good evening and welcome this is a regular meeting of the Princeton planning board on Thursday July 18th 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 8 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 17th 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 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 should virtually raise your hand by clicking on the reactions button or raise 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 three minutes will be interrupted inappropriate public comment containing obscenity hate speech or relating to matters not before the board will be muted harri would you call the role Please Mr bimer here miss capoli here Mr Cohen Mr mwan here miss Nuka here Mr odonnell here miss Pearl mutter here miss Sachs Mr Taylor here Miss Wilson Anderson here Mrs Wilson here we have a quorum thank you um any announcements tonight from staff or members of the board seeing none um oh excuse me actually sorry the uh yes Madam chair the yesterday the uh site plan committee met right next on the agenda subcommittee reports so I perfect jump the gun I know that our our committee chair is not with us tonight and Justin who might otherwise give the report is conflicted so turning to Ian Henderson for a report from the site plan committee sure thanks so the site plan committee met yesterday to discuss 300 Witherspoon Street uh so modifications of an approved application uh were classified as minor uh with conditions that are going to be subject to review in the future by the board okay good um next up any other subcommittee reports I don't think so right okay um next up we have an ordinance referral this is ordinance 2024 D30 this is a Redevelopment plan for Princeton Theological Seminary properties block 351 Lots 25 and 26 and block 3601 Lots 15 16 and 17 and U even though I just had comments in the opening statement I'd like to jump in before we hear from our our planners um and offer a warm welcome to Joe maraziti um of maraziti Falcon Joe is the planning board's special counsel for redevelopment he is one of the most skilled and EXP experienced and respected environmental and Redevelopment attorneys in New Jersey he's a leader and driving force in the field a recipient of awards that recognize not only legal chops and expertise but also Statewide impact leadership integrity and ethics and judgment so Joe so glad you're you're on our side here we uh we I I I know Joe from you know many planning conferences and other um we've crossed paths as as many of us uh on the screen probably have um and I just I'm happy to have you uh with us tonight Joe thank you thank you very much I appreciate that kind invit okay and invitation and um after we after I say a few remarks and thanks for your patience listening to me um I'll turn to Joe um to say a little more about our specific task tonight and Jim Kyle will then um present to the board Jim is a founding principal of Kyle mcmanis Associates a planning firm based in hopwell he is Princeton's Redevelopment planning consultant and has worked with Princeton Council and Municipal staff to create the Redevelopment plan and after Jim's presentation the board will have a chance to raise questions and discuss what we've seen and then we'll hear comments from the public on the Redevelopment plan's consistency with Princeton's master plan we'll observe our usual three minute limit and ask members of the public to introduce themselves however this is not a public hearing and therefore we will not swear in those who choose to speak uh we are hearing comments and not sworn testimony the public hearing on this plan will happen before for Council um next week uh July 22nd so to members of the public when the time comes um please understand that the board can only consider comments that relate specifically to consistency of the Redevelopment plan with the community master plan um as the planning board is aware the board is being sued by a local group led by individuals who live right close to the Redevelopment area that the focus of our ordinance referral tonight and during public comment the board will likely hear from residents involved in one way or another with the ongoing litigation and that is perfectly fine um the fact of the litigation or the threat of further litigation is not at all relevant to our task tonight we are just considering whether or not the Redevelopment Plan introduced by council is substantially cons consistent with Princeton's Community master plan and designed to effectuate the plan nothing more than that and nothing less so now I'll turn things over to Joe maraziti to amplify or expand or correct anything that I have said uh from a legal perspective Joe no no need to correct a thing thank you again Madam chair I I thought it would be helpful for the for the board and also for interested residents to just step back a little bit uh to put in context uh the role tonight uh the Redevelopment plan has been referred by the governing body uh to the planning board for its review in terms of whether it is substantially consistent with the master plan or is designed to effectuate the master plan that's the focus uh a a comment about a Redevelopment plan a Redevelopment plan under the law only need be an outline of what the concepts are uh for the Redevelopment area it can be more than that and this plan is much more than that as much more thorough but the Redevelopment plan once adopted if it is adopted I don't want to make any presumption about that once a Redevelopment plan is adopted the next step is for the negotiation of a Redevelopment agreement with a designated redeveloper that's where all the details of the uh project including the design and and and every aspect of infrastructure uh and a dis a complete description of the project and a schedule of when things will happen will be fleshed out so what's before the board tonight is a a a very uh a consigned and and and limited task to determine the substantial consistency with the plan so this is a function that is not typically performed by a planning board that's why as the chair said it's not a hearing there will not be sworn Witnesses I have advised the the the board through through the chair that there's not a legal requirement to even obtain comment from members of the public although it is certainly a useful wise and appropriate thing to do and I fully support it but it is not a legal uh requirement the other aspect of this is to understand what happens as as a result of your review tonight um you have several choices you may simply find that the plan is consistent with the master plan that is the 2003 master plan or as is stated in the in the plan before you uh the 1996 master plan and the reexamination reports of that plan uh you may find that's it's consistent you may find that it's consistent but nonetheless want to make recommendations to the governing body regarding some aspect of the plan uh you may also finally decide that the plan is not consistent or were designed to uh effectuate the Redevelopment plan uh draft resolutions for each of those eventualities have been submitted uh to the to the chair and to Justin uh then you know the role of the governing body is interesting because the final decision with respect to the adoption of the plan is solely in completely in the hands of the governing body the elected officials so the uh the governing body may hear from you if I'll take the extreme case that the plan is not consistent with the with the master plans that I've mentioned the the governing body May nonetheless adopt the plan even if you conclude that it's not consistent as long as they do so by a majority of the full membership of the governing body that's one requirement and the other one is that they must set forth their reasons in the Redevelopment plan for proceeding and despite the recommendation from the planning board that it's inconsistent the action with respect to the adoption of the planning uh uh of the plan by the governing body is by ordinance so the ordinance has been introduced and then it's been referred to the planning board uh the governing body cannot act on the uh on the adoption of the ordinance until one of two things happens it gets your response or 45 days passes so it's entirely possible that a planning board commenting or reviewing a referred development plan may never comment on it and the governing body May then proceed I know that in this case there's a meeting scheduled for next week by the governing body for have to have the second reading on the on the ordinance and at that time there will be a legal opport Unity legally required opportunity for the governing body to hear from anyone wishing to make a comment so the proceedings tonight just to summarize are uh con confined to a very limited issue no uh testimony will be given in the normal sense no sworn Witnesses and no cross-examination and unless there are any questions I'll just stop right there any questions for Joe all right thank you very much Mr maraziti thank you um let's see Justin anything from you before I turn to Jim Kyle and Justin sent a a brief memo um I don't mean to put you on the spot Justin I know our presentation tonight is from from Jim Kyle but anything you wanna say first nope no nothing really Madam chair thank you though um just that I put that kind of cover page memo together to introduce Jim Kyle uh and if we could hear from the horse's mouth uh we might as well so uh with that being said um I'll turn it over to Jim okay great um Jim thank you madam chair um do I I'm sorry just sure before you start yeah um just for the benefit of the public there are 37 people in the attendees room um uh quite a few of them may be here for the application that's on the agenda for later on um but I expect that uh most are interested in this particular issue so go ahead Jim thanks sorry to interrupt not a problem um do I have the ability to share screen I have a brief presentation uh that I want to put up and talk through with the board and the public it's ready for Shar okay great thank you okay so um tonight we're here to review the Redevelopment plan for Princeton Theological Seminary properties this was uh submitted to the governing body for consideration uh it was dated July 1 and I just want to run through a couple of things here so as Joe mentioned um there are really two statutes that we're operating under here and the board's function the first one comes out of New Jersey's local Redevelopment and Housing law that's njsa 40 a12a 7e and it just simply states that prior to the adoption of Redevelopment plan the planning board shall transmit to the governing body within 35 days of referral a report containing its recommendation concerning the Redevelopment plan this report shall include an identification of any provisions in the proposed Redevelopment plan which are inconsistent with the master plan and recommendations concerning these inconsistencies and any other matters as the board deems appropriate so not only are we re reviewing the of the master plan and the Redevelopment plan but if the board had other comments deemed appropriate related to standards in the plan you could provide that as well the Redevelopment law also in subsection D of this same section s requires that all provisions of the Redevelopment plan shall be either substantially consistent with the municipal master plan or designed to effectuate the master plan there's also a similar requirement in the municipal land use law um prior to the adoption of a development regulation you're essentially doing the same thing this is section 26a of the municipal land use law so mirrors this requirement the only difference here really is that the referral period is 35 days instead of 45 so just a a brief summary of the Redevelopment process related to this particular property um this commenced back in June of 2018 when mayor and Council authorized this planning board to conduct a preliminary investigation uh that was conducted in September of 2018 lrk prepared a report that was submitted to the board and reviewed at a public hearing and the board concluded on September 27th that the criteria under the Redevelopment law were met for all Parcels subsequent to that mayor and Council designated this as a non-c condemnation area in need of Redevelopment in October of 2018 after that um the Redevelopment process kind of stalled a bit um it was picked up in the beginning of 2023 that's when our office was retained to assist with the creation of a Redevelopment plan uh we had three Community round taes in conjunction with this uh two were held one in March of 2023 the other in May and then there was a third held in October of 2023 where the public um got to see the concept plans presented by Herring properties who's the contract purchaser of the property so over the last eight months or so roughly since that October 23 uh Community Round Table we've taken all the comments into consideration so there were a number of comments that were provided at all three roundtables uh particularly at the third where we the public was finally able to see the concept plans um we've also worked in consult consultation with Municipal staff uh and had discussions with the contract purchaser as well that resulted in the creation of this Redevelopment plan so it was introduced on July 10th it's ordinance 20243 and as was stated the public hearing is scheduled for next week July 22nd so I just want to offer a brief summary of the Redevelopment plan um this is applicable to Block 3501 Lots 25 and 26 as well as block 3601 Lots 156 and 17 it's just under 5 acres in total and this was the former tenant Roberts Whitley Campus of the Princeton Theological Seminary and this Redevelopment plan and and the corresponding ordinance would supersede the underlying e4b zoning requirements so as far as permitted uses the plan permits multif family buildings on Block 3501 Lots 25 and 26 and block 3601 lot 16 and 17 it also permits single family detached dwellings on block 3601 lot 15 uh that is the lot that is located eastern most that fronts on EDG Hill Street and a total of 238 units are permitted uh 20% of those units have to be affordable and meet affordable housing requirements the existing residents at 92 Stockton Street would remain on lot 15 and two additional single family detach dwellings are also permitted so the total number of units