you thank you okay the next person to speak is Mr me Dale me and then Paul furbus okay Mr me um you have been sworn before is that correct yes yes I have great thank you go right ahead okay uh I would like to talk about the um appropriate ordinance that governs uh adus in the township the appropriate ordinance number is t10b 266 division 3 section L permitted uses including Adu let me word read from this word for word except as set forth herein and in subsection 10 b255 c3h above a detached accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the bulk required environments pertaining to accessory structures for the zoning District in which it is located except that in no case shall the distance between the detached accessory dwelling unit and the habitable portion of the principal single family dwelling be less than 5 ft and now the forgoing notwithstanding adus may be constructed on any undersized lot in existence as of July 1st 2020 provided the proposed development complies with all other applicable bulk requirements for the district in which the property is located so let me emphasize that point again adus may be constructed on any undersized lot in existence as of July 1st 20 and so this was put in place when the uh ordinance was passed ad ordinance was passed in July 1st 2020 and it is written in a way that allows only those lots that were inexistent undersized Lots were that were in existence as of July 1st to have an Adu we are now looking at a situation where we have two lots 1301 1302 they were not in existence in July 1st 2020 and by this reading of the um ordinance as written in the code book of Princeton if you've ever looked at that it's an interesting exercise these lots are not allowed they are not um permitted in uh this particular case since they were not in existence in July 1st 2020 on the other hand the original lot lot 13 it was in existence and you can put a house and an Adu on that lot but not if you subdivide them so that's my reading of the ordinance I've asked U Justin to provide copies in a memo I sent him on uh June 20th for all members of the panel so they could see this because I think this provides a very clear statement as to what the desires were for the township when they made this ordinance up in July 1 yeah 2020 understand uh understand the argument that you're making and um our zoning officer is here tonight and can speak specifically to the um to the issue that you raised um do we have any other members of the public who have not yet spoken Fus Mr furbus okay um and then we have one more after that um it's it's well after 11 o'clock um we typically um uh not typically we make it make make it a rule uh to the extent we can to stop at 11: I want to finish with public comment tonight for certain um and um so I want to hear from Mr furbus uh and then Serena Connelly after that um and we will um uh address the question that Mr me raised um and then I'll take the board's temperature on how late um folks are willing to go in order to um finish up tonight so Mr furbus have you been sworn already on this no okay so Mr meller will swear you in go ahead Jerry do you swear or affirm the testimony about to give will be the truth I do tell us one to airm please St your fullone name and spell your last name okay I'm Paul furbus last name f iir d as and I live on 461 u in Street which is really next door so I'm good friend of the applicants and I'm I'm very happy to see see that the initial project has developed into something more manageable uh and my first major concern really was and this is also uh I talk about this a lot with my neighbor uh because we suffer a lot from from the runoff from the water really that floods our our uh basements so I'm happy to see that the imperious surfaces uh have been reduced I think that makes a enormous difference to my uh to the impact it will have this project in my in my property but I still I'm a bit concerned about uh the parking issue and the fact that there will be a lot of cars right next to my house you know moving entering coming in coming out it's not like uh having a regular neighbor I'll have like suddenly four neighbors because it's just one drive way and you know certain amount I don't know how many cars uh I'm not assuming that all people will necessarily drive cars but it will be it will change a little bit uh the way my everyday life uh is experienced I mean that happens I I understand that things happen in life but uh this is also I guess a good moment to reflect a little bit on how much further do we want to go for example is it a good idea to uh allow more subdivisions I mean how smaller should the plots uh become in in a neighborhood like this um I'm I don't know I don't have a an answer to that but we see a lot of uh new developments developments going on next to the shopping center for example and I think we would like to uh some of us would like to reserve a little bit of the nature the kind of a living structure that we have in neighborhoods like like E Street uh well that's all thank you very much and thank you Mr furbus thank you good luck to everybody thanks uh Ser already moved over Serena con Connelly yep thank you for that um I think you need to be sworn is that correct Miss Connelly yes I think so okay go ahead jury you swear or affirm that testimony about to give will be the truth I do so sworn or affirm please State your full name and spell your last name Serena Connelly C NN o l l y thank you members of the planning board thank you for the opportunity to speak I am opposed to the subdivision of 469 Ying Street a recent staff report on this application