including the existing single family would be 241 Redevelopment plan sets forth both bulk standards design criteria so as far as the kind of the overarching bulk standards intensity controls maximum building coverage is permitted at 50% maximum impervious coverage is permitted at 75% um there were a number of setback standards that were developed for adjacent properties as well as Street frontages those are also listed um in the Redevelopment plan maximum Building height is four stories and 56 feet now the 56 is measured from average finish grade but no individual facade is allowed to be 50 feet higher than 50 feet from the adjacent finish grade there are step backs that are required above third stories and those are for areas facing existing single family uh to the South and also to EDG Hill Street and there's some uh Graphics in the Redevelopment plan figure 17 18 and 19 that to pick those required setbacks from streets and properties but also shows the uh intention with the stepb backs of the fourth story the maximum Building height for lot 15 with the single family detached is three stories and 40 ft and then the minimum required parking in the Redevelopment plan area is 1.1 spaces per unit there will also be EV parking required consistent with the municipal land use law requirements as well there's a number of design criteria um access is very tightly defined so for Lots 25 and 26 those are the lots to the west of hibbon Road um there's going to be a driveway it has to be at least 125 feet from Stockton Street or Route 206 access for Lots 16 and 17 has to be from Stockton Street um it's anticipated there will be a central circulation drive that extends from Stockton Street down and provides access to the new buildings and access for lot 15 um is intended to be through Lots 16 and 17 but the plan does allow it to be from EDG Hill Street there cannot be access to the rest of the project from EDG Hill Street parking is intended to be under buildings uh there is a Surface parking lot that's permitted on lot 15 and there are a number of Open Spaces that are required um one along Stockton Street and the other along hibbon Road both on lot 17 lighting is per the existing Municipal Code uh there are requirements for preservation of existing trees within public right of ways and also within the plan area uh there's a number of sustainability features that are encouraged uh in the master excuse me in the Redevelopment plan uh there was a long list of features that were um intended to be utilized through this development and there's also a requirement for a multi-use path along Stockton Street so as we uh discussed this and you know looked at pedestrian connectivity to the downtown and and you know perhaps future intentions with Route 206 um we put in a requirement that wider than a typical side walket at say four feet a multi-use path be put in along Stockton Street along the front edge of the Redevelopment plan area so as has been indicated the board's function tonight is really to judge whether the Redevelopment plan that has been introduced is in any way inconsistent with the community master plan the Redevelopment plan has a number of goals um I'm not going to read through every one of them but they were you know generally smart growth principles uh provide higher density compact development close to the downtown um new opportunity for multif family housing including affordable housing increasing the supply of affordable housing on the west side of the downtown and and enhance the view shed along Stockton Street um as you know has been talked about for decades that is really one of the key gateways into Princeton into the downtown and um the idea is to enhance that through this Redevelopment process we also want to try to improve safety and visibility around the Redevelopment plan area um one very lengthy discussion that occurred over the last eight months was related to storm water management um currently the site had no storm water management features or storm water control obviously most of this site drains downhill uh into the neighborhood so it was very important that we put in standards that would require enhanced storm water management and really address a lot of that and the use of green infrastructure as well um obviously we're adjacent to single family neighborhoods here we want to make sure that we're providing an appropriate transition um from this proposed Redevelopment plan area to those single family neighborhoods and then we also want to have high quality design um through the planning process so I did review uh the 2023 master plan that the board adopted at the end of the year um some of the master plan goals that I believe are promoted through this Redevelopment plan are listed here the first is providing for a broad variety of and again these aren't verbatim um from the master plan these were kind of paraphrased a little bit but provide for a broad variety of housing including affordable housing um one of the key elements for the those that are familiar with the municipal settlement with fair share housing center and the housing plan that was created was the former burrow and the former Township were kept separate the burrow has its own unmet need component um it was 195 units at one point it may have been reduced slightly over the last couple years um but there was a very important court case in Madison that said when circumstances change um you're not necessarily given full protection and Immunity you have to consider consider those change circumstances and plan for it particularly if you're a community that has a significant unmet need as the former buau does so this plan will provide for a total of 48 affordable housing units at this site again the set aside is 20% um welcoming new residential growth it will Infuse new life into the downtown um as we talked about at the community roundtables this site is within about a 10 to 12 minute walk uh to the core of the downtown so it's certainly walkable um it's not part of the downtown proper but it surrounds the downtown and is an important element and and Gateway as we discussed um addressing Princeton's current housing shortage uh this will provide as we've talked about an additional 238 multif family units here to help address that um removing barriers to increase residential density there was discussion in the master plan you know particularly about increasing densities surrounding the downtown and in the downtown um this site also has reasonable access to the dinky uh there's a Transit bus stop that is immediately out in front of the site as well so uh that all helps in in you know removing those barriers to increase density focusing higher residential density within and around the downtown that was specifically discussed in the 2023 master plan uh reducing storm water runoff and flood risk as I said we we did spend an awful lot of time talking about how we can Implement these new uh green infrastructure requirements and and really address flooding that has occurred from this site in the past um guiding growth away from natural resources obviously you know here in in this case we're located near the downtown there really are no sensitive environmental features flood Plaines Wetlands uh large forested areas things like that those are primarily found in other areas of the municipality um and well away from this site preserving and enhancing existing visual resources um this kind of goes along with the Gateway concept the concept plan that we saw at the third Community round t a uh detailed the efforts to improve that Gateway into Princeton coming up 206 from the south there's a requirement as I said for open space to be provided up along Stockton Street that is part of that Gateway um so that will help enhance that Gateway that as I said has been discussed for decades integrating open space into private development again as I said there are two Open Spaces that are required to be provided as part of the Redevelopment plan there were sizes specified in the Redevelopment plan for those um which will essentially be Parks as part of the private development and then promoting smart growth sustainability and resilient development so a lot of the time that we spent in the first two Community roundtables uh was diving into these issues of smart growth sustainability and resiliency um given the location of this in close proximity to downtown access to Transit it's a it'll be a walkable environment those all promote smart smart growth principles and sustainability reducing um you know vehicle miles traveled reducing the need for vehicles to be utilized all part of smart growth and sustainability we also looked at the provisions of the 1996 master plan um as many of you know that have been involved in Princeton for a while that Master Plan H was had much more broad principles and goals uh the new master plan the 2023 uh really did a great job of defining you know specific goals and objectives not that the 9 plan didn't um but it was much more Broad in terms of the goals and objectives now here this Redevelopment plan and looking at the 1996 master plan it'll Advance Princeton's housing objectives that were identified at that time even back in 1996 there was discussion about you know lack of vacant land developable land the need for more affordable housing options and the need for housing in general uh particularly for those of of low and moderate income it also provides that in a location that's within walking distance to retail services and educational facilities so we did provide um deside guidelines in the plan that ensure that the development that results will be compatible with the historic character of the surrounding neighborhoods so lot a portion of lot 15 or lot 15 is located uh in the historic district but the balance of the site is not um we want to make sure through the Redevelopment plan that we're respecting that historic character and providing development that's compatible with it and that was consistent with the 96 master plan there was also discussion in that Master Plan um you particularly also in the historic preservation plan element of that master plan that talked about reinforcing the Gateway concept and we're doing that here through appropriate development and building design standards hopefully that was brief enough um and hopefully covered all the parts that we need to um I'm Madam chair I'm here I'm happy to answer any questions the board may have about the plan itself or any of the items of consistency that I just reviewed okay thank you um are there questions for Mr Kyle from board [Music] members any comments people want to make before we hear from the public okay seeing none um there are now uh 41 people in the attendees room um so and I see that people are starting to raise their hand so if you would like to address the board um a reminder that we have a three minute time frame for that uh now is the time to raise your hand and we will take comments in the order in which hands are raised so um Carrie have you are you bringing over the first harnell is oh I am bringing over Carol o uh Karen O Conor okay and then my kid [Music] okay sorry and uh excuse me Madam chair I believe we're having an issue with our timer tonight okay rather than see it on the screen we could go to plan B which is um Ian can time it on his phone and then raise his virtual hand when we get to the three minute Mark okay uh maybe raise his virtual hand when we get to the two minutes and 45 seconds point so that you know whoever is speaking has a little bit of a heads up uh welcome m o Connell hi I'm ready to go um just uh state your name for the record and spell your last name please okay I'm Karen oconnell and um my last name is spelled o apostrophe c o n n l l great go right ahead okay this Redevelopment plan is in direct opposition to the new Master Plan it's the opposite of your goals to grow Princeton responsibly incrementally and equitably recognizing the importance of fit and scale you are being asked to Pro approve something that goes against everything you worked for and promised us there is nothing in the master plan that proposes or recommends Redevelopment on this massive scale before the planning board votes I urge you to consider the precedent it sets and the Damage it will do and then vote according to the master plan here's four of the master plan's principles and how this Redevelopment doesn't meet them one the master plan envisions gentle infill in areas that are walkable to downtown there are six homes on hibbon road each with about a 100 years old on a total of about four acres The Proposal will add 238 more dwellings on an equivalent amount of property all uphill its density is 50 units per acre and when we currently have about 1.5 units per acre the height of the buildings at 50 feet not including roof line will Tower over us and our EDG Hill neighbors especially with the added 261 ground floor garage spaces below the buildings which are inexplicably not accounted for in the height calculations the parking alone is about half the size of the municipal garage two the master plan has no mandate or recommendation to change the character of our neighborhoods but to instead allow more of what already exists this Redevelopment plan is monumentally out of place with the character of our neighborhood swallowing it with its size and scale and slaughtering all the old growth trees it is the direct opposite of allowing more development of what already exists there is nothing as tall or dense as this in all of Princeton it's twice the size of the Alice in a smaller footprint The Proposal regrading alone will ruin our neighborhood lifting one side of hibbon higher than the other and making the drop down to our homes even steeper three the master plan places high value on maintaining Princeton's historic charm this plan does not honor historic neighborhoods nor Princeton's charm it will build out the entirety of the TRW properties and encroach on the 200-year-old homes in the Mercer Hill historic district one being the oldest in all of Princeton the viewscape and sense of place will be lost or irreparably changed four green as you go this Redevelopment is direct opposite of protecting and expanding tree canopy something critical to Public Health and climate resiliency this plan will contribute to the rising Urban heat island effect the property will go from 0% impervious today to quote 70% impervious the new road that will run the entire length of the property is not considered impervious but will add more to the uhi effect we are essentially going from a park-like environment to a giant Urban heat island it is not making the built environment Greener or more absorbent it is not retrofitting urban areas to accommodate more green infrastructure it is not protecting trees whenever and wherever possible I would like to also address the issue of flooding and how it was mitigated when the historic TR buildings came down how we live in fear of massive flooding with the potential clear cutting of all trees uphill from us but Connell I run out of time you have you have but I will put a pin in the questions related to the height calculations and grading the uh trees and storm water okay so we will come back to those um issues before the before the night is done okay thank you Lis thank you chairperson and the next per the next person to speak is Mike headed and then Tom Pineo Mr head if you could activate your camera and unmute yourself yeah great regular zoom in fact yeah um state your name for the record and spell your last name uh Mike head h e a d great thank you go right ahead okay um I if I may I I'd like to start uh by going back to the night of November 30th um chairperson Wilson um you responded to a letter from the school board um and you you made a statement which I believe went on the record and I'd just like to um repeat that just to remind every everybody uh what was said and and you stated the plan does not Envision Envision or lay a foundation for a new for new housing such as the developments you referenced that is the school the Avalon on W Witherspoon and merwick stanworth neighborhoods stanworth neighborhoods nor does it Envision or recommend the kind of scale of Court mandated housing currently being built in proximity to the shopping center uh today the planning board is reviewing a proposal against uh a proposed zoning in the master plan that calls a residential zoned area a multif family Zone when such a thing was explicitly ruled out as even existed I believe um the gentleman that was presenting the uh the plan called it um e4b as the underlying zoning um actually that underlying plot had two zonings it was a three zone three or zone four depending on whether it was educational or residential the residential standard for residential building is the one we believe should apply which is zone three uh if I may go back to um the statement uh you went on to say the land use recommendation in the plans are conservative based almost entirely on existing zoning in residential neighborhoods and with the explicit direction that quoting from the plan the development of zoning regulations warrants a detailed review of the spatial standards in each district to provide the most appropriate standards for each Zone and that Princeton should quote require special and form-based standards that provide a framework work for successful integration of new development within the scale and form of existing residential neighborhoods clearly this proposed development fails all these guidelines espoused and does not under any circumstances comply with a project that is integrated within the scale and form of the existing residential neighborhoods um as proposed it will overwhelm a residential district it's a very dated approach and it's going to exacerbate many negative environmental issues thank you thank you Mr head uh Madam chair if I could just jump in real quick we have the timer up and running uh it's in the upper right corner of your screen for you and members of the public that are speaking it actually gives a little uh uh notice when it's hit the three minute Mark okay thank you who is next the next person is Tom Pineo and then Carolyn CLE Cy I believe Mr P welcome good evening if you could if you could state your name for the record and spell your last name and then you can Jump Right In sure Tom Pineo p i n NE EO um I live on Van Avenue I've been a resident of Princeton for 45 years I'm a builder I'm a developer but it's as a housing and climate Advocate and board chair of housing initiatives of Princeton that I speak in support of this plan tonight the question before us is whether this Redevelopment plan is consistent with the master plan and the answer is of course yes it's a piece of an overall puzzle that uses smart growth principles to as the planning directors MMO states provide for a broad variety of housing including affordable housing welcome new residential growth that will Infuse new life into the downtown address Princeton's current housing shortage remove barriers to increase residential density and focus that density within and around the downtown at the intersection of a housing crisis and climate crisis we've got to build more in town housing in communities where people want to live places of opportunity like Princeton are precisely where we should be investing in housing and catalyzing social Mobility inclusionary or set aside develop like that proposed for the TRW site is the best vehicle for that investment one that doesn't further stratify or segregate the town and one that leans on the developer and much needed market rate housing to pay for affordable housing choosing in town density over Car- centered housing at the periphery will have consequences that we shouldn't gloss over those consequences however are not excuses not to move forward we need to acknowledge that the immediate neighbors will feel the disruption and show and change most acutely not to do so would be disingenuous but we also need to reaffirm that while we are each residents of an individual neighborhood we are all collectively citizens of Princeton and responsible for the town as a whole and so as I have said before I suggest that those of us who support this plan engage productively in the process to make it even better it's even more important that those who don't yet support the plan do exactly the same we have a HomeTown contract purchaser born and bred ready to engage in productive conversation and we ought to make the very most of it let's Endeavor to hammer out our Redevelopment agreement that is a model for what's possible thank you thank you Mr Pineo okay the next person is Caroline Cleaves and then and then Joe but can you hi um I'm Caroline Cleaves and um I at seven EDG Hill Street and I'm I'm I'm very happy to follow our previous speaker um I also like Jamie Herring um grew up in Princeton I'm a native princetonian and um I am probably also one of the very few people on this call tonight who has been a resident of Princeton community housing and I feel like that's important to say because I know that this neighborhood has been accused of nimbyism and um so my comments really have to do with the master plans identifying the need for more housing for the missing middle and for low-income residents um you know my my concern is that there's nothing about this proposed Redevelopment that addresses the needs of a real middle class family according to the interview uh Mr Herring gave on October 23rd of 2023 to Planet Princeton the market rate for a two-bedroom apartment will be in the high 300 3,000 a month and a two-bedroom with a den will go in the low 4 thousands a month now according to like the standard rule of the 30% unit for rent this requires a family to have a joint income of $180,000 a year and I can tell you as somebody who previously lived in community housing there wasn't a single one of my neighbors who was earning that kind of money even when there were both parents working um understandably these are the free market rate I don't know if $180,000 for a a is really what Princeton considers the missing middle um I would venture to guess it's not um and as for the issue of the um you know the state mandated community housing units it's my understanding that these units are being given to the to the municipality on a 40-year term and I don't know if that's if that's been revised or if that um is something that's up for negotiation it seems to me like a very bad faith effort to sell this this enormous development to us is something that's going to have short-term implications for low-income housing in Princeton and it and it defies any kind of really long-term multi-generational um planning for this town that those those units would convert back to market right after 40 years I think it's it's an embarrassment and I think it's a bunch of marketing and there's not a lot of substance to it thank you for my for listening to me thank you Miss Cleaves appreciate it um and we will uh come back uh later on to that question of the 40y Year Sunset I'm curious about that myself um next up Carrie uh that would be Joe Joe Butler and then Felicia Spitz okay Miss Butler um state your name for the record and then go right ahead Joe Butler b l r thank you very much and Louise thank you very much for your opening comments I really do appreciate it even though it's cut into my three minutes this plan is not compatible with goals outlined in the mobility section of the master plan compare figure three the Google aerial photo of the plan to figure 12 supplied by the developer which is inaccurate in really important ways the Google Map correctly identifies North and from this map you can see accurately the large curve on Stockton that hinders safe sight lines at hibbon Campton and EDG Hill in addition to poor sight lines hibbon does not meet Stockton at night ° which makes the turn on or off stocked and challenging a second crosswalk and is completely inappropriate by cropping and Shifting the map and misidentifying North the developer obscures important safety concerns for drivers pedestrians and cyclists the supposed open spaces at the corners are actually required sight lines which means no trees no shrubs or furniture on page 19 I don't see a definition for a central circulation Drive in the rsis I do see a culdesac b based on the pro projections this development would exceed the maximum allowable adts for this type of driveway roadway it isn't safe to put that much traffic on this type of Road crisscrossing a sidewalk and adding to the congestion on one of the town's two principal arterials it violates the mobility hierarchy outlined in 3.1 there are six driveways on hibbon and 12 drivers 100% of the adults on hibbon have a car this isn't a walkable neighborhood um to groceries to Pharmacy to schools or even to the train station adding a new curb cut and access to parking for 40 vehicles on this street will increase traffic on this local Street by over 300% hibbon and EDG Hill both have speed pillows currently in the street hierarchy these are local streets and yet we are already inundated with cut through traffic you can limit parking spaces but you won't limit the need for vehicles Ubers Amazon ups and GrubHub all this before we deal with the traffic that will be driven up and down these side streets by drivers who will use them to avoid making left-hand turns on and off Stockton Vision zero in the master plan calls for increasing safety for all residents through improved design this isn't it also page 19 last sentence is inaccurate there is parking on hibbon unless they're planning on taking away our parking along with our privacy Mobility 3.3 six of the 10 identif ified Focus intersections are within a mile of here three of the focus corridors 206 Mercer and NASA all meet two blocks from here two of the six 206 and Mercer are directly linked to this project this development will make project will make traffic appreciably worse on these corridors and Inter intersections and make residents less safe I'm disappointed there isn't a topographical map included in this packet so everyone can understand just how enormous in scale this project will be this is in complete contrast to the compact Village quality described in the Horus historic preservation element for the inner Gateway he used the word Urban is completely out of context and misleading they never intended to have the A W Hotel parked plunked down in a totally residential neighborhood I want to reiterate that this is not an educational use and the comparison ought to be R3 we may have your time's up uh are you in conclusion well yes thank you again for your time and thank you for your opening comments and I just want to say that there are a lot of slight of hands in this packet and in this ordinance and we're residents and taxpayers we're not the enemy and um we as Tom Peno said we all want to engage on this in a in a fair way but having unbiased material is a start thank you thank you um are you bringing over Miss Spitz uh yes um Felicia Spitz um and uh a reminder to other people who wish to address the board that right now is the time to raise your hand virtually uh by clicking on the icon at the bottom of your screen okay um Miss Spitz welcome thank you it's Felicia Spitz Spitz um I'm really upset with Mr Pineo because he said everything that I wanted to say so I'm gonna I'm gonna have to add Li it um I'm I'm here not only as a resident um who lives in The Institute neighborhood which I consider the Western section of Princeton um but also as the chairwoman of Princeton Housing Authority um I I also wanted to ask a question um my understanding is this is an area in need of Redevelopment and therefore it gets um different consideration than strictly um master plan well it has to be consistent with the master plan um but it does give the um the council um flexibility and latitude for working with the land owner and developer on specific designs that that can deviate from the underlying zoning okay thank you um I I also just wanted to comment that I I feel like since the buildings have been demoed we've forgotten a couple things um there used to be over a 100 units of housing already there that were accommodated um I heard somebody mention height um there's a 12-story apartment building in prinston for those of you who don't know it it's called The Lawrence Apartments it's right next to one of our properties Karen Court um so it's well under what the the local um units are and the other thing I wanted to address is that the federal government actually sets what the small area fair market rate rents are um I don't have any opportunity to text you that link but it's on the HUD website um so this idea that