notes that in land use decision considerations including and I quote the existing zoning patterns of development an impact on the neighborhood and adjacent properties end quote must come into play this application is markedly different from patterns of development on the other side of Ying which were ignored in the planner's presentation that's where single homes on larger lots are the norm and the impact the four houses will have on the neighborhood and adjacent properties would be significant in terms of drainage noise and traffic these have been concerns raised in just about every public comment you've heard this evening the staff report also notes that quote those homes individually or in totality should not overwhelm the site or the neighborhood end quote these four dwellings would certainly overwhelm the site it's a non-conforming lot after all that's being sought and they would overwhelm the neighborhood too where will the cars go will they always be parked in the carports will the adus always have only one car each I doubt it cars will be parked on the street and you've already heard the concerns from several of the neighbors who are adjacent to this property and right now I worry about the removal of trees to make way for these homes surely we should be adding more trees on Ying not removing them hot spells like the one we're in right now are going to become more common more homes more asphalt and fewer trees are going to make these hot spells feel even worse so please make a decision here to support the environment and to respect the stated and near unanimous interests of the neighborhood please members of the planning board vote not to approve the subdivision thank you for your time thank you Miss Conelly um we have a new person just raise their hand it's another iPhone caller okay bring bring that person over if it's the same iPhone um we will not hear again but I'm assuming it's different it's different different hi thanks for activating your camera and uh and unmuting yourself have you spoken to this application yet I believe I have okay would you repeat your name and spell your last name for the record sure my name is Hillary perski last name is spelled p as in Pam E rsky okay I cannot be as articulate as many of my neighbors um I also oppose the subdivision at least to the degree of four properties although I do see many things I respect about the design um and I'm interested in the as somebody else mentioned the asking price for these smaller properties um I'm also concerned about the loss of the trees I live very close by at 100 Kyler Road um I can see the property from my own I am also concerned about the increased traffic I'm also concerned about the precedent that's being set for this degree of subdivision and this number of houses on these single properties and I'm very interested in the comment that was mentioned before about how the master plan approval wouldn't sort of open the floodgates to this kind of subdivision I'm I'm interested in um hearing from the planning board um about that particular question as this appears to be oh I'm sorry I don't I don't think he was sworn in that actually so I'm going to sway in right now and then you can continue I'm sorry to interrupt you okay oh that's quite that's quite all right I I think oh yeah my notes don't show you is somebody who's sworn in that's okay that's okay if you can raise your right hand okay you SAR affirm testimony you have given and will give will be the truth yes I do so sworn or okay sorry about the interruption we'll let you go a little long if you need to go ahead oh that's quite all right I I don't have very much to add but I'm very very interested in hearing from the board uh about the question that was posed about you know the frequency of these subdivisions and setting a precedent um for this kind of development [Music] um and I think that's all I have to say and I appreciate um how articulate my neighbors have been thank you thank you okay I don't have anyone else with their hands raised um last call any members of the public who wish to speak to the board and have uh --------- tonight made if you could raise your hand not seeing any so I will close the public comment portion of the hearing um so it's 11:17 um we I we definitely need to ask Derek to speak to the um zoning question that Dale me raised Derek can you do that yes Madam chair thank you um yeah I believe it's uh the town instituted the Adu ordinance to promote adus they made them much more easily to easy to construct on a site um I think the prohibition against a certain or the grandfather clause was a grandfather clause that allowed non-conforming lots to be able to have adus if they complied with the bulk requirements um but I don't think it was intended to stop adus on non conforming Lots going forward or newly created non-conforming Lots I don't think that was the intent of the ordinance I think uh the town wanted to promote them they've done a lot of work they've made several amendments to the ordinance to make these uh less owners for people to put on their site so I don't think that was the intent of the ordinance um and I respect Dale's opinion he's a very smart guy but I have a different opinion in this case um thank you Mr Bridger David Cohen so I also and I I don't really know what the answer is to this question but if undersized if some undersized lots are allowed to have adus and other undersized lots are not allowed to have adus that seems to me like unequal Justice and I guess it's a question for Jerry uh as as much as anything is whether that's a proper you know something that an ordinance can do is to you know to to uh discriminate between two equal pieces of property and say this one can and this one can't it's very good question um of course Derek is the one who's who was called upon to to make these interpretations and judgments although the final decision rests always ultimately with the board um but it's a it's an interpretation that uh it certainly can be subject to challenge um yeah so that actually leads to my second question which is uh are we able to Grant relief in case it's needed on this on this issue in other words um Can the board choose to or or because it wasn't noticed uh Would we not be able to grant that relief I don't think it had to be noticed and I think the board can grant the relief although it's it's an open question but my view is the board can do that okay and would it be a good idea for us to to do that from a a prophylactic uh Viewpoint well well like Derek said the that section that was referenced was put in to allow for existing non-conforming lots to not have to go to the zoning board essentially it does not say and ones made you know created after that cannot do it you know it affirmatively says those that previously existed uh don't need to which it you know in discussions with the municipal attorney uh it probably doesn't even need to say that but just to make it clear uh so it wouldn't have been challenged that way that part was added in so I think it might be a little uh while it might be the more uh you know precautionary route I think it might be unnecessary to do something like that thank you I would not think that it would necessarily follow that you if you're grandfathering backward you would not permit same condition or this you know the same thing going forward I mean I think it I'm I guess I'm just repeating what you said but if the if the intent was not to allow it then then it would have been said would it not I mean Louise could I just say two things one you know David and I were very involved obviously with crafting every word the of this ordinance so I can confirm that that was not Our intention um however I I agree with Derek you know Dale is you know um very smart person um but he's not an attorney and and Dale you know if if what you raised you know was an issue um you know that can uh it obviously was taken up with the uh planner um and the the zoning officer to Jerry's Point makes the ruling here and the zoning offer zoning officers made that ruling so I don't know why members of the board are continuing to question the zoning officer's ruling the zoning officer made a ruling for us then to be engaging in prophylactic actions based on a legal hypothetical by a member of the public is not does not set a beneficial precedent for the board it would um uh yeah Point Tak something it would be would hijack our hearings on a level that I think is is not a dire we want to go into um that said you know Dale to your point you know we we will uh look into making sure that um you know that the that that is is is button down but I can confirm that that was not the intention okay and I think we should respect um DK's protocol which is what we're is the appropriate protocol for this setting so okay um so uh would the B would let's let's at least start the board discussion um here I think there were a few other things that were raised in public comment that I think are worthy of um the applicant responding to um a number of people referenced the trees along the front of the property and I know the testimony was that those trees are um very close the end of their expected lifespans I'm wondering whether um uh the determination I guess this is for um uh Mr cik and also dander ber milsky and Dan Weissman if if you were part of this conversation um was it determined that those trees um could not be uh saved with the driveway located where it is um and that the remaining trees if a couple were to be um removed would be more vulnerable to to toppling over is that what iall your testimony being yes ma'am anything to add to that Dan Dober milski no I think Jim's testimony was accurate I think it's the part of it was that they they are very mature trees and there there's always the potential trees of that size could get blown over especially those types of trees um but it was more that the construction activity that would be occurring with the utilities and the driveway it was such that it just they would be very risky at that point they would be rendered very risky trees most likely to to blow over in large storm or or heavy wind um some of them did have other issues diseases or and such um so in combination all those factors is such that we just couldn't find a way to even try to preserve one of them uh with in any way that would work um that's what the analysis brought out um thank you and I recall uh another member of the public um questioning whether um uh the required number number of replacement trees could be fit on the property I think I recall seeing early in your presentation um a a rendering that showed where all uh the full complement of place uh replacement trees would be planted it did yeah we represent that image represent the full number of whatever 27 20 I can't remember what the number of replacement trees was yes okay um yeah what we suggested was that I mean this this is a a very sophisticated design and and um but it really deserves to have a real landscape plan for the people that are going to live here um and such and so the thought was rather than just have a formula where it says you have to put 26 trees back what they need to do is have someone design landscape for these