Mr Herring is somehow proposing extraordinarily High rents and trying to pass them off as middle income is just false you can blame that on the federal government um I I really hope that people engage here because Princeton needs to be a town where everyone can afford live I have six kids and only one of them and not the one with the graduate degree um could possibly afford to live here and it's very upsetting um because he's the one that has my grandchild um and and I just I think that we all need to take a step back and look at who Princeton really serves um and is that the kind of community we want to be a part of and that does mean that we might have to change our view and our sidewalks and the way we conduct ourselves but it's really important Princeton hasn't meaningfully changed in probably 50 years and that's not a flex as my 15-year-old would say it needs to change we need to accommodate everybody from all walks of life and all socioeconomic backgrounds so I know that this job takes courage and I hope you all and the Town Council find the courage um to do to to further this plan because it's really important and we need this housing thank you thank you um so we have yeah two more people just raised their hand we have Sean wence and Rob okay bring over Mr W and then uh and then we'll hear from Rob after him um to say one more time if you want to address the board uh please raise your hand now um Mr willins uh have you activated your camera I'm not seeing uh yes you will there we go there we are you see me now uh well you're coming in and out I'm very dark too there you go we do see everybody yes very good nice to see you madam chairman my name is Sean willin W L ntz and I live at 7 EDG Hill Street and I just wanted to talk about the master plan and the appeal to the idea that we are all Princeton and I agree with that I think we are all Princeton the problem with this is that it's going to destroy this plan this proposal rather not only is it at variance with the master plan but precisely because it's the variance of the master plan for all the reasons that people have said it will actually throw an arrow Into the Heart of what makes Princeton the place that everybody likes to live in it is going to completely undo an historic district it has going to completely destroy it the idea that I mean with all du respects the idea that Lawrence Apartments can be compared to what is going to happen here Lawrence Apartments nothing to do with this neighborhood it's very far away so all I want to say is that I see this as actually a patriotic Princeton act that in fact we're keeping Princeton close closer to what people want it to be as a as as a community it's not about a neighborhood it's about the whole place and if this is undone if this if this neighborhood is undone in quite this way this historic district that will undo Princeton in fundamental ways I'll just leave it at that thank you Mr willin um bring over the person identified only as Rob and then we have two other people whose hand who have raised your hands Charles Skinner would be after him okay and then Jane MCL uh mclennen uh I'm sorry my camera is broken is it okay if I speak without a camera my name is Rob Robertson um and um I live on 28 Mercer Street I'm very sorry but my camera is broken okay go ahead Mr that's all right go ahead Mr Robins Roberts sorry about that um yeah so um I live uh around a few blocks away from this proposed project um it does seem like a massive scale uh for this historic neighborhood I wanted to comment on the master plan uh section related to Historic gateways um so I'm looking at the document I'm looking at is the master plan page 203 appendix D part two about historic gateways so I think uh we should all know that this is you know I think it's the Kings Highway originally a Lenny Lenae uh Trail going through uh eventually became Highway 206 this is one of the um very sign significant gateways into town this would be considered in the zone of being an inner Gateway um so the notable inner gateways include the U this area coming in on stock um also Alexander Road where it meets Mercer Street and um also jugtown uh where we've also seen a great amount of uh recent um activity and discussion uh related to um very aggressive development plans so in the jugtown case um there's I think here on the call should probably be aware of the uh controversy and the um plans to uh put a very very significant development on on that Gateway on the Alexander Road uh Gateway there's a pending proposal from the Seminary to um replace a huge amount of historical material on five properties there the one property at the top of the street 44 merser has already been stripped of all of its historic sighting and windows and now we have this project on possibly the the grandest and most important Gateway into town um which is on a scale which um I think some other folks whove spoken also said um it really has nothing to do with the context of uh this neighborhood of special part of Princeton I'm fully in favor of um affordable housing and trying to you know service the missing middle and make Princeton uh you know a prosperous and healthy diverse Community for all of us just the scale of this and the potential damage it could cause to uh what makes Princeton Princeton seem to be a price too high to pay thank you thank you Mr Robertson okay uh the next person is Charles Skinner and then Jane ml mlen um hello can you see me you yes we can state your name for the record and then you can begin your remarks okay I'm Charles Skinner SK i n n r and resident of Princeton and I would like to add my voice to all of the people who have voiced serious objections to this development plan um it um really uh does not follow the master plan uh another thing not discussed so far is the student the new school students that this will bring into town will overwhelmed the school system and this area in need of predevelopment um also lays open the the CH the opportunity for Pilots which means that the developers will evade property taxes and increase the tax burden on the rest of the Princeton residents um the um let's see and also I think particularly the public safety aspects um and the um and and and cutting down the trees this this will change the character of Princeton from the small town that we all love uh and turn it into something more to New Brunswick um there is no way that Princeton could accommodate all of the people that would like to live here um this is this is kind of a bane hope and to have a development that's that's that's officially 80% unaffordable 80% unaffordable is just makes a mockery of the the whole process anyway I just want to register my objection and I'll I'll here thank you Mr skanner uh I do want members of the public and remind the board um that we can never make um decisions based on um impact on schools it's it's just not um permitted uh so I I'm I'm not saying that to as any kind of a Smackdown I'm just uh just pointing it out um and U Mr Skinner also mentioned the or questioned the designation of the site as an area in need of Redevelopment that goes back several years as um as Mr Kyle reviewed and um also is not a matter that's um before us tonight um so we have I think uh next uh but but the couple of other issues Mr mclenon raised including the trees and um um uh what anyway one other thing that he mentioned I I do want to put a pen in and come back to I think we have um two more speakers at this point again if you want to speak now is the time to raise your hand um Carrie would you bring over Jane mclennen and then Rose hi miss mclennen you just need to unmute yourself thank you sure state your name for the record and then um you can Dive Right In all right thank you my name is Jane mclenon I live on EDG Hill Street uh in Princeton uh the 2023 master plan for Princeton is facing criticism for not adequately safeguarding historic homes and properties this includes significant residences on EDG Hill and hibbon Road concerns have been heightened by the recent Council approval for the new construction on the former tenant Roberts Whitley property currently owned by Princeton Theological Seminary suggesting a potential Trend toward development that could compromise the historic character of these areas as well as other areas in town the proposed development which includes 238 residential uh units and I realize I'm U saying what others have already mentioned at a density of 49 units per acre and 26 262 uh parking spaces has raised significant concerns among neighbors the Ingress and egress will be limited to one road with most parking spaces being underground the four-story large scale project is seen as a threat to the the right of homeowner to quiet enjoyment of their property a basic principle of property law that protects against disturbances like excessive noise air and light pollution the complex housing of at least 500 occupants adjacent to the historic areas without a substantial buffer zone will overwhelm these areas the four store build four story buildings which will be situated on a hill are not only expected to negatively affect the quality of life for nearby residents but also potentially harm the structural Integrity of early 19th century homes and Princeton's oldest residents built in the late 1600s Additionally the master plan does not adequately protect against loss of tree canopy the increase of impervious surfaces and the resultant environmental impact during a time of significant econ econ oops ecological changes for other Princeton residents please pay attention to this proposed urbanization of the town if the prince if the planning board can approve such a massive structure in the middle of an historic neighborhood and along one of Princeton's four gateways it can happen anywhere thank you thank you Miss mcclinon okay I had already moved Rose over so if she put on her video that'd be great right Rose if you can um activate your camera and unmute yourself we go good evening can you um State your full name for the record and spell your last name yes it's Rose Alexander Al l x a n d r than my name is um I live my name is Rose and I live at 124 Mercer Street um and I'd like to address four concern concerns that I have with the proposed large building project and Redevelopment of the property on Route 206 adjoining hibbon and Ed Hill streets first our traffic and safety concerns existing traffic is already congested on every road surrounding the designated 238 unit proposal frequently traffic comes to a halt on both 206 and Mercer Street and this volume of traffic endangers Walkers Runners and bikers in our area we we know a man whose brother was struck by a vehicle and killed recently on our street additional special walks to the Einstein house are now hazardous and this increased traffic and the hurry drivers make entrances and exits from residents on our streets more dangerous this 238 apartment proposal will add even more cars making the current problem much worse secondly the environmental impact the removal of trees and green cover due to the proposed apartment complex will adversely impact the environment of this historic Community we and some of our neighbors have the Frog Hollow stream under our homes this project can cause structural damage to our homes if the local ecosystem is disrupted not to mention impacting wildlife in the area higher traffic density will also worsen the air quality index which is already frequently very high in the community also preserving our precious green for the pre for the future for residents and visitors especially close to town is imperative we are fortunate to live in a beautiful Community which has made smart choices and should learn from the experience of other overdeveloped communities before it is too late third privacy and quality of life the proposed 238 unit complex will reduce privacy for residents in their current homes this as well as the permanently increased congestion and and noise will certainly impact quality of life in the area as soon as the construction begins and fourth and lastly tourism and Community identity I would like to emphasize the historical significance of the area I would like us to Advocate responsible growth that respects the community's Heritage and Architectural character we should not rush an important decision that may irreparably damage this historic Community which is one of the most beautiful in the United States thank you thank you okay the next person to speak is Jessica Vieira hi there I'm not sure if you can hear me and see me we certainly can we can hear you and see you if you'll state your name record and then go right ahead sure my name is Jessica Vieira VI Victor IE a I live on Stockton Street at the corner of EDG Hill um I can't stress enough the concerns that have already been raised but in particular I'd like to focus on the the traffic concerns Route 206 is bad enough without additional residence and additional vehicle traffic there have been several significant accidents recently involving pedestrians on the west side of town specifically just west of University Place that are terribly concerning I don't think anyone has done a traffic study and if they have it should certainly be shared local government claims the road is under the state jurisdiction so it's beyond their control that said locally and especially in front of proposed development we need more traffic congestion measures and speed controls the sheer volume of traffic both and especially through traffic is not safe for the pedestrians cyclists who live in the immediate area by as an aside I won't even let my children ride their bicycles to town that goes without commenting about the number of 18 wheelers that charge up Route 206 as though they were on I95 with little regard for vehicles let alone elderly children or pets that may be in the way as I understand it this project is intended to uh facilitate space for the Elder the children and and small and smaller families so if anything were to happen I'd hope that at least before any plan is approved the community deserves an in-depth traffic study and action should be taken to change the current traffic P patterns to make the area safer thanks so much thank you um are there any more um members of the public who wish to address the board there are no more hands raised so seeing none go up I will close