spaces and and that's why the the notes were added to the plan saying that they proposed to do that um and that they use that 26 tree count as the starting point of a budget as to what they would be willing required to do well I just want to say that one one of the several things that I find appealing about this plan is that the as of right use of the the property a very very large home much larger than uh others or most others in the neighborhood um could be built without any oversight of tree removal or tree replacement um and uh and with this um plan the tree replacement is um required and guaranteed and so you know I I'm just throwing that out there um Mr Cohen yeah I just uh Tech from a technical standpoint this landscape plan if I remember this application is a a minor site plan so a landscape plan is not ordinarily required for a minor site plan correct correct okay so yeah I just wanted to make sure that in this case we're not um for instance uh denying the public an opportunity to review the landscape plan that they would ordinarily have we're not sort of granting a variance by saying that we're we're accepting this application without the landscape plan and referring it to the landscape subcommittee we're we're just uh doing what's appropriate for a minor site plan correct yeah that's correct and if if we do entertain a motion to approve this um a condition certainly would be um uh visit to the landscape subcommittee and um you know subject to that uh review and approval um Mia I just wanted to address um a couple things that that the neighbors said um and um you know uh Vis the master plan and I think uh there was a question about the connection between this application and the master plan and um I think it's important for the the public to understand that um subdivisions have existed in Princeton we actually have elevated them to a more formal and more um rigorous level of scrutiny by bringing them to the planning board they used to for many many years in Princeton they just came to a subcommittee the planning board um it was much easier to get a subdivision in the a subdivision in the past this has nothing to do with the master plan this is a a a a uh basic uh you know action under the mlul that happens in every town in the state of New Jersey um and in in the whole country it has nothing to do with the Princeton master plan and in fact Princeton has had adus for quite a few decades um the town has not become overrun the the only thing that the Princeton's Adu ordinance did was as part of our consolidation to come up with Consolidated standards for adus that do make them uh um somewhat do eliminate some of the obstacles but again you have to build within the existing permitted F so it is not like you are going to be um creating a a larger form of the built environment um they previously were known as um Flats in the former Township and secondary uh dwelling or secondary residences or dwelling residences in former burough so um you know this both of these things subdivisions and adus have existed for a very long time in Princeton many many years before the the master plan um I do know there is a a group and some individuals that have been going around this neighborhood and trying to um connect those two and and and I would say in a very trumpy and fashion to create fear and anxiety among um you know it it really um is really unconscionable to be creating fear particularly among some of the older residents some of them are you know parents of friends of mine that I grew up with and and it is just so unfortunate to cause that level of fear I think that there are many things in our world that are quite scary right now and many things that we are facing in this country imminently that um are indeed quite scary I do not think that adus and subdivisions rise to that level and I think you know let's keep things in perspective and and keep things factual in terms of the history of the built environment in Princeton um all of that said um I want to thank the IOD delis for hanging in there and being so patient um it can't be easy um to um hear some of the things that you've heard and I'm sorry if you don't um I hope you still feel welcome in your neighborhood you're certainly welcome in our community and what you've contributed is a model of inclusion which is what we're striving for um we don't want to put a gate around our town and keep people out and I think you are making it possible to um create some dwellings smaller dwellings that hopefully will create a small community with you in on on your property it sounds um I I'm optimistic that it it will benefit you and and your neighborhood and I really as as some others have said before me I'm so um appreciative of everyone involved in this application the attorney um The Architects the planners um for for for hanging in there and and most of all the applicants um um and and um making so many revisions and being so conscientious in uh listening and responding to the feedback from this planning board which is ideally how a process like this should work that is interactive over quite a few years um and I would very much like to approve this application tonight I think that we've we've um tortured these applicants for long enough and I I would I would like to approve their application tonight oh thank you Mia um I do um appreciate uh everything that you said and um I want to address one other thing that a couple of people brought up um and that is the the notion that the the map of the neighborhood with uh comparable Lots highlighted uh was somehow you know an exercise in cherry picking uh the lots to