the public comment um portion of the meeting and [Music] um ask um and we can revisit some of what um has been raised that uh that does you know relate back to different elements of the master plan [Music] um I do uh want to I'm trying to yeah Mr headed mentioned the um a statement from me that was made on on November 30th or around that time um I'm not sure it was that night or but it doesn't matter um in response to a um a letter from the school board and and um I just want to say that to me in my view this Redevelopment plan is not comparable to the Avalon development over at the um at the uh shopping center uh either in bulk or scale or certainly not design um as you know with the sensitivity to the surrounding historic NE neighborhood um but probably more important than that I I want to point out that um the Redevelopment area designation and the planning for this site way predates the uh adoption of the 2023 master plan and that's partly why um Mr Kyle was careful to point out that um this Redevelopment plan is viewed as consistent um with not only the master plan adopted toward the end of last year but also previous Master plans and um uh and um reexamination reports um so it's not about me I didn't want it but I didn't want that to go without um um you know responding in some way to to the comments that he made because it's understandable that um that somebody would bring that up um so I want to revisit um the question about the underground parking um and whether or not that's um I know we don't we're not looking at a site plan and some of the issues that were raised really um related more to site plans like um um site um triangles and you know the location of of um crosswalks and and whatnot but I I would like to hear um from Mr Kyle something about the um what's anticipated with the underground parking whether that will affect the grade um of the um whe whether the the grade will be from the bottom whether the grade will change um the the whether these uh dwellings these buildings will be on Higher Ground than exists on the site now um so if you could just talk a little bit about um about whether grading has been talked about at all or whether there are assumptions in the Redevelopment plan about that or maybe it's worthy of of a suggestion um that the planning board might make in its um in its uh resolution when we get to that point sure I'd be happy to so the way that Building height is Define as I said um it's a four-story maximum the parking is intended to be the the ground level but as probably everybody knows this site from Stockton Street descends down the hill as you go along hibon so a portion of the parking garage will be more out of the ground but the intention at least based on the conceptual plan is that you won't see directly into parking um on the southern side of these buildings there will be residential units that wrap the parking level so while a parking level is not considered a story it's still part of overall Building height and the way that Building height is calculated is a four corner average but no single portion of a facade can exceed 50 feet from average grade right at the at the we say the foundation to um depending on the type of roof structure if it's a flat roof or if it's a mansard or or a hip roof so the the intention is to limit height to 56 feet but no single portion could be more than 50 and there will be residential units as I said that wrap the southern faces of those buildings because that was one concern that we had all along is that yes we can have parking beneath the building but you know we really don't want it to be visible but it will have to be more um out of grade you go farther south so that was a that was a careful consideration in writing the Redevelopment plan okay and you can you speak a little bit to the the way that the height of the building steps steps up from um the setback to the middle of the building does that make sense yeah so I I I guess I'm speaking to not only to overall perceived height but also to um concerns Neighbors have about privacy sure so the the step backs are required for the fourth story so it it will not be in most cases a sheer four story building so there'll be a required step back from the third to the fourth level I think it's a minimum of 10 feet um we particularly wanted to be sensitive to the South where we have single family residential that we didn't have a building that was looming over those single family units so particularly facing the southern facades there's a required so there's a setback from the property line of the building in general but then at the third story it's required to step back uh I believe it's 10 feet so that that story will be farther away from the property line and they can have there can be private open space there we allow you know Terraces uh you know things like that on that fourth level and I expect members of the public have um poured over the Redevelopment plan but on pages 26 and 27 there are some diagrams um that just again for the public that speak to that those setback um descriptions that Mr Kyle was just just giving us um can you speak to the sensitivity to and the degree to which um uh large you know mature healthy trees uh on the site are being looked at and considered tell me remind me I know that the trees within the right of way the street trees uh are to be preserve but are there are there buffer areas beyond that where the mature trees uh will not be touched and anything beyond that yes so there there is a requirement in the Redevelopment plan there's language that says that existing mature trees should be retained it'll largely amount to a site plan issue for the planning board when it comes in because we don't have grading plans at this point we don't know exactly how grade will change uh where underground utilities are going to have to go things like that so as the board engages in review of a potential site plan in the future those would be um things that have to be discussed there's also going to be a tree preservation plan plan is part of the Redevelopment agreement as Mr maraziti said at the outset you know once the Redevelopment plan is adopted and a Redevelopment agreement is entered with the redeveloper um there is a tree preservation plan that is required to be submitted and must be met as part of the Redevelopment agreement okay so we kind of have two layers of of control on that you as a board will have the opportunity to review that but then mayor and councel also has the ability through the Redevelopment agreement to address that issue Madam chair if I could just jump in real quick too just a remind everyone that this if it were approved by Council certainly is not the last stop as was mentioned with the Redevelopment plan and the site plan uh when this uh if it was approved returned to the board we would have the board's whole roster of uh professionals including uh our storm waterer expert uh Municipal arborist uh landscape architect traffic consultant uh and they would all be reviewing it at that time as well right so I'm glad you brought up traffic because that was certainly a concern raised by multiple people um so uh does the board have the would will there be um uh a traffic impact study conducted in association with the creation of the of the site plan yes yeah okay um and I mean one way I've thought about traffic and is that you know the the point of building more housing in proximity to uh the downtown and to Transit is at least in part to make it possible for people who currently commute into town by car every day some of them through this neighborhood um have uh an option to live in town and commute on foot or on a bike um that that's the kind of thing that um was talked about as the master plan and the bike uh or uh Mobility element was um uh being crafted um so I'm glad to hear that a um that a traffic impact study will be done Justin do you remember the number I don't have it at my fingertips the number of in of commuters coming into Princeton into Princeton every day versus people commuting out of Princeton by car uh so it was 24,000 uh people commute in every day for jobs um and just as a reminder we're a town of 31,000 uh there were 3,000 people who both lived here and worked here okay and you know that's before these thousand Apartments go up at the Princeton Junction train station in West Windsor or you know up by the shop right in Montgomery and all those other places where they are currently going in well I hope they take the dinky I mean the ones in West Windor yeah yeah um Okay so um Mr Kyle can you talk a little bit more about the the way that the Redevelopment plan speaks to Historic gateways because that that's also a concern that was mentioned more than once yes so obviously that's that's a concept as I said in the presentation that's been discussed for decades in Prince and this is one of the key entries to you know as you progress towards downtown you know historically the buildings that were there which predated Princeton zoning ordinance uh were a part of that one of the things you know some people mentioned some challenges with visibility at at hibbin uh and EDG Hill um part of what we wanted to do was enhance the Gateway but then address those safety issues as I said one of the goals of the plan was to improve you know there's mention of of someone that was killed in an accident um the goal was to improve pedestrian bicycle safety a bicyclist safety in this area improve visibility but then also you know we Al had that large green that was um in front of I think it was tenant Hall that we wanted to preserve a portion of that and then also the goal is to make that usable to the community so there was a kind of a fence that stretched along the front of that and while it was an inviting space it wasn't often used by the public so that was the other part of it was tying into the gateway theme improving safety um not opening up is not the right word but some of those buildings you know particularly the gymnasium was very close to Stockon Street which was part of the problem with visibility you know to the West as you were coming up on hibbin um it's it's discussed in the Redevelopment plan certainly in the context of how it was characterized in historic preservation element um and that historic Gateway um but then really the the ideas that I just put forth is is how it's uh discussed in the Redevelopment plan and those were really the ideas that that we worked on as we wrote the Redevelopment plan okay uh and Madam chair if you don't mind me adding to that um as has been described Redevelopment plans allow for greater uh flexibility when it comes to design uh and standards overall and ultimately what we get um the underlying zoning has been mentioned a few times tonight that is the E4 zoning of the former burrow which is educational um it does allow for one and two family homes you know as a use but generally uh and not surprisingly the uses are for institutions of Higher Learning um including you know uh by right a library with a surface parking lot um or a conditional use of dorms even um so there's much less flexibility when it comes to this Gateway if an institution of Higher Learning uh acquired this site or or you know the current property owner uh and decided to go with you know what the underlying zoning would allow for with those and educational uses uh with surface parking lots um and I think uh examples of those were created uh as part of the Redevelopment uh area needs study a few years ago and those might have come up during the um uh Community forums um and it you know exactly what you think it might be of a larger building with a parking lot Madam chair if I could just add to that that's I want to reinforce that point that that's one of the main features of of the Redevelopment process as distinguish from proceeding as a right under the municipal land use law so the underlying zoning which would be superseded by this plan would allow Property Owners or developers uh to uh go into the planning board uh as a right to implement whatever was zoned to be included in the area and in that case the planning board municipality has very little control about design other features other amenities uh talked about open space design of the buildings all of that would be Beyond The Pale of what could be what could be imposed in the approval process the distinction with Redevelopment as I mentioned once the Redevelopment plan is adopted a redeveloper can be designated the Redevelopment agreement is a negotiated document an opportunity for a negotiation to sand down the the the the difficult issues and rough spots in what would otherwise be present if a an application it right went forward and so that's the main benefit of Redevelopment an opportunity to negotiate which does not exist in a legal way when an application as a Right comes before the planning board thank you for that Joe um so I've peppered uh Jim uh and Justin with with questions are would are there um issues that have not yet been addressed that planning board members would like to get to um Owen and then Claudia thank you uh Mr Kyle I'd like to you to uh address the concern that some uh a few people raised that the underlying zoning actually is R3 rather than e4b can you is there any validity to that or do you know where that uh concept is coming from I'll do and I'm gonna ask Justin to help me out here if I if I get it wrong but if I remember correctly um there are there's permission as Justin said for single and two family um in the E4 but it has to be based on I think it's the R3 standards right Justin yeah that's exactly correct I mean so there you know we're kind of getting into technicalities here but there's one zone yeah try to try to dumb it down for me uh there there's you know one zone and that's the E4 Zone uh for this property um but if something were developed with a one and two family homes uh as is permitted uh it would go by the R3 uh bulk standards so you know it's really one zone but if that use were to happen it would you know go by those standards okay thank you thank you uh is that does that answer your question Owen yes it does okay Claudia uh yes thank you madam chairwoman uh one of the questions that was raised by one of the callers related to a they mentioned a 40-year phase out potential phase out of the affordable housing units and I'm