compare to and to me it it was just the opposite it showed where lots that are comparably you know have comparable Frontage or are comparably sized are located it did not uh in in any way um hide the fact that the Lots across the street are are not like uh the Lots on on this side of the street and so it just enable the board to look at the sort of bigger picture um which I which I for one appreciated and I just echoing um some of what MIA said the the kinds of changes that this plan incorporates the 36% maximum impervious cover which is s substantially lower than was earlier uh proposed the 25% maximum F again substantially lower um uh is just really important the the flipping the flipping of the homes even after the the first concept reviews suggested we might want to see the smaller homes in front and then it was like oh no maybe not you know anyway um I too very much appreciate the all the work that's gone into trying to be responsive um and um uh so are there other I would invite now the board to board members to express your views uh about this and then hopefully uh entertain a motion um and then go through conditions of which there are uh would be several if there is a motion to approve but first I want to give folks a chance to um Express your opinions Nat I just wanted to Echo me as comments and say that I would also like to approve this tonight and also hopefully before I have to get up for my six o'clock flight tomorrow morning hopefully you hope you hopefully you're one of those people that can sleep on airplanes um hopefully Julie Julie capoli um yeah I also have to get up at six um before six um yeah I think that the amount of control we have on this application gives us a huge amount of benefit compared to not having any control at all and I think the ultimate result is a is a much better situation than if had we had just left it with no application at all so I support it thank you um pauka um I want to thank the applicant for being so responsive to the board's comments and coming back with I think is what is very fine design um for the site and as a member of the landscape subcommittee I look forward to um working with you on that plan as well um I also want to say just looking at the lots and in that area and what's going on with housing development in that area and how many of the smaller older one-story houses are being replaced looking at what's replacing those houses as there's turnover I think this is an excellent model for an alternative vision for how that whole neighborhood can develop in the coming generation thank you PA David Cohen and this is a very anticlimactic comment but I just wanted to talk a little bit about traffic and one thank you people to think about their own driving habits you know we have out of our driveway three four five trips a day not more than that I mean much less than once an hour and so somebody did some math and was sort of suggesting there were all these opportunities for conflict with the added traffic having these four units on the site I really think it's still you know it might be two trips an hour uh you know instead of one trip every two hours it's it's the the traffic impact if you really think about the way that you and your neighbors Drive is will be un undetectable that's my my feeling about traffic here thank you um other other thoughts from board members I just want to say I I did find the the planning testimony to be persuasive the um the points that were made about the context um the fit of smaller structures as opposed to uh a very large structure structure the um the permitted use of adus the reduced impervious cover in responsible storm water management um again I just I find persuasive and um so I just wanted to put that on the record um are there if there are no other comments would someone like to uh make a motion Miss sax I would like to make a motion to approve and I also just want to say I thanked everybody but not the engineer Jim thank you you actually soldiered through two applications tonight you were really quite a trooper thank you so much um anyway yes motion to approve uh and is there a second seconded by Mr odonnell um Mr uh Mueller let's go through conditions okay and and if I may could I ask uh Justin uh there was a uh section in his memo was in the prior memos about uh the sequencing uh of of events um he was concerned about basically having a subdivision approved and even perfected while there was a house right in the middle of the lot L um and the Justin's thinking uh as I understand it was and it it seems to me there was a real basis for it is you should have the house demolished to start with then have the subdivision would be at the point where it could be perfected um and go from there but I note in their um testimony they talked about a um um basically the U not not using that and basically perfecting the subdivision and um only requiring demolition after one of the Lots was built Justin do you want to comment on that uh that would not be possible doesn't make sense uh no obviously the homeowners are living in this house so we want to make sure they could continue to do that um I remember this coming up at the concept review just to make sure there wasn't a case where uh they subdivided and then something happened and now you have two lots running through the middle of a house uh so whether that's a note um on the plat or or uh you know something else uh I was hoping the attorneys would know the answer to that one so if if I could just to the the kind of the rub here is that the not that we'll think it'll take this long but this is a site plan approval and