reading that Redevelopment plan and I see that the affordable housing units would be um that Princeton could release the units from the affordability control requirements um after 30 years yeah there's it also well it also appears just one other part of the 30 years at a later part in the uh Redevelopment agreement uh this first comment is on P page 21 and the second time the 30 years comes up is on page 37 where the Redevelopment agreement has an expiry date of 30 years and I'm just curious as to why there's a phase out of either one of those conditions or of the the agreement itself sure so the the current um third round regulations that we're operating under so the fourth round of affordable housing obligations doesn't actually start until July 1st of 2025 the legislature just just adopted a new law that will govern you know how we move forward there but for the third round the the typical controls under the uniform housing affordability controls are 30 years for rental and for sale units A4 that was just adopted and signed by the Governor actually increases the control period for rental units to 40 years so we're we're still operating under the third round so we've utilized language that is in effect essentially now um but that that could change and as I said you know we still have an unmet need number in the former buau I know it's been reduced I don't know by how much but it was 195 was part of the settlement agreement was the unmet need number and we have had some projects built that have chipped away at that number but but not substantially so with the controls the the way that it's typically worded now is that the controls can be released by the municipality at the end of the initial um restriction period however most communities choose to extend them um for another 30 years and there's new language in A4 the new legislation that also addresses that so but currently right now we're still in the round three controls so it would be 30 years but it's the municipal um right to extend those controls at at the end of the control period if they desire if I could address the question about the duration on page 37 that's a different concept that's not the duration of the Redevelopment agreement that's the duration of the Redevelopment plan so the the Redevelopment agreement will follow this and the Redevelopment agreement will will not contain this provision typically the Redevelopment agreement will identify the project the description as I mentioned and the schedule for implementation which would be comp that agreement would be implemented much sooner than 30 years the plan stays in effect in the event that that project that we relment agreement doesn't work out there's still a plan that would support entering into a different Redevelopment agreement so they're two different points thank you another question that doesn't come up here and I don't know if that's in our purview has to do with the assignability of the Redevelopment agreement uh right now I've heard Herring mentioned and I guess he's the contractor who was looking to do this um to become the redeveloper um will there be a provision in the agreement that allows for assignability and if there is would the uh municipality then have the right to approve the entity to whom the agreement is assigned I can't speak to the particular agreement here but I can tell you that every agreement that I've seen deals with transfers that's how the statute deal with deals with it and the statute requires that there be a provision regarding transfers and everyone that I have negot iated which are many uh requires the governing body to approve a transfer there are some transfers that are permitted such as in connection with mortgage interest and and things of that sort routines kinds of things but you're talking about a new owner of the whole project and and that's very strictly watched typically thank you yeah thank you uh other questions or thoughts uh from planning board members um including any thoughts about um making a finding uh with or without recommendations um as to the consistency master plan plan consistency uh Mr Taylor and then Mr bodimer bear in mind that that I was a member of the steering committee for the development of our 2023 master plan and that allowed me not only to look forward but to do so looking back to 1996 and the reexamination process and out of that it became clear to me that one of the most important development challenges in Princeton was this particular development plan that if we're to move forward if we're to move forward with a process which is in every way laid out legally and practically and very transparent we need to approve a plan and when I look at this plan a I think it's been very thoughtfully put together B I think it's been extremely well written I spent time focused on the planning goals I looked at the land use elements and to me given the narrow role that we have as a planning board tonight my view is that it is consistent I see the issues raised I understand and empathize with many of the comments made but what I see is a transparent real world process in which as we go forward with the agreement and then with various site plan processes as applications develop we have a directional strategy a plan with within which to operate and so from my point of view we have an important but a narrow Focus tonight is it or is it not consistent and do we or do we not as our chairman has indic ated have comments I'm satisfied I think it's consistent and I think we've had a thorough discussion and that that will continue in a transparent way as the process of development unfolds thank you Jack Nat bimer uh thank you madam chair um really I just want to Echo uh what Mr Taylor Just everything that he said right now and just add I guess my uh my comfort with this moving forward based on uh my 30 plus years working as a policy and planning professional professional in this you know in this area of of seeing the effects that good design can have on the kinds of outcomes that residents of the neighborhood are concerned about um I you know I I think when you draw a circle around uh you know the neighborhood and you know and I you know I I sort of think from a person who is thinking about sustainability outcomes and Equity outcomes and transportation system outcomes you really have to draw the the circle wider um than I think many of the commenters have have have have drawn them but I mean I the the essence of my point is you know living in the Washington DC region uh from 1996 to to 2012 you know observing firsthand the transition of the Arlington Virginia neighborhood from a single family uh neighborhood along very traditional Auto Orient re retail um and that Carter the roson Boston Carter transitioning into an engine of economic development for the for for the um for the municipality of Arlington and adding substantially to the quality of life of the single family residential neighborhoods uh adjoining that Carter North and South while including a lot more density the concerns about traffic increase um and safety on the Carter were uh were completely unjustified as it turned out subsequent traffic studies observed you know large increases in in residential density with no pable increase in traffic volumes and in fact lower speed lower speeds and greater pedestrian safety um that's just one you know that's you've lived that experience and seen that you have confidence that the application of of design tool sensitively can make this kind of community and indeed all of the center of Princeton and the was shopping center an enormous asset to the surrounding communities in the context of including more residents in the community I I want to observe that you know look I'm we have a a densely shaded backyard we're not cutting you know we love that so I love tree canopy but I mean again this is something I think that can be addressed with appropriate design but I also think that when you're thinking about uh a sustainability perspective I mean again you have to think about the equivalency of trees with Automobiles and you know you can you can look on various resources and you know the the Vermont Department of environment you know say It's 121 trees is essentially the equivalent of removing one car from the road and so this is one of those things where to go to that point about the number of people who drive into Princeton who don't have the opportunity to live in Princeton um just one person driving for a year um is the equival of 121 trees and I don't know exactly how many mature trees it is per acre but another source references something like 26,000 vehicle miles traveled for a full acre of trees which is you know roughly two cars uh you know so um just eliminating 100 cars 50 cars from um from from driving into Princeton is uh you know it's the equivalent of of very very substantial number of of of Acres of tree cover um and we just have to be mindful that those trees might be preserved here but they might be taken they would be taken down somewhere else and we would be substituting a huge amount of carbon uh that addition to the atmosphere so I mean that's an additional point I guess I just you know I wanted to make um and I also guess I just wanted to I mean I just can't let it go I mean there's the idea of not changing the character of the campus Because the community is auto oriented now first off uh I mean that's just sort of a shocking statement to me second thing is it's just in principle second thing in practice I mean all you have to do is look at historic photographs of of of postwar Netherlands in the 50s and 60s and to see it was as Auto oriented as you know the worst Auto oriented SW suburbs of the United States and in place after Place effective design has controlled traffic and improved the quality of life and created places that are a benefit to the uh to Residents and a driver of Tourism and and of local business and you know you just you just can't have your cake and eat it too on on the on the traffic question I have another public commentary here who wants to make a very important um um look I'm sorry I don't want to be mean about this but you know the jux position of traffic being brought to a halt and a pedestrian being killed I mean the idea of someone being hit and killed by traffic brought to a halt it's just too rich you can't you know it's one thing or the other um and the reality is slower traffic is more safe and more controllable and I'll just returned to a point that I made I've made in the past I'll make it again and and even the public commenter police just SP made it um you know not not the same way the population of Princeton is essentially unchanged from the 1980s and 1990s 130,000 people have been added to the communities around Princeton we have absolutely no control over that those drivers drive to our community they drive through our community they are heedless of our community that is not excusing the members of Our Own Community who're also heedless of traffic tenders that is something that happens as well um but we have the ability to control the quality of environment in our town and if we make it nicer for us and residents of Princeton and make it harder for people to cut through it um at least they'll drive slower and if it's better to bike or walk than to drive then you know there's really not a happier feeling than walking and riding a bike faster than cars I mean if you haven't done that that's a pretty damn good feeling so I con try it out if you haven't that's my comment thanks very much thank you Nat uh Paula vuka and then Julie capuli um uh thank you very much and thank you to Mr Kyle um for a very thoughtful plan and um presented here today I may be a little bit less familiar with the Redevelopment process than um other members of the planning board so we just had a couple of questions um for uh perhaps Mr Kyle or um Mr leco I just wanted to clarify the the permitted number of residential units uh noted here is 238 that's the maximum number and so the final site plan um or approved plan can would consider um could be fewer than that number is that correct okay could be yeah that's correct and um and I also just wanted to clarify Mr Kyle how how you arrived at the determinations for the setback amounts and for the um height restrictions the height limits was that based on analysis of the current zoning or no it was based on the concept plan that was submitted so it's essentially the plan that was unveiled in late October um we looked at that used that as a gun it was really a judgment of you know are we comfortable with the physical development plan that was presented and it's always good to you know enjoy an idea or a plan and then write a Redevelopment plan around it so that's that's what was done here and there was it was essentially a judgment on that revelop not not just by me but by others as well as well and and we were comfortable with it so we used that as the basis for establishing the required setbacks okay thank you Julie um I just wanted to thank my colleagues um for their comments um especially Mr Taylor and his involvement with the subcommittee on the master plan and I think if we are honing in on our obligation to look at both um the previous master plan and the master plan approved in 2023 um I think we we have to agree that this really does work in the spirit of that and that this type of housing is definitely a core part of what we approved and that um moving forward having this design um review process site review process is what essentially W create you know what the end product so the public involvement especially of the neighbors and the neighborhood is essential um as we move forward but I do think that this is um definitely in keeping with what we approved in in 2023 so thanks thank thank you Julie sorry I took a minute to unmute myself um other board comments thoughts um I think that I would like to include in our I mean based on what I'm hearing um I think we are moving toward a um a finding of consistency um with the master plan and I would like to um add a recommendation or two the the first being um the planning board encourages Council to pay Keen attention to preserving as many healthy mature trees on site as possible including Beyond Street trees and Beyond buffer areas uh and that replacement trees be native species at least 70% or some large percent the majority that will grow large at maturity and add canopy because I do think I I I take your your point Mr bodimer about um relative uh value of trees I think the the value of trees for cooling and cleaning the air for absorbing storm water um uh for for you know and Beyond carbon sequestration is my point and just for totally agree their beauty and their beneficial impact on Mental Health all these things the older I get the more magical uh I consider trees to be and so also from an environmental standpoint obviously yeah certainly we would be really well I would be and I think the environment yeah so and I'm sure I know how how high a value Council places on trees I I don't think this in any way imposes you know suggests that they [Music] um I I I think you know if it helps to to give Council leverage in um pushing for an absolute maximum tree preservation that that is something I'd like to help them or for our board to help them to do um and then one other um recommendation be to en encourage coun Council to be um especially mindful of grading plans such that um there is as little regrading of the site as possible the more regrading you do the more you expose you know the more you turn over top soil and other things that um not other things it it makes it much harder for the site to support um trees in vegetation the more regrading the more compaction you know the more um destruction of of uh the top layer of uh of soil so um I think that is worth again just asking them to be particularly mindful of um are there any other thoughts that people have about um the uh should I should I read or or Joe do you want to read the the resolution that you I can do be happy to okay go want to listen to me yeah yes entitled the resolution of the Princeton planning board Mercer County New Jersey read the version that is um consistent with the yes I'm getting that sense one that contains places to fill in recommendations from what I'm hearing you say so uh it is resolution regarding consistency of proposed ordinance number 20 24-30 with master plan whereas on July 88th 2024 the mayor and Council of the municipality of Princeton referred proposed ordinance number 20243 30 and a Redevelopment plan dated July 1 2024 entitled Redevelopment plan for the Princeton Theological Seminary properties for the for the real properties within the Redevelopment study area designated as block 35 .01 Lots 2526 n block 36.1 Lots 1516 and 17 the Redevelopment plan for its review and recommendations by the planning board pursuant to the Redevelopment law within 45 days of the referral and whereas njsa 48 col 12 a-7d of the Redevelopment law requires a planning board to determine whether all provisions of the Redevelopment plan are either substantially consistent with the m Municipal master plan or designed to effectuate the master plan and whereas njsa 4A TW colon 12 a-7e of the Redevelopment law provides that the planning board shall transmit its report to the governing body containing its recommendations concerning the Redevelopment plan which shall include the identification of any provisions of the proposed Redevelopment plan which are inconsistent with the master plan and any recommendation concerning any inconsistency and any other matters the board desires or deems appropriate and whereas the Princeton planning board has reviews the reviewed the aesa ordinance and Redevelopment plan and considered the matter at a public meeting held by the board on July 18 2024 be resolved one that the proposed ordinance number 202 24-30 and the Redevelopment plan is not substantially I'm sorry is is substantially consistent with the Princeton master plan PL Burrows Princeton master plan Burrow's master plan and reexamination Report adopted on November 30 2023 as well as the 1996 Princeton Community master plan and reexamination reports adopted in 2021 202 20 2001 I should have said 2007 and 2017 two that it is the recommendation of the planning board that ordinance number 24-30 and the Redevelopment plan be adopted in its current form without re revision it is the recommendation of the three it is it is the recommendation of the planning board uh that that the following uh recommendations be made for consideration by the governing body and then finally that this resolution should be submitted to the municipal clerk promptly after adoption be be further resolved that this resolution shall be effective immediately and so going back to what you mentioned Madam chair uh the the area to include your recommendations would be after paragraph two okay I I do have one I think correction and I'm sorry that I didn't mention this um when I was looking at it uh this afternoon but um in paragraph one after be it resolved the second line well I'll I'll read it leading up the Redevelopment plan is substantially consistent with the Princeton It should read with the Princeton Community master plan and reexamination Report adopted on November 30th 2023 so there's some extra words in there I see I see what you're saying apologize for that that's all right it just was probably uh well who knows we it happens to all of us uh and and Louise you could drop Community from there uh the title of Princeton master plan since we've Consolidated okay um so um our our members of the board okay with adding uh a recommendation such as I read or two uh such as I read before about tree protection and about um attention to grading they saying okay so I propose the first one to read um a uh period the planning board encourages Council to pay Keen attention to preserving as many healthy mature trees as possible uh including Beyond Street trees and buffer areas and for replacement trees to be native species most of which will grow large at maturity and add tree canopy um and B encourage Council to be mindful of uh grading on site such that finished grade well grading on site and uh minimize regrading that impacts um tops well so move with Rec perfect maybe not perfect language but I they'll get the just and again the point point being to give them you know leverage not to tie their hands because I I think that every this the kind of thing that council members you know want to make sure happens to again so move with the recommendations is there a second seconded uh moved by Mr mwan seconded by net bodimer um Harry would you give us a roll call vote please Mr bimer yes Miss capoli yes Mr Macwan yes Miss Nuka yes Mr odonnell yes Miss Pearl mutter yes Mr Taylor yes Miss Wilson Anderson yes and Mrs Wilson yes motion carried um thanks everybody Joe thank you so much you're I'm enjoyed Council so valuable tonight um we really really appreciate it look forward to seeing you again when the next Redevelopment project is before us I enjoyed the conversation and the comments and the uh the wise and prudent conclusions I'll leave you now you have other words and I'll get out of your way okay good evening thank you thank you uh chair Wilson can I know it's time to take a break is that what you were gonna no no no I was gonna say can we just explain to Mrs Miss Viera why we're not allowing her to speak again oh she raised her hand twice and I lowered it and she ran raised it again yeah we we we hear public comment uh once from you know we allow people to speak once and um and she had her time I believe and uh so then we ended public comment when no hands were you know no further hands were raised even though you know even after multiple requests to to raise hands if anybody wanted to say anything so um so I'm sorry if the if she had more to say and um but we we did um uh hear comments from her and I want to thank everybody who um attended to observe and certainly everyone who addressed the board tonight um and I hope that um much of our conversation subsequent to your comments um addressed at least most of the issues that that were raised if not to your satisfaction then um I um that at least uh in in some uh reasonably thorough manner um so we will it's at 9:04 um uh whoever is in charge of reaching out to Jerry meller should do so and we'll take a break Mr Bim or do you wanna yeah I just oh you're you're conflicted right that's I just want to let you know I wouldn't be I would not be returning after the break okay and I believe that would go for Miss Nuka as well yes that's right right okay but we still have a quorum right that's correct seven okay all right so it's 904 I'll see everyone at uh uh 9:14 or 9:15 at the very latest all right thanks see you soon bye let's get it rolling Again Carrie um thanks everybody for your patience we have up next an application from the trustees of Princeton University this is a really excuse me relief of condition at the art museum uh for tree relocation uh this is at Elm Drive and mosh walk block 4.01 lot 101 and this is file number p242 24479 RC Madam chair the notice is proper and Carrie can you confirm that the service was H sufficient yes I can confirm that okay then proof of publication and service are in order and the board has jurisdiction good excellent thank you um anything to say Justin before we turn to Mr degia no uh I have one thing to say I don't know if Mr Weissman wants to introduce it or just turn directly to Mr degia and Jerry you might need to swear me in for saying that oh yeah of course let's let's swear you and Dan Weisman in at the same time is is Dan here yes yes he is okay you both swear or affirm that testimony about to give it be the truth yes I do right so word for me great thanks Justin Dan anything Madam chair yeah good evening everybody um I can R briefly run through the memo uh if needed but I know the applicant has a uh presentation prepared for tonight um but I'll try to be as brief as possible uh the applicant was granted preliminary and final site plan approval in 2021 which consisted of construction of a new art museum there was a condition associated with that application that detailed uh the quantity of required replacement trees uh a portion of those trees were going to be planted off site on PO field which was detailed in that condition um the off-site plantings was uh subject to the review of the municipal arborist um the applicant is requesting relief of this condition to change the location from po field to Elm Drive to the southwest and russle walk to the southeast adjacent to Washington Road um the arbor has reviewed the locations uh and prepared a report unfortunately he couldn't be here tonight um but he has no objection to the revised locations uh and subsequent to uh staff issuing the reports the uh applicant advised that additional uh trees had to be removed on the site which required additional Replacements so the quantities of uh noted in the relief of condition uh would also have to be revised those have also been reviewed with the arborist who also takes no and I also take no objection uh to those modifications um with that I would turn it back to uh you madam chair thank you Dan uh Mr degia welcome thank you appreciate it uh for the record um my name is Christopher degia from the law firm of figer Drinker Biddle and wreath here on behalf of the applicant Trustees of prin University um the it's a very simple application this evening um for an amendment of a condition of approval um the trees actually have already been planted about a a year and a half ago maybe a little longer um but unfortunately the way that the condition was drafted had a specific location which uh was poof field after the initial approval poof field became the subject of other applications um where we were putting in uh storm order um management and Geo exch ex change Wells so it wasn't really an appropriate location um and the new locations are extremely beneficial from ecological uh benefit um it really helps to reinforce uh Woodland buffers along Elm and Russell walk and um helps with the creation of habitat we're we're talking about all native trees so um we thought it was a really nice opportunity to plant in those locations so we're here tonight just to request relas to change that condition of approval um to uh update the tree replacement number from 30 um I'm sorry from 63 to 67 and um to change specifically the location from around po field to along Elm Drive and Russell walk um we have a very short presentation and unless you have any questions I'd like to introduce our first witness um Christopher let me so go ahead M yeah I was going to suggest that um if you're however many witnesses you're going to have let's swear everyone in and then you can just and then we'll qualify people as they uh right before each of them testifies right to the extent they giving expert testimony yeah right right yeah um Christopher how many people do you have uh we have two basically okay if both of I'm going to swear both and if you can raise your right hands do you swear or affirm that testimony about to give be the truth yes I do okay and um please tell your full name spell your last name uh my name is stop be SSH H okay thank you and Aaron Feldman f l d m an okay thank you very much uh may I share my screen for the presentation slides yes and I I want to also qualify you all right uh yeah can you tell us a little bit about your expertise and your licensing sure uh I'm a director at field operations uh landscape Architecture Firm based in New York I have a bachelor of Agriculture from University of Tokyo and a master of landscape architecture from University of Pennsyvania I've been practicing landscape architecture over 18 years and I'm registered in New Jersey as well as in Pennsylvania and you've presented before this board before correct yes I did we offer him as an expert great thank you we accept your qualifications thank you um we have a very short presentation um I believe it's something like 13 slides um if we can mark that in as exhibit A1 yep we'll do that electronically can everyone see my screen now um yes we can if you could just as you go through the slides um right identify the slide number as you go sure uh so this is actually slide one just a title page and uh as chrisopher just mentioned I will walk you through the uh the updates we made for the tree replacement for the art museum project uh this is actually three uh slide two and this is slide three uh this is the uh tree removal plan showing the trees to be removed with the uh Red X uh and the trees to be transplanted with the uh blue triangle uh and the trees to remain with just the