that's a two-year time frame and the time to uh perfect the subdivision is 185 days um so the and since these folks live there the hope would be that we would um be able to perfect the subdivision but the condition of demolition would run with selling uh one of the units so as long as they owned both of them commonly they could live there and not have to demolish the house but would have to demolish it before selling one the a lot independently um of the other uh that way they would have the time to uh put their financing uh together uh and and likely the the terms of that could be um confirmed either a note on the deed as as you suggested Justin or uh perhaps a part we have to do a an easement agreement as well for the common uh driveway that could be a function there but the idea is to you know to fix that gap between the two years for the site plan and the the rather quick trip to the county clerk's office in 185 days to to perfect does that work for you Mr Muller yeah that works for me yeah so you'll need to just pay attention to that particular well not that you don't pay attention to wording but that's a sequencing issue that that should obviously be reflected in the as a condition right along with the 36% maximum impervious coverage the 25% maximum F the review uh of the landscape subcommittee and landscape architect and Municipal arborist um I'd like to also include a condition that the landscape plan should consist of all Native species and include buffer and screening plantings as were shown in their concept it's not a concept it's a site plan but it's subject to approval and Madam chair I don't know if you if this needs to go in the condition but showing that ghost sidewalk uh yes yes right and Justin that's a reference to David's phantom um sidewalk uh that's correct yeah yeah I think that's fine okay so since we're since it's a site plan approval too there's no chance that the parking which right now was behind the dwellings would be moved to the front of the dwell does it make my point is does it make sense to have a condition that the that the parking be behind the um main front dwelling the way they're the way it's shown now on the plan I think or is that not necessary because we're approving the site plan right I okay all right I think one of the conditions actually is that um the site plan must be modified consistent with A3 which is what they showed what they showed us tonight okay right and then there are a whole um list of conditions uh in the um supplemental engineering and Zoning report on pages two and three yes yeah absolutely you'll just include all of those we don't need to I don't think we have to go over read them all out right now I think so um and then Madam chair if I could just uh Mr meller uh there's one condition uh I included staff comments from the previous staff report uh with that supplemental memo the one staff comment that I did not carry over but was intended to be carried over was uh the comment regarding the construction cost estimate for the installation of site improvements for the purposes of performance fond and inspection guarantees or inspection fees and performance B excuse me okay thank you thanks Dan other conditions just if you could bear with me let me yep just looking at the um okay uh Dan um Gober milski in terms of your report which is June 12th is there anything we have to add from that um I think they mentioned the comment number two about just correcting the the native species of the Red Maple and um comment number three was just if the ring Gardens are still required that that should be included in the landscape plan that's great and then we had a lengthy Memo from um the arborus dated March 5 2024 obviously things have changed since then it's very lengthy I don't know that there's anything in there that we need to put in especially because the landscape plan is now going to go to the um uh to the landscape committee I just yes the standard tree protection Zone comments that you typically would have for the trees on the edges yeah sorry to interrupt no no I'm glad you said that and the um the condition to meet with landscape um or you know to get approval from the landscape subcommittee should include um not only Mr Dober milsky but also the municipal arborist at that meeting okay which is just a belt and suspender approach y yeah and the L plan should also be subject to their approval I take it right yes okay I think that's it okay thank you um that was uh moved by miax seconded by Owen O'Donnell um Carrie would you give us a roll call vote please Mr bimer yes Miss cazi yes Mr Cohen yes Mr McGowan yes Miss Nuka yes Mr odonnell yes Miss pearlmutter yes Miss saxs yes Mrs Wilson yes motion Carri wait wait Jerry did you isn't that 10 people I need I can't nine is my maximum we have 10 members so Claudia was not eligible oh you you did not I'm sorry I thought you you mentioned her it's did not call on Claudia Claudia Wilson Anderson is hanging in just to be a trooper thank you Claudia both David Cohen David Cohen and Owen oall o odonnell were eligible last the last meeting they listened to the previous recordings okay right okay or however it worked out we've had okay well um thanks everybody I really really appreciate how late you were willing to stay tonight thank you IOD deles um for your forbearance as well and for the many steps you took to address the board's and neighbors um comments and concerns um really really appreciate it um we meet again a week from tonight um see you then uh David move to a Jour second I all in please say I I I and goodbye good night good night have a good night