black do here and uh this is the original tree replacement schedule and as you can see uh uh 63 trees were required to be planted and we have proposed to uh plant 35 trees on site and 20 a trees uh offsite uh just because uh uh the area where we can plant the trees within site was very limited okay if and if you could identify what slide you're on you go sorry this is slide four y yes uh the slide five this is the updated tree removable plan uh so the additional trees uh removed during the construction are highlighted in yellow uh along with the uh the tree ID number in green here uh and the tree 33 uh this tree here uh was removed uh because it was too close to the building and then keeping the tree uh conflict with the construction work for the uh this facad and then the tree uh 61a 61b 86 uh these were removed again due to the similar construction conflict and also these trees appeared as stressed and were not in good condition when they were cut down and uh this is uh slide six uh updated tree replacement schedule so the with uh four additional trees removed now uh 67 trees were uh uh 67 trees uh needs to be planted and the number of the trees uh we are planting on site uh remain the same 35 trees and the number of the trees that we are planting offside has been increased from 28 to 32 and we are actually uh we will discuss this in details in a bit but we actually uh uh planted 40 trees of site just to go beyond the requirement and Mr teso you you're talking about this schedule yes that came after the approval by the board of the um of the art museum tree planting plan correct this this this schedule yes okay but this schedule was already uh submitted to the town this is the original version yeah the original is on is on slide four Jerry and the new one is on slide six seven seven sorry slide six sorry slide six yes yes okay and just to clarify that was when we say the original that was the one that was approved during liance riew and in the final plan the original um resolution doesn't have the correct numbers and unfortunately I didn't clarify that when I submitted the application and request the amendment of the condition so what we're showing you is the compliance set and now changes to that compliance set to update it a little bit more okay thank you and now I'd like to turn over to on fedon with University to speak to the uh the offsite tree planting details thank you stone do I need to qualify myself as well yeah well um what is your you're more of a a um um fact witness what is your expertise or uh so I'm the capital project manager for landscape within Princeton University's office of capital project I'm a licensed landscape architect in New Jersey and Maryland I've been practicing for 21 years okay Christopher just be the safe side why don't you quickly qualify okay so I guess we can qualify Who as a landscape architect if you could just say a a word or two about your education yeah uh so I hold a bachelor's in landscape architecture from Penn State University great we accept your qualifications thank you thank you thank you so I'm we're starting on slide eight just for the record oh yeah seven yes seven yeah slide so so slide 8 shows uh po field which is the the original location of uh the offsite tree replanting um in relation to the puam site which you see just to the north um labeled in white um initially this is where the the offsite trees were proposed to be planted um and at the time we were proposing that there was uh dur in design a regional subsurface storm water system um and a je exchange bfield that was also being designed uh beneath po field uh at the time we had thought that there was going to be space on the western side of Po field um to add additional trees to to cover what would have gone um on the puam site as designed Progressive PO with po field with the Geo exchange bfield and with the storm water management system um we realized some opportunities to expand both systems to get better um better value and better opportunity to collect storm water and to uh further our GE exchange goals um and we also pushed the construction time frame um which was originally uh 20202 2022 and 2023 um we pushed the construction of poof field out out uh a year um so it is currently under construction a trapping up construction um this fall um so the thing at the time was originally that we would be a to wrap the installation of the trees um in with the duo exchange work um and the construction going going on there um but as I said as design progressed and we enlarged the system the the space for tree planting within po field um became extremely constrained uh as a factor of the the layout of the Geo exchange bores and the storm water management um if you go to the next slide please uh this slide slide nine shows the um Elm Drive and Russell walk the two locations where uh our off-site trees um we have planted in relation to the puam site so you can see it just in the South and to the east and west of of poof field um so we identified these two areas um as their Woodland buffers along uh two roads on either side of the the central core of Princeton's campus uh a and um we realized a number of benefits to planting them here instead of Po field first of all the ecological benefits um of planting these native species within gaps of the the wooded buffer would uh further enhance that wooded buffer um as Mr degia said providing additional habitat proving additional food source um and having um just more General uh visual buffers in that area the additional benefit is that we were able to plant these in November and December of 2022 um nearly two years uh earlier than we would have been able to plant them on on poof field um if you go to the next slide please so this shows slide 10 um this shows uh where the trees along Russell walk have been planted um in this slide North is pointing towards the right uh you can see um Washington Road along the middle of the page Striker Bridge forms that X on the right hand side and then just above Washington Road you can see the path um of Russell walk which is a natural surface trail that runs uphill and to the west of Washington Road uh the trees that you see in red are what we planted interspersed in the um existing canopy of of that wooded walk um if you go to the next slide please um uh slide 11 shows the species size and uh quantity of each of the trees as you can see these are all um these are all native trees uh planted within the the canopy um underneath the canopy of the existing the existing Woodland Edge along there um slide 12 is uh a view of the Elm Drive planting area again North is to the right you can see Elm Drive at the top of the screen with the guard booth is that uh kind of teardrop shape and then at the bottom of the screen is the new residential colleges development um that was uh recently opened in the past couple of years um this image you can see a lot of the existing trees are the dashed um the dashed circles and then those in red are the new ones that we inter dispersed in there to reinforce that that wooded buffer um if you go to slide 13 please this is the species um size and distribution of those trees thank you Aaron that's a nice variety thank you these were um these were available the reason it was over and above um the count is really it was the available space within both of those two areas um as well as all of these trees came from our um own nursery on campus and these were trees that that needed to be planted sooner rather than later just because the size that they were um at the time of planting and that I believe wraps up our direct testimony for the condition itself just for clarity um it reads the current plan requires 63 replacement trees that would be we're requesting that it be updated to reflect the correct amount so requires 67 replacement trees rather than 63 there are 35 rather than 39 trees to be planted on site due to the site constraints and instead of 24 trees offsite 32 trees will be planted offsite um we actually planted 40 to satisfy that 32 tree requirement and the schedules here actually show the 40 trees as testified tonight um then the second sentence also requires a change it reads the offsite trees will be native shade trees located and then we would like to delete around po field and substitute that with a long Elm drop and Russell walk and we've already had almost two years of growth on these and it all the work has already been done we're just now going back to um update the condition to reflect that and Christopher can one of your experts comment on um the comments made in the um report from Taylor sapador Who's the arist in which he says it's recommended that plantings not occur within the undor canopies of the nor away Maples along Russell L and it gives a reason why course this occurred quite a bit after the trees had already been planted which is in aan itself but be that as it may um could somebody comment on on um whether whether they some of the plantings have been um within the understory canopies of the Norway Maples yeah so I can respond sure to that um I I the the Norway maple canopy is dispersed throughout throughout Russell walk um and it is dense and it is dark um and previous efforts to to plant in those under story areas have been I'm GNA say with mixed results um so we we did avoid uh those areas and we placed uh the planting really where there were gaps within the canopy um to allow for these trees to come and fill that canopy in as opposed to trying to underplant uh with the normi maples ideally we would love to be able to get something to survive under under the Norway Maples so that they could come in for when those trees do die Norway Maples are typically fairly short-lived as far as canopy trees go and they are considered invasive okay and just just so one other comment in Mr Sapar report about due to the presence of beach leaf disease in Princeton and proposed American Beach shall be substituted with Native shade trees or less susceptible to insect and disease um could you comment on that sure we did have oh sorry oh I was just going to say I I think um and Aron you could talk about your conversation but um there's only three of them and we are eight above so even if we don't include those um we would still be five we would still have five additional trees then what the requirement would be um I I think he you know when the the municipal arborist um put together the report he didn't realize that they had been already planted you know a year and a half ago okay one can't blame him for not KN yeah Aaron I mean I appreciate that you're putting everything right here I do I you know I do recognize and appreciate that but it is H way after the fact so H but are the beach trees are you are you finding um uh Beach disease in these or other no we have not yet seen it on campus um we are very aware of of the beach disease um and it's frankly a little terrifying um yeah but uh it's a little bit less scary than it was two years ago when we thought it was imminent and going to wipe everything out the way um Emerald ashb did with the ash so so far so good but it's still being watched closely and as far as I know um there are a lot of folks making efforts into researching um ways to uh to prevent it um but I don't believe that there there is a treatment for it yet yeah but we're still watching it closely okay um questions from board members for well are you finished with your presentation I'm sorry I don't mean to we we are okay questions for Mr um Mr Feldman or um now I'm missing did Mr BHO leave or am I just I'm here I'm here oh there you are sorry no no problem thanks just two cents I had a um conversation with an arborus today and and there is a phosphite soil treatment for the beach that's being used as well as an antifungal but it's um the beach trees are a lot more sensitive than the ash so it's hard to inject them but there are some treatments coming up but anyway yeah it's there's a lot of Promise um in the research but uh I don't think there's been a lot of time you know it's only been around for what three years now so we don't know how long lasting those those treatments are yet yeah uh other questions or comments for the applicant or experts uh if there are none um I will invite public comment this is a an opportunity for members of the public to address the board about this application um if you would like to do so uh for to three minutes now is the time to raise your hand we have eight attendees um in the observation Lounge um I'm not seeing any hands go up going once going twice anybody wish to speak nope so I will close public comment and um invite any final comments uh from board members questions thoughts uh motions I I'll make a motion to approve the changes so this is to approve the relief of condition for the art museum tree tree relocation okay moved by Julie capoli seconded by I saw Mr Taylor and Mr darell at the same time I take it as part as part of that motion you um moving that that condition that Christopher red be replaced with the revised one with a different numbers and a different location of the treeses correct yep okay so great thank you moved by Julie capoli SED by John Taylor um Carrie would you give us a roll call vote please miss capoli yes Mr mcgallen yes Mr Donald yes Miss pearlmutter yes Mr Taylor yes Miss Wilson Anderson yes Mrs Wilson yes motion carried thank you very much um yes thank you thanks for um hanging in I'm delighted that we got this done tonight and before 9:45 I was getting nervous I was not entirely optimistic myself um you know before the meeting started but um anyway so thank you all and um uh our next meeting of the board is September what six fth September 5th so enjoy uh the rest of the dog days and um um with Mr Cohen not attending tonight would someone like to move adjournment I will make motion to adjourn thank you Mr odonnell is there a second second I just want to thank the university for planting all those trees I mean you guys plant so many trees it's an incredible benefit to our community and you know we appreciate you guys thank you it it really really is and you pay a lot of attention to whether they uh survive in drive and that is a very big deal so thank you for your good work thank you thank you um good okay uh all in favor of adjournment please say I I thanks everybody all right see you around yes have a good night